[Cites 22, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt Javanamma vs The Special Deputy Commissioner on 27 February, 2026
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:12247
WP No. 9819 of 2012
C/W WP No. 32108 of 2015
WP No. 32109 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 9819 OF 2012 (ULC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 32108 OF 2015 (ULC)
WRIT PETITION NO. 32109 OF 2015 (ULC)
IN WP NO.9819/2012:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT MAREMMA
W/O LATE MADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS
SINCE DEAD, REP BY LRs
1a. SWAMY,
S/O LATE BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/A #34, TUKKAD,
MADAIAHAINA HUNDI,
VARUNA HOBLI,
Digitally signed MYSURU TALUK & DIST. - 571 311.
by ANUSHA V
Location: High 1b. KUMARA B.,
Court of S/O LATE BASAPPA,
Karnataka AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/A #34, TUKKAD,
MADAIAHAINA HUNDI,
VARUNA HOBLI,
MYSURU TALUK & DIST. - 571 311.
1c. RAJA,
S/O LATE BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/A #34, TUKKAD,
MADAIAHAINA HUNDI,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:12247
WP No. 9819 of 2012
C/W WP No. 32108 of 2015
WP No. 32109 of 2015
HC-KAR
VARUNA HOBLI,
MYSURU TALUK & DIST. - 571 311.
2 . SMT. JAYAMMA
D/O LATE MADAIAH
W/O LATE BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
3 . SMT. SHUSHILA,
W/O MAHADEVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O ALANAHALLI,
KASABA-MYSORE TALUK
AND DISTRICT - MYSORE.
...PETITIONERS
[BY SRI SOMASHEKAR KASHIMATH, ADVOCATEC (VC);
SRI S.R. HEGDE HUDLAMANE, ADVOCATE]
AND:
1 . THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
FOR URBAN LAND CEILING,
MYSORE.
2 . THE TAHSILDHAR,
MYSORE CITY.
3 . THE KARNATAKA DAIRY
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
BANGALORE,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
HOSUR ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 029.
4 . KARNATAKA MILK FEDERATION,
BY M.D. AT T.NARSIPUR ROAD,
SIDHARTNAGAR ROAD, MYSORE.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:12247
WP No. 9819 of 2012
C/W WP No. 32108 of 2015
WP No. 32109 of 2015
HC-KAR
5 . N.C.C.
13TH KAR B N NEAR
DC OFFICE, MYSORE.
6 . STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF
URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
[BY SMT. VAHEEDA, AGA FOR R1, R2, R5 & R6 (PH);
SRI K. CHANDRAKANTH ARIGA, ADV. FOR R3 (PH);
SRI ABHINAV R., ADVOCATE FOR R4]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE AWARD DATED 7.2.1985 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER MYSORE AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
IN WP NO.32108/2015:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.NANJAMMA
W/O LATE CHOWDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS,
SINCE DEAD
2. SRI RAJU
S/O LATE CHOWDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
3. SRI SWAMY
S/O LATE CHOWDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
4. SRI BASAPPA / SHIVAPPA
S/O LATE CHOWDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
NC: 2026:KHC:12247
HC-KAR
4a GOWRAMMA,
W/O LATE BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
4b RAJENDRA B.,
S/O LATE BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
BOTH 4(a) & (b) ARE R/A #21,
ALANAHALLI,
MYSURU - 570 011.
5. SRI KUMARA SWAMY
S/O LATE CHOWDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
6. SRI MAHADEVA
S/O LATE CHOWDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/O ALLANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER:
SRI D.S.DESHPANDE,
S/O SHYAMARAO DESHPANDEY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT AT NO.80, 2ND CROSS,
IV BLOCK, T.R.NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 028.
.... PETITIONERS
[BY SRI S.R. HEGDE HUDLAMANE, ADVOCATE FOR P4 (a & b);
SRI K. CHANDAN, ADVOCATE FOR P1 TO P3, P5 & P6]
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
(COMPETANT AUTHORITY)
NC: 2026:KHC:12247
HC-KAR
FOR URBAN LAND CEILING,
D.C. OFFICE,
MYSORE - 570 001.
2. THE TAHSILDHAR,
D.C. OFFICE BUILDING,
MYSORE CITY - 570 001.
3. THE KARNATAKA DAIRY
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
BANGALORE, BY ITS SECRETARY,
HOSUR ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 029.
4. KARNATAKA MILK FEDERATION,
BY M.D., AT T.NARSIPUR ROAD,
SIDHARTNAGAR ROAD,
MYSORE - 570 014.
5. N.C.C. (NATIONAL CADET CORPS)
13TH KAR. B.N.
NEAR REPRESENTATION OFFICE,
MYSORE - 570 001.
6. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTATION BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF
URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
7. MYSURU CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT
CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION
LIMITED, MYSORE,
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
...RESPONDENTS
[BY SMT.VAHEEDA, REPRESENTATION FOR R1, R2 & R6;
NOTICE TO R3 & R5 - SERVED;
NC: 2026:KHC:12247
HC-KAR
SRI S.S. NAGANAND, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SMT.SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R4]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE AWARD DATED 07.02.1985 PASSED BY SPL DY.
COMMISSIONER, MYSORE AS PER ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.,
IN WP NO.32109/2015:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.JAVANAMMA
W/O LATE NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
2. SRI BASAVARAJU
S/O LATE HOMBALIAH / THAMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
3. SRI LINGAPPA
S/O LATE HOMBALIAH / THAMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
SINCE DEAD REP BY LRs.
3a. NAGAMMA,
W/O LATE LINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
3b. L. MAHESH,
S/O LATE LINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
BOTH ARE 3a & 3b ARE
R/O NO.1335/2, 1ST CROSS,
KURUBARAHALLI,
MYSURU - 570 011.
4. SRI T.KENCHAIAH
S/O LATE HOMBALIAH / THAMMAIAH
NC: 2026:KHC:12247
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS
5. SRI JAVARAJU
S/O LATE MARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
6. SRI BASAVARAJU
S/O T.KENCHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
KURUBARAHALLY VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK
AND DISTRICT.
REPRESENTATION BY THEIR
GPA HOLDER
SRI D.S.DESHPANDE,
S/O SHYAMARAO DESHPANDEY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT AT NO.80, 2ND CROSS,
IV BLOCK, T.R.NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 028.
.... PETITIONERS
[BY SRI S.R. HEGDE HUDLAMANE, ADVOCATE FOR P3(a & b);
SRI K. CHANDAN, ADVOCATE FOR P1, P2 & P4 TO P6]
AND:
1 . THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
(COMPETANT AUTHORITY)
FOR URBAN LAND CEILING,
D.C. OFFICE, MYSORE - 570 001.
2 . THE TAHSILDHAR,
D.C. OFFICE BUILDING,
MYSORE CITY - 570 001.
3 . THE KARNATAKA DAIRY
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
NC: 2026:KHC:12247
HC-KAR
BANGALORE, BY ITS SECRETARY,
HOSUR ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 029.
4 . KARNATAKA MILK FEDERATION,
BY M.D., AT T.NARSIPUR ROAD,
SIDHARTNAGAR ROAD,
MYSORE - 570 014.
5 . N.C.C. (NATIONAL CADET CORPS)
13TH KAR. B.N.
NEAR DC OFFICE,
MYSORE - 570 001.
6 . STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF
URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
7. MYSURU CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT
CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS
UNION LIMITED, MYSORE,
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
...RESPONDENTS
[BY SMT.VAHEEDA, AGA FOR R1, R2 & R6;
NOTICE TO R3 & R5 - SERVED;
SRI S.S. NAGANAND, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SMT.SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R4]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER PASSED BY SPL DY. COMMISSIONER, MYSORE AS
PER ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY R1 AND ETC.,
NC: 2026:KHC:12247
HC-KAR
THESE PETITIONS ARE HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 18.09.2025, THIS DAY, THE
COURT, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CAV ORDER
Heard Sri SR Hegde Hudlamane, learned counsel for legal
representatives of petitioner no.1 in WP no.9819/2012, for
petitioners no.4 (A and B) in WP no.32108/2015 and petitioners
no.3 (A and B) in WP no.32109/2015; Sri Somashekar
Kashimath, learned counsel for petitioners no.2 and 3 in WP
no.9819/2012; Sri K. Chandan, learned counsel for petitioners
no.1 to 3, 5 and 6 in WP no.32108/2015, and petitioners no.1,
2, 4 to 6 in WP no.32109/2015 and Smt.Vaheeda, learned AGA
appearing for respondents - Special Deputy Commissioner,
Mysore, Tahsildar, Mysore, National Cadet Corps, 13th
Karnataka Battalion, Mysore and State of Karnataka; Sri
Chandranath Ariga, learned counsel appearing for Karnataka
Dairy Development Corporation, Bangalore; Sri S.S. Naganand,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for Smt.Sumana Naganand,
learned counsel for Karnataka Milk Federation, Mysore in WP
no.32108/2015 and WP no.32109/2015, and Sri Abhinav R.,
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12247
HC-KAR
learned counsel appearing for Karnataka Milk Federation,
Mysore in WP no.9819/2012.
