wp 394.2008 c.w matters -...
Post on 17-Aug-2018
215 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
WRIT PETITION NO.394 OF 2008 (LA-UDA) C/w WRIT PETITION Nos.9966/08, 1914/07,
2447/08, 361/08, 2733/08, 1915/07, 17000/08 & 17052-54/08, 37548-549/09, 25570-572/09, 5490-5491/09, 2348-2458/11, 11927-11947/11, 14351-14352/11, 39034/10 & 39035/10, 34369-34383/10, 41507-41519/10 & 41676-41695/10
And 41520-41526/10
WP No.394/2008 BETWEEN: 1. THIRUMALAMMA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, W/o LATE THIMMEGOWDA, 2. LAKSHMINARAYAN
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/o LATE THIMMEGOWDA 3. GOPALA KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/o LATE THIMMEGOWDA, ALL ARE R/o BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE AND KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT.
4. THIRUMALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R
- 2 -
S/o VENKATEGOWDA, R/ o BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE AND KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT.
5. B M SURESH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/o LATE MANJEGOWDA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE AND KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT.
6. B M NAGESH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/o LATE MANJEGOWDA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE AND KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT.
7. VENKATEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/o LATE VENKATEGOWDA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE AND KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI H C SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE)
AND 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER, HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HASSAN. ... RESPONDENTS
- 3 -
(BY SRI K M NATARAJ, AAG AND SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R1
SRI RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI A RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DT. 26.2.2007 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE DT. 28.2.2002 AT ANNEX-G AND ALSO QUASH THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DT. 3.12.2002 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETE DT.3.12.2002 AT ANNEX-H IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LANDS ARE CONCERNED AND ETC.
WP No.9966/08: BETWEEN 1. SMT. KAMALAMMA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/o LATE SRI CHENNEGOWDA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT.
2. SRI K RANGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI KULLEGOWDA RETD. PRINCIPAL, B KATTIHALLI KOPPALU, GAVANEHALLI POST, HASSAN TALUK - 573 201.
3. SMT. JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/o B BOREGOWDA R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT.
4. SMT. SANNAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, W/o SRI SHIKI KAPPANNA GOWDA,
- 4 -
R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT.
5. SMT THIMMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/o SRI SHILKI MANJEGWODA R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT.
6. SRI H B SATYNARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/o SRI BASAVEGOWDA C/o DR V R KRISHNAMURTHY, R/o No.298, B KATIHALLI KOPPALU, ARISIKERE ROAD, HASSAN.
7. SRI B G KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/o LATE SRI GOWDAIAH R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT.
8. SRI B E SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/o ERAPPA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT.
9. SRI NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI DYAVEGOWDA R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI B N JAYADEVA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY P B NO.133, OPP.GURU THEATRE B M ROAD, HASSAN REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
- 5 -
2. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT M S BLDNGS, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE – 560001.
3. THE PRESIDENT KARNATAKA STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION M CHINNASWAMY STADIUM M G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.
4. THE PRESIDENT THE NISARGA EDUCATION TRUST (R) BHARATHI NURSING HOME R C ROAD, HASSAN.
5. THE PRESIDENT, ISKON TEMPLE, AKSHAYA PATHRA FOUNDATION, HAREKRISHNA HALL, CHORD ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE.
6. DR A M NAGESH, PROPRIETOR, CHETAN NEURO CENTRE, 1ST CROSS, SHANKAR MUTT ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201.
7. SRI K R SUSHEELAGOWDA, MANAGING TRUSTEE, NETAJI DEVELOPMENT TRUST (R), NO.212, SRI RANGANATH NILAYA, NETHAJI ROAD, VIDYANAGAR, HASSAN - 573 201.
8. THE COMMANDANT 5TH BATTALION, K S R P, LALITHMAHAL ROAD MYSORE –11.
- 6 -
9. RAJIV GANDHI RURAL HOUSING CORPORATION LTD, 4TH FLOOR,
K H B COMPLEX, KAVERI BHAVAN, K G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009. REP BY ITS SECRETARY.
10. PWD DEPARTMENT, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN REP BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.
