Mysore Urban Development ... vs Smt Shivamma
2022 Latest Caselaw 5111 Kant

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 5111 Kant
Judgement Date : 21 March, 2022

Karnataka High Court

Mysore Urban Development ... vs Smt Shivamma on 21 March, 2022

Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar, M G Uma

                          1




  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                       PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR

                         AND

           THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

         WRIT APPEAL NO. 6829 OF 2013 (LA)

BETWEEN:

  1. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
     JHANSI RANI LAXMI BAI ROAD,
     MYSORE - 570005,
     REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

  2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
     MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
     JHANSI RANI LAXMI BAI ROAD,
     MYSORE - 570005.                  ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI M.V.VEDAMURTHY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

  1. SMT SHIVAMMA
     AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
     W/O LATE M.A. NARASARAJU,

  2. SMT. M.N SHOBHA
     AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
     D/O LATE M.A. NARASARAJU,
     W/O D SAMPATH KUMAR.
                         2




3. RAJASHEKAR,
   AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
   S/O LATE M.A. NARASARAJU.

4. PRADEEP KUMAR
   AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
   S/O LATE M.A. NARASARAJU,

RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.1130/9,
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
CHAMARAJA MOHALLA,
MYSORE
NOW C/O. D. SAMPATH KUMAR,
NO.98, P & T COLONY,
6TH MAIN ROAD,
SANJAYNAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560094.

5. STATE OF KARNATAKA
   BY ITS SECRETRY,
   URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
   M.S. BUILDING,
   BANGALORE - 560001.

6. SHRUTHAKAVALI EDUCATION TRUST,
   SHRAVANABELAGOLA,
   HASSAN DISTRICT DEPT.
   BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE,
   N. HEMARAJ JAIN.

D. RAMU
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS

7. SMT. K.M. CHIKKATHAYAMMA,
   AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
   W/O LATE D RAMU,
                         3


 8. R KRISHNA
    AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
    S/O LATE D RAMU,

 9. SMT. R HEMA
    AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
    D/O LATE D RAMU,

10. SMT. PARIMALA
    AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
    D/O LATE D RAMU,

11. R. UMESHA
    AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
    S/O LATE D. RAMU,

RESPONDENT NOS. 7 TO 11
ARE RESIDING AT NO. 2768,
I MAIN ROAD,
SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE.

D. PAPANNA
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS

12. SMT T. RENUKA,
    AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
    W/O LATE D. PAPANNA,

13. SMT. T PREETHI
    AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
    D/O LATE D.PAPANNA,

14. P. KIRAN,
    AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
    S/O LATE D.PAPANNA,

15. P. SANTHOSH
    AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
    S/O LATE. D. PAPANNA,
                               4




 16. P. SUNIL,
     AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
     S/O LATE D.PAPANNA,

      RESPONDENT NOS.12 TO 16
      ARE RESIDING AT NO. 2768,
      I MAIN SARASWATHIPURAM,
      MYSORE.                              ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2, R7-16,
 SMT.SONA M BADIGER, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R4,
 SRI V.S.GUNJAL, ADVOCATE FOR R6,
 SRI T.P SRINIVASAN, GA FOR R5)
                       ----
      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE    ORDER    PASSED     IN  THE   WRIT    PETITION
NO.18756/2001 C/W 27994/2001 DATED 10/10/2013.

     THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY,   P.S.DINESH   KUMAR   J.,  DELIVERED  THE
FOLLOWING:

                       JUDGMENT

On the previous dates of hearing, it was argued by

Shri Udaya Holla learned senior advocate that, in respect of

the lands acquired by the MUDA, no compensation was

given and respondents were entitled either for compensation

or for grant of some area of lands. Therefore, the MUDA

may be directed to give alternative lands expeditiously.

2. Shri B.L.Sanjeev, learned Advocate for

caveat/respondents No.7 to 16 had filed a memo dated

08.02.2022, which reads as follows:

"The Respondents furnish herewith the

statement showing their entitlement in lieu of the

land lost by them and with regard to re-

imbursement of the amount spent by them for

formation of storm water drain, which may kindly

be taken on record, in the interest of justice."

3. Today, Shri Vedamurthy, learned advocate for

the appellants has filed an affidavit dated 16.03.2022 sworn

by Shri D.B.Natesh, Commissioner, Mysore Urban

Development Authority, which reads as follows:

"I, Dr. D.B. Natesh, KAS, Senior Scale Officer,

now working as Commissioner, Mysore Urban

Development Authority, Mysore, do hereby solemnly

swear on oath and state as follows:

I submit that the respondent has filed a memo

claiming certain reliefs, in view of the same I am

filing an affidavit to that effect of considering the

same in accordance with law.

I further submit that the Town Planning

Member, MUDA has submitted a report that the

Respondent have not been able to achieve the

required workable area in the lands in question.

I further submit that the Appellant undertakes

to comply the shortcoming of the Respondent by

making necessary amendments in the sanctioned

plan's pertaining to the lands of the Respondent

within three months from the date of approval of the

final layout plan.

In view of the above undertaking, it is prayed

that the memo filed by the Respondent may be

allowed.

I swear in the name of God that this is my

name and signature and the contents of this

Affidavit are true and correct to the best of my

knowledge, belief and information"

4. He further submits that appellants have already

filed a memo seeking to withdraw this appeal. He prays

that this appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn and

assures that the undertaking given in the affidavit filed

today will be complied in three months.

5. In view of the above, nothing further survives

for consideration and the memo filed by the appellants is

ordered accordingly and the appeal stands dismissed as

withdrawn.

6. In view of the disposal of the appeal, all pending

interlocutory applications stand disposed of.

No costs.