2. It was submitted, WP no.9819/2012 was filed
seeking for quashing of award bearing no.ULA2609:76-77
dated 07.02.1985, passed by Special Deputy Commissioner,
Mysore, Tahsildar, Mysore, at Annexure-A ('Spl.DC', for short)
etc. It was submitted, Madaiah was absolute owner of lands
bearing Sy.no.64/1, measuring 25 guntas, Sy.no.56, measuring
31 guntas and Sy.no.63/3, measuring 1 Acre 14½ guntas of
Alanahalli village, Mysore. It was submitted, original petitioners
no.1 was his wife, petitioner no.2 his daughter and petitioner
no.3 his granddaughter respectively. It was submitted, under
provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976,
('ULC', for short), proceedings were initiated, wherein Spl.DC
found Madaiah held 27,132.47 Sq.mts. of urban land in excess
of ceiling limit of 1500 Sq.mts. and passed award dated
07.02.1985 in ULA.2609:76-77 for its acquisition. It is however
contended, despite proceedings, physical possession of excess
land was not taken and therefore, by virtue of Section 3 (2) of
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999,
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12247
HC-KAR
('Repeal Act', for short), which came into force on 11.01.1999,
providing that if physical possession of any land vested under
ULC were not taken, holder of said land would be entitled for
restoration on repayment of award amount.
3. In WP no.32108/2015, petitioners - owners of lands
bearing Sy.nos.66/8 and 62/1 totally measuring 15,884.42
Sq.Mts. in Alanahalli village were seeking for quashing of award
dated 07.02.1985 passed by Spl.DC as per Annexure-C and all
proceedings from declaration at Annexure-B dated 19.01.1978
till passing of award at Annexure-C etc. Likewise, in WP
no.32109/2015, petitioners were owners of land bearing
Sy.no.54/1, measuring 7 Acres (excluding 1500 Sq.Mts.) in
Alanahalli village, were seeking for quashing of order
no.ULC.Misc.45/80-81 passed by Spl.DC as per Annexure-C.
4. Common contentions urged are that ULC was
enacted to prevent concentration of urban lands in hands of few
and to facilitate equitable distribution for public good etc. by
providing ceiling limit on holding urban land, for determination
of land holding beyond ceiling limit and for acquisition thereof
etc. For said purposes, Section 4 of ULC provided ceiling limit
based on categorization of lands; Section 6 mandating every
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12247
HC-KAR
person holding lands exceeding ceiling limit to file statement
before Competent Authority; Section 8 (1) of ULC requiring
Competent Authority to prepare draft statement of persons
filing such statements and Section 8 (3) of ULC requiring
Competent Authority to invite objections on statements and
Section 8 (4) requiring Competent Authority to consider
objections and pass orders thereon. It was submitted, Section 9
of ULC required preparation of final statement based on such
orders and service on same on concerned persons. Thereafter,
Section 10 (1) of ULC required Competent Authority to issue
notification determining excess holding and stating that:
(i) such vacant land is to be acquired by
concerned State Government; and
(ii) the claims of all persons interested in such
vacant land may be made by them by giving
particulars of nature of their interests in said
land etc.
5. It was submitted, Section 10 (2) of ULC required
determination of claims; Section 10 (3) of ULC for declaration
about acquisition of excess vacant land and its vesting in State
Government, while Section 10 (4) of ULC prohibited alienation
of such land for voiding same. It was submitted, Section 10 (5)
and (6) of ULC stipulated procedure for taking possession of
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12247
HC-KAR
acquired lands. It was submitted, Section 10 (5) of ULC firstly
mandated, Competent Authority to issue written notice for
voluntary surrender of land within thirty days and in case of
non-compliance, Section 10 (6) of ULC, authorised Competent
Authority to take possession forcibly.
6. It was submitted, respondents failed to establish
compliance with Sections 8, 9 and 10 of ULC and though
respondents claimed to have issued notification under Section
10 (1) of ULC, copy published in Official Gazette was not
produced. In WP no.32109/2015, it was specifically contended
that no notification was issued or published in Official Gazette.
It was specifically contended that no notifications were issued
under Section 10 (3) and copies of notification dated
21.03.1978 allegedly gazetted on 30.03.1978 and produced as
Annexure-R1 as well as endorsement for showing voluntarily
handing over possession of lands on 01.02.1982 as per
Annexure-R2 were false as per endorsement dated 26.04.2022,
issued by Karnataka State Archives Department produced as
Annexure-N. Therefore, for non-compliance with mandatory
requirements, entire proceedings were vitiated. It was
alternatively contended that, Annexure-R2 was unreliable as it
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12247
HC-KAR
did not bear signatures of all land owners. And for failure to
establish taking of possession either as per Section 10 (5) or
(6) of ULC and passing of award/payment of compensation
proceedings were required to be held vitiated.