11. THE DEPOT MANAGER, KSRTC, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI A RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R1 SRI K M NATARAJ, AAG AND SRI VENKATESH DODDERI,
AGA FOR R-2, 8 AND 10, SRI S V RAJESH, ADVOCATE FOR
M/S. RAJESH AND RAJESH FOR R3, K N NITISH, ADV. FOR SRI K V NARASIMHAN FOR R4,
SRI N K RAMESH, ADV. FOR R11, R5, 6 AND 7 SERVED,
PETITION DISMISSED AS AGAINST R9)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 26.2.2002 AT ANX-E AND FINAL NOTIFICATION DT. 3.12.2002 AT ANX-F.
WP No.1914/07 BETWEEN 1. SRI CHANDREGOWDA
S/O MAVINAKEREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
- 7 -
R/o B KATIHALLI, ARASIKERE ROAD HASSAN
2. SRI DHANARAJ S/o MAVINAKEREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, GRAMA PANCHAYAT MEMBER, R/o B KATIHALLI, ARASIKERE ROAD HASSAN.
3. SRI JAGADISH S/o A R RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/o DODDAPURA, KASABA HOBLI HASSAN.
4. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/o SRI VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT No.1584, “SANTHRUPTHI” SALAGAME ROAD, HASSAN – 573201.
5. SMT. GANGAMMA W/o LATE RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT BEHIND ANJANEYA TEMPLE B KATIHALLI, ARASIKERE ROAD, HASSAN.
6. SRI THIMMEGOWDA S/o MAVINAKEREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS C/o SHANKARA ANGADI RESIDING AT B KATIHALLI KOPPALU ARASIKERE ROAD, HASSAN – 573201.
7. SRI HANUMANTHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/o SRI RANGE GOWDA RESIDING AT B KATIHALLI
- 8 -
OPPPOSITE S B M COLONY ARASIKERE ROAD, HASSAN – 573 201.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI NIKILESH RAO, ADVOCATE FOR M/S.INDUS LAW ASSOCIATES)
AND 1. HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
POST BOX NO 133, OPPOSITE GURU THEATRE, B M ROAD, HASSAN – 573 201.
2. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 01.
3. SHARIFF ACADEMY AND HIGHER EDUCATION, HASSAN, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE, EIDGAH COMPLEX, HOSLINE ROAD, HASSAN – 573 201. (V.O. DATED 28.1.2009 RESPONDENT No.3 DELETED)
4. NISARGA EDUCATION TRUST, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE, NISARGA COLLEGE OF NURSING, PARAMASHIVAPPA BUILDING, OLD TELEPHONE OFFICE, KR PURAM, HASSAN.
5. KARNATAKA STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION, BANGALORE, 210 M G ROAD, (M CHINANSWAMY STADIUM) BANGALORE – 560 001.
6. NETAJI RURAL DEVELOPMENT TRUST, HASSAN, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE,
- 9 -
B KATHI HALLI KOPPAL, ARSIKERE MAIN ROAD, HASSAN – 573 201. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI A RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R1 SRI K M NATARAJ, AAG AND SRI VENKATESH DODDERI,
AGA FOR R-2, R3 DELETED,
SRI K N NITISH, ADV. FOR SRI K V NARASIMHAN FOR R4, SRI S V RAJESH, ADVOCATE FOR
M/S. RAJESH AND RAJESH FOR R5, SRI M S BHAGAWATH, ADV. FOR R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ALLOTMENT OF LANDS IN THE PROPOSED KRISHNANAGAR LAYOUT IN FAVOUR OF R3 TO 6 AND IN FAVOUR OF GOVT. FOR THE PURPOSE OF A KSRP BATTALION AS PER ORDERS DT. 16.5.2006 AT ANNEX.D. ARE ILLEGAL, NULL AND VOID.
WP No.2447/08 BETWEEN: 1. SRI V R RADHAKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI D R VENAKTARAMANEGOWDA, R/AT JAGATHARANI, BEHIND DHANALAKSHMI STORES, GOVT. COLLEGE ROAD, HASSAN.
2. SRI B M BOMMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/o SRI B Y MANJEGOWDA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.
- 10 -
3. SRI B M KRISHNAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/o SRI B Y MUNCHEGOWDA, R/O BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.
4. SRI DYAVEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/o SRI MATEGOWDA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.
5. SRI CHENNAGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, S/o SRI MATEGOWDA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.
6. SMT. THIMMAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/o SRI MANCHEGOWDA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.
