Karnataka High Court
Mysore Urban Development Authority vs Sri Ramachandra on 28 November, 2023
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43338-DB
WA No. 1058 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1058 OF 2016 (LA-UDA)
BETWEEN:
1. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
JHANSI RANI LAXMI BAI ROAD,
MYSORE-570 005
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
JHANSI RANI LAXMI BAI ROAD,
MYSORE-570 005.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. H.M.SIDDHARTHA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
VINUTHA M
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. SRI RAMACHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
S/O LATE H.D. GIRIGOWDA
2. SMT. SANNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
W/O LATE H.D. GIRIGOWDA
3. DASEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O LATE H.D. GIRIGOWDA
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43338-DB
WA No. 1058 of 2016
RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 3
ARE RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.106,
HOSABEEDI, HINKAL VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK
ALSO RESIDING AT FARM HOUSE,
VIJAYANAGAR 'A' BLOCK,
MYSORE-570 001.
4. RAMASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
5. KUMARA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
RESPONDENT NOS.4 & 5
ARE RESIDING AT
HOUSE NO.324, 325 AND 326,
NEXT TO GOVERNMENT SCHOOL,
HINKAL VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI,
MYSORE TALUK,
ALSO RESIDING AT FARM HOUSE,
VIJAYANAGAR 'A' BLOCK,
MYSORE-570 001.
6. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
@ LAKSHMI,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
W/O LATE SRINIVAS
7. RAVIKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
S/O LATE SRINIVAS
8. SMT. SUMA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
D/O LATE SRINIVAS
9. SMT. SARITHA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
D/O LATE SRINIVAS
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:43338-DB
WA No. 1058 of 2016
10. SMT. SAVITHA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
D/O LATE SRINIVAS
RESPONDENT NO.R6 TO R10 ARE
RESIDING AT NO. 325,
BEHIND GOVERNMENT SCHOLL,
HINKAL, MYSORE-570 001.
11. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN
DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
12. THE SECRETARY
HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.N.MANMOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R4 TO R10;
SMT. JYOTHI.S KEMPEGOWDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
R3 TO R10 (VC)
SRI. K.S.HARISH, GOVT. ADVOCATE FRO R11 & R12)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
10.03.2016 IN W.P.NO.15616-620/2013 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND DISMISS THE W.P.NO.15616-
620/2023, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
K.SOMASHEKAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:43338-DB
WA No. 1058 of 2016
JUDGMENT
This writ appeal is directed against the order dated
10.3.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15616
- 15620/2013.
2. The dispute involved in this petition is with respect
to the Preliminary Notification which has been issued dated
01.04.1981 and the final Notification issued on 29.03.1984
under the provisions of the Karnataka Urban Development
Authorities Act, 1987 (for short 'KUDA') Act.
3. The grievance raised by the petitioner before the
learned Single Judge was that though the land were acquired,
the respondent-Authority has failed to pay the compensation as
required under law.
4. The petition was allowed since the same is in the
rigor of Section 24 Land Acquisition Act, 2013. However, this
appeal is filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge
in the aforesaid writ petition.
NC: 2023:KHC:43338-DB
5. Heard the learned counsel Sri Siddharatha H.M for
appellants similarly the learned counsel Sri Manmohan P.N for
respondent Nos.1 and 3 so also the learned counsel namely
Smt.Jyothi S Kempegowdar for respondent Nos.4 to 10.
6. Perused the impugned order rendered by the
learned Single Judge in the aforesaid writ petition.
7. In the meanwhile, the learned counsel for
respondent Nos.4 to 10 has filed a memo dated 09.10.2023
annexed with Official Memorandum dated 20.03.2023 issued by
the appellants for the purpose of perusal and for consideration
in this matter, which indicates that the property in the limit of
Mysore Taluk, Kasaba Hobli, Ilkal Village the Sy.No.255/2
extent of 1 acre 9 guntas the property was acquired under
relevant provision of law and also till this day compensation has
not been paid despite of acquiring the said property. Further,
the learned counsel for the respondents submit that the
concerned authority has passed an order granting alternative
land so also the compensation to the respondents.
8. In the meanwhile, the learned counsel for
respondent Nos.1 to 3, has filed a memo which reads that the
NC: 2023:KHC:43338-DB
writ petition No.15616 to 15620/2013 was filed in respect of
Sy.No.No.257/2C, 255/1 and Sy.No.255/2, which was the
subject matter in the order passed by the learned Single Judge
dated 10.03.2016. In so far as the learned counsel for
respondent Nos.4 to 10 has filed a memo dated 09.10.2023 is
concerned, copy of which was not served upon the respondent
Nos.1 and 3 for the purpose to response to the said memo.
Even on perusal of the order passed by the appellants it was
noticed that the same was in respect of only one survey
number and not in respect of all the survey numbers.
9. Therefore, the memo is placed on record, even
keeping in view the submission made by the learned counsel
namely Sri Manmohan P.N for respondent Nos.1 and 3 and
inclusive of the counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 10 and the
memo dated 09.10.2023 annexed with Official Memorandum
rendered by the concerned authorities are concerned same is
taken into consideration.
10. Keeping in view the submission made by the
learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 10 so also the learned
counsel for appellants in this matter as well as the Official
NC: 2023:KHC:43338-DB
Memorandum produced through memo which has filed by the
learned counsel for respondents are concerned, it is deem it
appropriate that this appeal has become infructuous.
Consequently, this appeal is hereby disposed of.
Pending I.A's, if any, shall stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
HKV
KSJ & RRJ:
DATE: 13.12.2023
ORDER ON "FOR BEING SPOKEN TO"
Learned counsel for the appellant and so also counsel
for respondent Nos.4-10 is present before the Court
NC: 2023:KHC:43338-DB
physically. Similarly, Learned counsel Sri Vinay for
respondent Nos.1 to 3.
This matter is slated for order for being spoken to in
respect of lands bearing Sy.Nos.255/2 and 257/2C. The
said properties are situated in Hinkal village Mysuru Taluk.
MUDA had issued notification dated 10.03.2023 in respect
of the order passed in the WP No.15616-15620/2013
dated 10.03.2016. These two notifications specifically
indicates Survey numbers.
Learned counsel for both the parties and learned GA
submits that land bearing Sy.No.255/1 property owners
are not party to the proceedings in the writ petition.
Consequently, they will not be arraigned as party in this
writ appeal also in respect of the disputed land bearing
Sy.No.255/1.
However, based on the memo filed by the learned
counsel, this appeal has become infructuous.
Consequently, appeal is disposed of. Accordingly,
clarified.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RJ