7. Insofar as claim about putting up of construction on
lands in question, petitioners sought to rely on Google Earth
timeline printouts of lands in question of year 2015 and 2016,
showing construction commenced only in year 2016, which was
after coming into force of Repealing Act and therefore prayed
for declaring proceedings under ULC as abated and restore
lands to owners. In support of proposition that publication of
notification in Official Gazette was mandatory, learned counsel
relied on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Rajendra Agricultural University v. Ashok Kumar Prasad
& Ors., reported in (2010) 1 SCC 730. And for proposition
that failure to issue notifications under Sections 10 (1) and 10
(3) of ULC and publish them in Official Gazette would vitiate
proceedings, decision of this Court in case of Vaijayanthi v.
State of Karnataka, reported in ILR 2014 Kar. 4648, was
relied. Likewise, decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation v. Tahsildar and
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12247
HC-KAR
Ors. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 447, was relied for
proposition that in absence of cogent material about service of
notice under Sections 10 (5) and (6) of ULC on owner of land,
panchanama drawn were held bogus and fabricated.
8. Further, decisions in State of UP v. Hari Ram
reported in (2013) 4 SCC 280; Somashekar v. State of
Karnataka, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 8455 and
Ningaiah v. State of Karnataka, reported in 2013 (5) KLJ
487, were relied for proposition that though Section 10 (3) of
ULC provided for vesting of excess land, same was only de jure
possession and unless possession was shown to be surrendered
voluntarily after notice under Section 10 (5) or taken forcibly
after notice under Section 10 (6) of ULC, taking of possession
by State would not be in accordance with law. And for
proposition that delay and laches would not defeat right to
relief, petitioners relied on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in case of Sukh Dutt Ratra and Anr. v. State of Himachal
Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2022) 7 SCC 508, wherein it
was held right against deprivation of property unless in
accordance with procedure established by law, continued to be
a constitutional right under Article 300-A and State cannot
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12247
HC-KAR
shield itself on ground of delay and laches and there could be
no 'limitation' on doing justice. They also relied on decision in
case of Tukaram Kana Joshi and Ors. v. MIDC and Ors.,
reported in AIR 2013 SC 565, for proposition that delay and
laches was one facet in exercise of discretion, but not absolute
impediment and mitigating factors such as continuity of cause
action or circumstances shocking judicial conscience etc. were
required to be considered.
9. On other hand, Sri SS Naganand, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for Smt.Sumana Naganand, advocate for
respondent no.4 at outset relied on decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Suraj Lamps and Industries (P) Ltd. v.
State of Haryana, reported in 2012 (1) SCC 656, to submit
that in WP no.32108/2015, petitioner no.1 - Nanjamma was
widow and other petitioners are children/grand children of
Chowdaiah. Though writ petitions were filed through their GPA
holder, on death of GPA holder, his legal heirs could not claim
to be brought on record.
10. On merits, it was submitted, there was no dispute
about proceedings being initiated application filed by land
owners leading to issuance of Notification under Section 10 (1)
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12247
HC-KAR
of ULC on 18.01.1978; passing of award on 07.02.1985 and
possession taken by drawing mahazar on 01.02.1982 produced
as Annexure-R2 along with Statement of Objections filed by
State. Thus, entire process of determining and declaring excess
land holding under ULC was completed in accordance with law.
It was submitted, Notification was duly published in Official
Gazette and though alleged, copy produced as Annexure-R1 did
not bear signature of Spl.DC, attention was drawn to specific
assertion in para-2 of statement of objections filed by State
that original Notification was duly signed, and which was not
controverted by filing rejoinder. It was submitted, Notification
issued under Section 10 (3) of ULC was duly signed by
petitioner and without challenging same, challenge of
subsequent notification would be futile.
11. It was submitted even respondent no.7 had
produced records along with its statement of objections,
establishing completion of proceedings under ULC in
accordance with law and subsequent allotment of land in favour
of KDDC as per Annexure-R5, preparation of sketch and
handing over of possession as per Annexure-R6. It was
submitted public notice issued by Spl.DC as per Annexure-R7
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12247
HC-KAR
while referring to notifications under Section 10 (3) and 10 (5)
of ULC, called upon persons interested to participate in process
of determination of compensation. It was submitted, Annexure-
R8 would indicate transfer of allotment from KDDO to District
Milk Unions and photographs at Annexures-R9 (colly.) would
establish completion of construction by allottee.
12. It was submitted, under above circumstances,
where writ petition was filed more than thirty years after
publication of Gazette, without explanation except semblance of
same in para-7 of writ petition would be, in any case,
unacceptable, writ petition was liable to be dismissed by relying
on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of City and
Industrial Development Corporation v. Dosh Aardeshwar
Bhiwandiwala, reported in (2009) 1 SCC 168; State of
Assam v. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma, reported in (2015) 5 SCC
321 and that of this Court in case of Special Deputy
Commissioner & Ors v. Smt.Mahadevamma & Ors.
reported in 2021:KHC:17977-DB, affirmed in
Mahadevamma & Ors v. Special Deputy Commissioner
(SLP no.13025/2021 disposed of on 03.09.2021).
