Sri. Basheer Ahmed Ismail Khan ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 2567 Kant

                            1




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                        BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD

      Writ Petition Nos.106479-106480/2017 (LB-RES)

Between

1. Sri. Basheer Ahmed Ismail Khan Sanadi
   Aged About 45 Years, Occ: Petty Business,
   R/At: Kanabaragi Road, Belagavi.

2. Smt.Mumtaz Begum Imam Husain
   Maribhakar, Aged About 50 Years,
   Occ: Household,
   R/At: Kanabaragi Road,
   Belagavi.
                                            ...Petitioners
(By Sri. Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi, Advocate)

And

1. The State Of Karnataka
   Rep. By Its Secretary,
   Department Of Housing And
   Urban Development,
   Vikas Soudha, Bengaluru.

2. The Deputy Commissioner,
   Belagavi District, Belagavi.

3. The Commissioner,
                                  2




    Belagavi Development Authority,
    Belagavi.
                                                     ...Respondents

(By Sri. Praveen Uppar, HCGP for R1 and R2
    Sri. M.A.Hulyal, Advocate for R3)

      These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 &
227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the
order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 28.04.2016
copy as per Annexure-H; direct the respondents to allot
alternative vacant sites in as per the orders of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India passed in Civil Appeal Nos.6662-
6670 of 2002 dated:14.10.2011 as there are vacant sites
in the same area, copy as per Annexure-A.

     These Writ Petitions coming on for Orders, this day,
the Court made the following:

                             ORDER

The petitioners, who assert that they have

purchased small pieces of lands in Sy.No.533/1,

534/A & B of Kanabaragi Village of Belagavi Taluk and

who allude to certain writ proceedings and the

subsequent orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

have impugned the third respondent's order dated

28.04.2016 (Anneuxre-H). The petitioners are informed

by this impugned order that priority will be accorded to

them when sites are allotted under the general category

because there is no provision in the relevant rules for

allotment of alternative sites.

The petitioners' lands were denotified for acquisition

on 24.03.1999. However, this denotification was

impugned before this Court, and the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has ultimately held that the denotification cannot

prevail. The petitioners, in support of their claim for

allotment of sites as against acquisition, which claim is

rejected by the impugned order, have relied upon the

following observation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

"In the result, the appeals are dismissed. Appellants-Vasant Sreedhar Kulkarni and Eshwar Gouda Burma Gouda Patil shall pay cost of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the BDA for thrusting unwarranted litigation upon it. The BDA shall ensure delivery of possession of the sites to the allottees within 8 weeks from today. However, it is made clear that this judgment shall not preclude the State Government from allotting alternative sites to Mumtaz Begum and others, who are said to

have purchased small parcels of land from the landowners through Allahuddin Khan."

Presently, the third respondent's application before

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application

Nos.663-677/2020 for clarification of the order dated

14.10.2011, is disposed of clarifying that the last

sentence in the aforesaid paragraph does not confer any

right of allotment to a party and the third respondent,

while processing any application for alternative site,

would have to consider the application strictly in

accordance with the applicable rules and norms. In view

of this order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no

interference is called for with the impugned order dated

28.04.2016 and the petitions stand disposed of

accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE Kms