Karnataka High Court
Annaiachari S/O.Kariachari vs Mysore Urban Development ... on 27 January, 2022
Bench: P S Kumar, Rajendra Badamikar
W.A No.767/2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
WRIT APPEAL No.767 OF 2012 (LA-UDA)
BETWEEN :
1. ANNAIACHARI
S/O KARIACHARI
AGED 65 YEARS
R/AT.NO.847, HUNSUR ROAD
HINKAL, MYSORE-17
2. SANNAPPACHARI
S/O KARIACHARI
AGED 61 YEARS
R/AT.NO.848, HUNSUR ROAD
HINKAL, MYSORE-17 ... APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. T.A. KARUMBAIAH, ADVOCATE)
[THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE]
AND :
1. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, JANCY LAKSHMIBAI
ROAD, MYSORE-1
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
JANCY LAKSHMIBAI ROAD
MYSORE-1
W.A No.767/2012
2
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S.BUILDING
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGALORE-1
BY ITS SECRETARY ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. S.V. DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
SHRI. C.N. MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.39101/2003 DATED
05/01/2012
THIS WRIT APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 03.01.2022 COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH
KUMAR J, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal, by the unsuccessful writ
petitioners is directed against order dated January
5, 2012 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in
W.P. No.39101/2003.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties
shall be referred as per their status in the writ
petition.
W.A No.767/2012
3. Writ petitioners approached this Court
with a prayer to declare the acquisition of land as
having 'lapsed'. Petitioners' case is, they are the
owners of land measuring 1 acre 2 guntas in Sy.
No.114/2 of Basavanahally village of Mysuru Taluk.
The land was sought to be acquired by issuing
Preliminary Notification published in the gazette on
January 2, 1992 and the Final Notification on
December 31, 1992. According to the petitioners,
the scheme was not implemented and therefore, it
had lapsed in terms of Section 27 of the Karnataka
Urban Development Authorities Act, 19871. On
consideration of material on record, the Hon'ble
Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, but
given a direction to the MUDA2 to allot sites to the
writ petitioners on incentive basis.
'the Act' for short
Mysore Urban Development Authority
W.A No.767/2012
4. Shri. T.A. Karumbaiah, learned
Advocate for the writ petitioners urged following
contentions:
• that the Preliminary Notification was issued for
1,075.08 acres, the declaration was made for
1,005.25 acres and sanction was given only
for 100 acres and 20 guntas;
• This Court has quashed the acquisition on the
ground that there was no sanction in
Meenakshi Thimmaiah and Others Vs. State of
Karnataka by its Secretary, Urban
Development Department and another3; and
• Respondent - MUDA has withdrawn one of the
writ appeals filed challenging the order passed
by the Hon'ble Single Judge quashing the
acquisition proceedings.
5. Shri.S.V.Desai, learned Advocate for the
MUDA submitted that the petitioners' name was not
ILR 2010 KAR 62
W.A No.767/2012
found as a Kathedar. The land in question was in
the name of one Cheluvachari. His children have
filed W.Ps. No.15648-650/1995 and obtained
certain reliefs. Further, petitioners have approached
this Court after a lapse of nearly 10 years.
Therefore, no interference is called for in this
appeal.
6. We have carefully considered rival
contentions and perused the records.
7. At the outset, it is necessary to record
that in the Preliminary Notification4 the names of
Shri. Cheluvachari, Puttaswamachari and Puttachari
are found at Sl. Nos.191 and 192 as owners of the
property bearing Sy. No.114/1 and 114/2.
8. Learned Advocate for MUDA is right in
his submission that Puttaswamachari, Puttachari
and Cheluvachari, and others have filed writ
Annexure-C to the writ petition dated December 23, 1991,
Gazetted on January 2, 1992
W.A No.767/2012
petitions No.15648-650/1995 decided on March 4,
1998 and obtained certain reliefs.
9. The Hon'ble Single Judge has recorded in
para 10 of the order as follows:
"10. Sri Karumbaiah does not dispute the fact
st
that the 1 respondent has formed the layout of sites
and made the allotments and that large number of
allottees have constructed houses in the allotted sites.
In the circumstances, the contention that the scheme
was not implemented within 5 years' period and has
lapsed is devoid of merits."
10. It is clear that petitioner has conceded
before the Hon'ble Single Judge that layout was
formed and large number of allotees had
constructed their houses.
11. Thus, in view of the above recorded
facts, we respectfully agree with the opinion of the
Hon'ble Single Judge that petitioners' contention
with regard to the lapsing of the scheme is devoid
of merits.
W.A No.767/2012
12. Further, admittedly the Final Notification
was issued in the year 1992 and petitioners have
approached this Court in 2003, after a lapse of
more than one decade.
13. In view of the above, we find no error in
the impugned order passed by the Hon'ble Single
Judge. Resultantly, this appeal fails and
accordingly, it is dismissed.
14. In view of dismissal of this appeal, I.A.
No.2/2012 does not survive and the same is
disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SPS