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12247
HC-KAR
13. Further, relying on decision in case of Padma
Sundara Rao v. State of T.N., reported in (2002) 3 SCC
533, it was submitted, ratio of a decision was required to be
understood in light of fact situation in that case and decisions
relied on by petitioners were distinguishable. It was submitted,
decision in Vaijayanti's case (supra) was rendered in a case
where notifications under Section 10 (1) and (3) of ULC were
not issued and even compensation was not paid, unlike in
present case, where petitioners themselves produced
notification under Section 10 (1) of ULC as Annexure-B and
notification under Section 10 (3) of ULC was produced as
Annexure-R1 by State and petitioners admit receipt of
compensation. It was further submitted, as stated in para-26,
decision in Sukh Dutt Ratra's case (supra) was rendered
invoking power under Article 136 of CoI and could not therefore
be treated as precedent. On above grounds, sought for
dismissal of writ petitions.
14. Learned AGA as well as other counsel appearing for
other respondents, while referring to statement of objections
filed, reiterated above submissions that there was due
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12247
HC-KAR
compliance with provisions of ULC and therefore petitioners
were not entitled for any relief.
15. Heard learned counsel and perused available
material on record.
16. From above, it is seen, in WP no.9819/2012,
petitioner - wife, children and grand children of Madaiah s/o
Kadabasaiah are challenging award dated 07.02.1985 passed
by Spl.DC at Annexure-A, passed under Section 11 (7) of ULC,
admitting receipt of compensation and undertaking to refund it
on succeeding in writ petition and claiming that until enactment
of Repealing Act, physical possession of their land was not
taken and as per Sections 3 (2) and 4 of Repealing Act,
proceedings under ULC would abate and they would be entitled
for restoration.
17. They specifically contend that name of Madaiah was
not mutated in RTCs until 18.03.1982 and therefore, claim of
respondents about conduct of proceedings under ULC in year
1977-78 by issuing notices to Madaiah was not justified and
seek for quashing of proceedings on similar lines as done in WP
no.31306/2003 disposed of on 28.06.2005, WP no.8087/2003
disposed of 25.06.2004, WP no.30723/2002 disposed of
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12247
HC-KAR
30.05.2005 and WP no.39061/2003 disposed of 14.07.2004.
But, said claim was opposed by respondent - State by filing
statement of objection stating that Madaiah was holding
28632.47 Sq.mts. of land in Alanahalli village and filed
declaration and proceedings under ULC culminated in declaring
27132.47 Sq.mts., as excess holding beyond eligible limit of
1500 Sq.mts. and publication of notification under Section 10
(1) of ULC on 18.01.1978 followed by notification under Section
10 (3) of ULC on 21.03.1978.
18. It is further stated, on 12.03.1981, notice under
Section 10 (5) of ULC was issued to land owner and authorising
Spl. Revenue Inspector to take possession and that in
pursuance of same, 'excess land' as well as 'retainable land'
were demarcated and 'Madaiah' voluntarily handed over
possession. It is also stated that subsequently, award under
Section 11 (7) of ULC was passed, Madaiah received
compensation and signed receipt, thereby establishing
compliance with provisions of ULC and opposing petition filed
after 30 years.
19. Even in statement of objections filed by Respondent
no.4, it is stated that Madaiah was holding 28632.47 Sq.mts.,
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12247
HC-KAR
of land in Sy.nos.64/1, 56, 66/3 and 66/2 of Alanahalli village.
That notice was given to him under Section 8 (1) of ULC on
20.06.1977 and as no objections were filed, final notification
was issued and served on 12.09.1977. Thereafter, notification
under Section 10 (1) of ULC was issued on 19/20.01.1978
followed by Notification under Section 10 (3) of ULC dtd.
10.04.1978. Subsequently, notice under Section 10 (5) of ULC
was also issued on 01.02.1982 and after demarcation of 1500
Sq.mts. of retainable land and preparation of sketch in
presence of Madaiah, possession was taken. It is further stated
that thereafter, respondent no.4 was allotted 1,28,804.79
Sq.mts., of land for development of Dairy under Annexure-R1 -
Government Order dated 12.08.1981 and possession was
delivered on deposit of Rs.4,00,000/- under Memo dated
13.05.1982, produced as Annexure-R2.
