Karnataka High Court
Arunkumar vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 5 September, 2024
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6680
WP No. 202017 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 202017 OF 2024 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
ARUNKUMAR
S/O HANAMANTH MACHAPPANAVAR,
AGED ABOUT:45 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE/BUSINESS,
R/O WAR-22 BAGALKOT ROAD,
MICRO WAVE STATION ROAD,
GIRISH NAGAR VIJAYAPUR-586101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S S MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BASALINGAPPA REP BY ITS SECRETARY
SHIVARAJ DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
DHUTTARGAON
M S BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BENGALURU-560001.
KARNATAKA
2. THE COMMISSIONER
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BASAVANA BAGEWADI ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
VIJAYAPURA-586101
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6680
WP No. 202017 of 2024
(BY SMT. MAYA T.R. HCGP FOR R1 AND R3;
BY SRI S.S. HALALLI ,ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A)
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER INN THE
LIKE NATURE, QUASHING THE NOTIFICATION OF THE
SCHEME-9 DATED 13.03.2010 VIDE NO. PÀ.æ ¸ÀA.£À¥Áæ«/C.AiÉÆ.£ÀA.-
9/¨sÀƸÁé/2010-11:59798 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ENDORSEMENT
DATED 30.01.2024 VIDE £À¥Áæ«/«£Áå¸À/¹Dgï-127/2023-24/2755
ANNEXURE-E PASED BY 2ND RESPONDENT AUTHORITY, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRL. HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other order inn the
like nature, quashing the notification of the scheme-
9 dated 13.03.2010 vide No.PÀæ.¸ÀA.£À¥Áæ«/C.AiÉÆ.£ÀA.-
9/¨sÀƸÁé/2010-11:59798 vide annexure-F and
endorsement dated 30.01.2024 vide
£À¥Áæ«/«£Áå¸À/¹Dgï-127/2023-24/2755 annexure-E
passed by 2nd respondent authority, in the interest
of justice and equity.
b) Or pas any other order as this Hon'ble court deems
fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in
the interest of justice and equity.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6680
2. Petitioner claims to be the owner of the land bearing
Survey No.54/1, measuring 10 acres situated at Kasba
Vijaypura, having purchased the same on 21.01.2022.
The name of the petitioner having been entered into in
the revenue records and the land being converted by the
order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 04.07.2023. An
application was made by the petitioner for approval of a
layout plan for the above land along with four other
lands.
3. An endorsement came to be issued by respondent No.2 -
Urban Development Authority that the said plan cannot
be approved in view of the lands having been already
notified in the 50:50 Scheme of Raitara Sahabhagitva
notification dated 13.03.2010 under sub-section (1) of
Section 17 and sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the
Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987. It is
in that background that the petitioner is before this Court
seeking for the aforesaid relief.
4. Sri. S.S.Mamadapur, learned counsel for the petitioner
would submit that, the notification issued on the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6680
13.03.2010 has not attained any finality. No action has
been taken by respondent No.2 and the acquisition
proceedings have only remained at the intention of the
authorities without the same being approved by the State
Government under Section 19 and a final notification
being issued. He further submits that this aspect has
already been considered by a coordinate bench of this
Court by its detailed Judgment dated 20.04.2021 in
W.P.No.107510/2017, which Judgment has also been
upheld by a Division Bench of this Court dated
02.08.2022 in W.A.No.1169/2021 and as such, he
submits that, the petitioner would also be entitled to
similar reliefs as granted in those matters.
5. Sri S.S.Hallali, learned counsel for the respondent No.2
submits that the proposal for acquisition is still pending
and as such accusation proceedings being pending, a
layout plan sanction plan cannot be granted to the
petitioner.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel
for the respondents and perused the papers.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6680
7. The preliminary acquisition notification was issued under
the proposal for the 50:50 scheme which was
propounded by a notification dated the 13.03.2010 under
sub-section (1) of Section 17 and sub-section (3) of
Section 17. Thereafter, no action has apparently been
taken in pursuance thereof. Since no document is been
made available. The petitioner having purchased the
land, the Deputy Commissioner has also sanctioned
conversion of the said land. Thus, the State apparently
has no objection for the conversion of the land and
utilization of said land, thereby negating the very
proposal vide notification dated 13.03.2010.
8. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the
aforesaid orders of the co-ordinate Bench and the
Division Bench on the principle of law, as also taken into
consideration the facts in the present matter that no
action has been taken by either respondent No.2 or
respondent No.1 as required under the Karnataka Urban
Development Authorities Act, post the notification dated
13.03.2010 under sub-section 1 of 17 and sub-section 3
of Section 17. The acquisition not having been made
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6680
within two years from the date of said notification, I am
of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot be
deprived of the use of his land merely on the ground that
there is a proposal which is still pending.
9. As such, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed;
(ii) Certiorari is issued notification of the scheme-9
dated 13.03.2010 vide No.PÀæ.¸ÀA.£À¥Áæ«/C.AiÉÆ.£ÀA.-
9/¨sÀƸÁé/2010-11:59798 vide annexure-F and
endorsement dated 30.01.2024 vide
£À¥Áæ«/«£Áå¸À/¹Dgï-127/2023-24/2755 annexure-E
passed by 2nd respondent authority are quashed.
(iii) It is made clear that the petitioner would be
entitled to enjoy the said land to be owned by
him without any interference from the
respondent No.2 and any application filed by
the petitioner with respondent no.2 shall be
considered dehors the notification dated
13.03.2010.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
SVH