20. It is alleged, petitioners suppressed issuance of
notification for acquisition of land in Sy.no.56 of Alanahalli
village, produced as Annexure-R3; its challenge in WP no.9195-
97/1990 and its dismissal as withdrawn on 16.04.1993 as per
Annexure-R4. It is also stated that respondent no.4 had utilized
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12247
HC-KAR
land for construction as shown in photographs and newspaper
extracts produced as Annexures-R5 to R7.
21. In rejoinder statement, petitioner denies
compliance with provisions of ULC by relying on replies given to
applications filed under Right to Information Act ('RTI', for
short) seeking copies of Gazette Notifications, produced as
Annexures-H, J and K, stating that copy of Gazette in which
Notification under Section 10 (1) and (3) of ULC claimed to be
published was not available. Relying on decision in
Vipinchandra Vadilal Bavishi (D) by LRs v. State of
Gujarat, reported in AIR 2016 SC 626, it is contended, lands
continued to be agricultural and reiterating prayer for allowing
petition.
22. Apart from filing statement of objections,
respondent - State has produced original records. Perusal of
same reveals that Madaiah s/o Kadabasavaiah of Alanahalli
village (declarant) filed Form no.I under Section 6 (1) of ULC
on 24.09.1976 declaring that he was holding 27 guntas in
Sy.no.64, 31½ guntas in Sy.no.56 and 1 Acre 14½ guntas in
Sy.no.66. Declarant states that in family partition, he got 27
guntas in Sy.no.64, 4 Acres 10 guntas in Sy.no.56, 31½ guntas
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12247
HC-KAR
in Sy.no.66/2 and 1 Acre 14½ guntas in Sy.no.66/3 i.e. total of
7 Acres and 3 guntas, which is verified and found correct. That
on 16/20.06.1977, notice was issued to declarant appending
draft statement under Section 8 (1) of ULC, proposing surplus
holding of 27132.47 Sq.mts. Acknowledgement reveals said
statement was served on him on 29.06.1977. And after
finalisation, on 12.09.1977 notice under Section 9 of ULC was
issued and as per acknowledgment served on him on
24.09.1977.
23. And in absence of objections, Notification dated
17.01.1978 was issued under Section 10 (1) of ULC, identifying
2731.71 Sq.mts. in Sy.no.64/1; 17199.75 Sq.mts., in
Sy.no.66; 4014.01 Sq.mts. in Sy.no.66/3; and 3187 Sq.mts. in
Sy.no.66/2 of Alanahalli. It is also seen that notification
dtd.17.01.1978 bears signature of Spl.DC. and letter
dt.19.01.1978, Assistant Director, Government Branch Press,
Madikeri, was requested to publish it in Gazette on 02.02.1978.
Copy of Notification was maintained in file. Even in respect of
notification under Section 10 (3) of ULC issued on 21.03.1978,
there is request letter dt.21.03.1978 for publication in Gazette
dt.30.03.1978.
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12247
HC-KAR
24. Records further reveal that on 12.03.1981, notice
under Section 10 (5) of ULC was issued to declarant marking
copy to Spl. Revenue Inspector (ULC) - Channabasappa
authorizing him to take possession after having excess land and
retainable lands demarcated and boundary stones fixed and to
submit report. Subsequently, notice under Section 11 of ULC
was issued to produce records to substantiate interest in land
and thereafter Award was passed on 07.02.1985 under Section
11 (7) of ULC. Records also contain representation by declarant
admitting acquisition of excess land and seeking payment of
compensation of Rs.20,349/-.
25. And under communication dt.04.06.1986,
Secretary, Mysore City Planning Authority was requested to
prepare sketch demarcating 1500 Sq.mts. of retainable land.
There is also reference to notice of WP no.24930/1991 filed
before this Court and its disposal on 10.09.1996. There are
subsequent representations by declarant on 25.08.1986,
28.09.1989 and 06.10.1989, etc. for issuance of amended
award and sketch. And representation dt.29.12.1989
requesting for demarcating retainable land in Sy.no.56 instead
of Sy.no.64/1 of Alanahalli and its rejection by Spl.DC, under
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12247
HC-KAR
endorsement dt. 17.01.1990 on ground that same was already
modified earlier as per his request from Sy.no.66/3 to
Sy.no.64/1. Records further contain representations
dt.05.09.1990 and 06.09.1990 for providing sketch
demarcating 1500 Sq.mts., of eligible land in Sy.no.64/1 and
endorsement dt.14.09.1990 enclosing sketch demarcating
eligible land in Sy.no.64/1. Said records establish conclusions
of proceedings under ULC in accordance with law.
26. Apart from above, records also reveal, challenging
notification dt.21.03.1978 issued under Section 10 (3) of ULC
insofar as land bearing Sy.no.66/2 of Alanahalli village,
Smt.Deveeramma w/o Madaiah had filed WP no.5082/1997
which was disposed of in terms of order passed in WP
no.37418/1998 disposed of on 23.08.1999, after filing of
affidavit by Spl. Tahsildar (ULC), Mysore, about due compliance
and completion of entire process under ULC till taking of
possession and passing of award, much prior to Repealing Act.
27. Interestingly, WP no.37418/1998 is seen to be
disposed of holding proceedings under ULC Act as abated
except insofar as proceedings under Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14
of ULC Act and possession taken over by State Government or
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12247
HC-KAR
any person duly authorized by State Government in this behalf
or by competent authority. Further, petitioners admit receipt of
compensation in proceedings under ULC, i.e. by Madaiah.
Therefore, their contention that his name was mutated in RTC
only on 18.03.1982 would be contrary to law/record.
28. At same time, it is seen petitioners suppressed fact
that prior to present petition, Lingaiah s/o Kadabasaiah along
with others had approached this Court in WP no.9195-97/1990,
which was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, wife of Madaiah
had filed WP no.5082/1997 challenging notification
dt.21.03.1978 issued under Section 10 (3) of ULC, which was
disposed of following order in WP no.37418/1998. Thus,
contention based on Repealing Act received consideration by
this Court and disposed of as follows:
"The Urban Ceiling and Regulations Act, 1999
was repealed by Central Act 15 of 1999. The State
adopted the Urban Ceiling and Regulation Repeal
Act 1999 with effect from 8.7.1999.
2. Section 4 of the Repeal Act 1999 states that
all proceedings relating to any order made or
proposed to be made under the principal Act
pending immediately before the commencement of
the Act before the Court, Tribunal or other
authority shall abate except those proceedings
under Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the principal
Act in so far as such proceedings are relatable to
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12247
HC-KAR
the land, possession of which has been taken over
by the State Government or any person duly
authorised by the State Government in this behalf
or by the competent authority.
3. Accordingly all proceedings have abated
under the Repeal Act except those proceedings
mentioned therein. The writ petition is disposed of
accordingly.
4. If the petitioner's land is protected under
Section 3(2) of the Repeal Act 1999 the petitioner
is at liberty to take such steps in accordance with
law."
29. It is clarified that benefit of Section 4 of Repealing
Act, will not apply to proceedings relating to Sections 11, 12,
13 and 14 of ULC, insofar as such proceedings are relatable to
land, possession of which has been taken over by State
Government or any person duly authorised by it or competent
authority.
30. As noted above, proceedings under ULC were
initiated and concluded after service of notice on declarant and
his participation at every stage. It is seen, notices were duly
served on him after issuance of Notifications under Sections 10
(1) and (3) of ULC as well as under Section 10 (5) of ULC prior
to surrender of possession corroborated by proceedings for
demarcation of retainable extent as per his choice.
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12247
HC-KAR
31. It is noted that office copies of Notifications under
Section 10 (1) and 10 (3) of ULC are duly signed by Spl.DC.
Therefore, Gazette Notifications not bearing signature of Spl.DC
would not invalidate same. Even admission about receipt of
compensation and Notification under challenge being award
determining compensation under Section 11 (7) of ULC, would
also lend sufficient credence to contention of respondents.
32. Apart from above, there is suppression about
Lingappa S/o Madaiah having filed WP no.24930/1991, wherein
contention against Notification dated 07.02.1985 was about
entire compensation being paid to Lingaiah S/o Kadabasavaiah.
Even this would indicate petitioners being aware of proceedings
under ULC and their failure to urge present contentions in
earlier proceedings. Therefore, petition would be barred by
constructive res judicata as well.
33. In light of above facts and circumstances, decisions
relied by petitioners would not be of any aid to them. It is seen
that WP no.8087/2003 is clearly distinguishable, as proceedings
under ULC were set at naught on ground that notification under
Section 10 of ULC was issued against dead person, unlike in
present case. Further, WP no.39061/2003 was filed on ground
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12247
HC-KAR
that award under Section 11 (7) of ULC was passed after
coming into force of Repealing Act and this Court held failure on
part of State to establish passing of award under Section 11 (7)
of ULC and taking of possession prior to Repealing Act. In
instant case, records establish conclusion of proceedings under
ULC prior to Repealing Act.
34. In WP no.30723/2002, challenge of orders passed
by DC and Divisional Commissioner was on ground of failure to
serve notice under Section 10 (5) of ULC. Even in WP
no.31306/2003, challenge was on ground of failure to serve
notices under Section 10 (5) and (6) of ULC and failure to
establish taking of possession prior to Repealing Act. But, in
instant case, there is due service of notice on land owner and
conclusion of proceedings under ULC prior to Repealing Act.
35. For aforesaid conclusions, WP no.9819/2012 is
liable to be dismissed.
36. In WP no.32108/2015, petitioners claimed to be
owners of land bearing Sy.nos.66/8 and 62/1 of Alanahalli
village, Mysuru, in respect of which declaration in Form no.1
was filed by petitioner no.1 - Smt.Nanjamma w/o Chowdaiah.
It is contended that without issuing notice to her, proceedings
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12247
HC-KAR
under ULC were concluded. It is also contended that
Notification under Section 10 (3) of ULC alleged to have been
gazetted on 19.01.1978 as per Annexure-B, was not signed by
Spl.DC. It is also contended that no notices were issued under
Section 10 (5) and (6) of ULC before taking possession and
therefore, entire proceedings from declaration under Section 10
(3) of ULC till passing of award as per Annexure-C, were liable
to be declared as vitiated.
37. In statement of objections, respondent - State has
asserted that after coming into force of ULC, petitioner no.1
filed declaration before Spl.DC that she was owner of lands
bearing Sy.nos.66/8 and 62/1 of Alanahalli, that as on
15.09.1976, her land-holding was 3 Acres 25 guntas i.e.,
14,360.28 sq.mts. in Sy.no.62/1 and 12 guntas i.e., 1214.05
Sq.mts. in Sy.no.66/8 of Alanahalli. And that she agreed to
give up extent of 14,384.62 Sq.mts., determined as excess
holding on 18.04.1977. Accordingly, Final Statement was
prepared under Section 9 of ULC and thereafter Notification
under Section 10 (1) of ULC was gazette (Annexure-R1). It is
specifically stated that office copy was signed by Spl.DC. It was
stated declarant did not object against determination about
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12247
HC-KAR
excess land holding. And specifically denying contention about
failure to issue notices under Section 10 (5) and (6) of ULC, it
was stated that petitioner no.1 voluntarily surrendered
possession of excess land on 01.02.1982, as recorded in
mahazar drawn by Spl.RI, Mysore, produced as Annexure-R2.
It is further stated that thereafter, notice under Section 11 (7)
of ULC was issued and award as per Annexure-R3 passed on
07.02.1985 determining total compensation payable at
Rs.43,153.25/-. And further that on 24.10.1982, declarant filed
application before Spl.DC stating that she received 25% of
compensation and requesting for release of balance 75% with
interest and that balance amount was paid with interest by way
of two demand drafts dt.22.07.1998 and 27.08.1998. It was
specifically stated that prior to coming into force of Repealing
Act on 22.03.1999, entire proceedings under ULC were duly
concluded and therefore, petitioner would not be entitled for
any benefit under Section 4 of Repealing Act. And that after
taking physical possession, land was allotted to KDDC Ltd.,
which had utilized it for construction and that petitioner had
approached Court belatedly.
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12247
HC-KAR
38. In separate statement of objection, respondent no.7
stated, notification under Section 10 (1) of ULC was issued on
19.01.1978, produced as Annexure-B by petitioners, followed
by notification under Section 10 (3) of ULC on 21.03.1978, as
Annexure-R1; delivery of possession on 01.02.1982 and
payment of entire compensation.
39. It is also stated that under Government Order dated
12.08.1981, there was allotment of land for development of a
Dairy and by memo dt.13.05.1982, produced as Annexure-R5,
Spl.DC directed Spl.RI to handover possession. Said memo
mentions about taking of possession from owners, on
01.02.1982. Copy of sketch drawn on 14.05.1982 demarking
extent of land eligible to be held by land owners is produced as
Annexure-R6. And notice issued by Spl.DC on 23.06.1982
inviting claims for compensation is produced as Annexure-R7.
40. Perusal of Annexure-R6 reveals demarcation of
retainable land (including in Sy.no.62/1) and preparation of
sketch. Further, Annexure-R7 is notice to public inviting claims
for compensation over excess land. In rejoinder, petitioners
raised a new contention about non-publication of notification
under Section 10 (1) and (3) of ULC, which was not urged in
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12247
HC-KAR
writ petition. Such new contention cannot be permitted to be
raised in rejoinder statement.
41. Apart from above, other contention urged is about
failure to follow mandatory procedure for taking possession
under Section 10 (5) and (6) of ULC. But, as noted above,
assertion by State that after determination of excess land
holding and issuance of Notifications under ULC, taking of
possession by Spl.RI is sufficiently corroborated by contents of
Annexure-R3 produced by it and mahazar at Annexure-R5
produced by respondent no.7.
42. In view of above facts, it is held that none of
petitioners contention merit consideration and petition liable to
be dismissed. And since facts as well as grounds in WP
no.32109/2015 are similar to those in WP no.32108/2015,
even said petition requires to be rejected.
43. Consequently, all three writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
AV,GRD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26