7. SRI B K ERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/o SRI B KARIYAPPA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.
8. B K NANJAPPA,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.R.s
i) SMT.DHIVYA, D/O SRI B K NANJAPPA, SRI B N KUMARASWAMY, S/o SRI B K NANJAPPA, ALL MAJORS, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.
- 11 -
9. SMT.DEVAMMA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, W/o SRI KRISHNAPPA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.
10. SRI HULIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/o SRI DEVEGOWDA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.
11. SRI B K JAYARAMU,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/o SRI B KRISHNAPPA, C/o PROVISION STORES, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.
12. SRI B K VISHWANATH,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/o SRI KRISHNAPPA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.
13. SRI B V BALAKRISHANA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/o SRI PUTTASWAMY, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.
14. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/o SRI PUTTASWAMY, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.
15. SRI B K NARAYANSWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI B KAPPANA,
- 12 -
R/AT No. 970, 4TH CROSS, K R PURAM, HASSAN.
16. SRI B K RAMASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI B KAPPANNA, R/AT No.970/1, 4TH CROSS, K R PURAM, HASSAN.
17. SRI R TEJASHVI,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O SRI B RANGASWAMY, R/o B M ROAD, HASSAN.
18. SMT.SUMITHA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, W/O SRI R TEJASHWI, R/o B M ROAD, HASSAN.
19. SMT.SUJAYARANGASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/o SRI B RANGASWAMY, R/O B M ROAD, HASSAN.
20. SRI B RANGASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI B BETTAPPAGOWDA, R/O B M ROAD, HASSAN.
21. SRI BOMMALINGE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O SRI KAPPANNAGOWDA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.
22. SRI K BETTEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI KAPPANAGOWDA,
- 13 -
R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.
23. SRI B K SHIVASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI KAPPANNAGOWDA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.
24. SRI B K PUTTASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/o LATE KAPPANAGOWDA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.
25. SRI B ERRAPPAGOWDA,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.R.s 1. E RATHNA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 2. B SAROJA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 3. B E YESHODA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 4. B E INDRANI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 5. B E NALINI,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
ALL MAJORS, R/o No.738(1), SESHADRI VATARA, SAMPIGE ROAD, K R PURAM, HASSAN.
26. SRI B JAYARAMU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O SRI DEVEGOWDA, R/o B M ROAD, HASSAN.
- 14 -
27. SRI B K KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI KAPPANNAGOWDA, R/o No.129, HOYSALANAGAR, BHIRANAHALLI KERE, HASSAN.
28. SRI J RANGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/o SRI JAWAREGOWDA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, SHANTHIGRAMA, HASSAN.
29. SRI BALACHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/o SRI ANNEGOWDA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.
30. SRI DEVIRAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/o SRI VENKATAKRISHNAIAH, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.
31. SRI J NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/o SRI JAWAREGOWDA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.
32. SRI B K KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/o SMT. PUTTAMMA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, SHANTHIGRAMA, HASSAN.
33. SRI H RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/o SRI HANUMANTHEGOWDA,
- 15 -
R/O BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.
34. SMT.SUBBAMMA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, W/o SRI VENKATEGOWDA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.
35. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/o SRI JAWARIGOWDA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.
36. SRI B V MANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, S/o SRI VENKATEGOWDA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI B N JAYADEVA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, P.B.NO.133, OPP.GURU THEATRE, B.M.ROAD, HASSAN REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
2. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT M.S.BUILDINGS, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560001.
3. KARNATAKA STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE – 560001. REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT.
- 16 -
4. NISARGA EDUCATION TRUST (R), BHARATHI NURSING HOME, R.C.ROAD, HASSAN REP.BY ITS SECRETARY.
5. ISKCON & AKSHAYA PATHRA FOUNDATION, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE, REP. BY ITS TRUSTEE.
6. CHETAN NEURO CENTRE AND EEG LABORATORY HASSAN, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
7. NETAJI RURAL DEVELOPMENT TRUST (R) HASSAN, REP. BY ITS TRUSTEE.
8. STATE OF KARNATAKA, POLICE DEPARTMENT, REP. BY SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE.
9. RAJIV GANDHI RURAL HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED HASSAN, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY.
10. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HASSAN. REP. BY ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.
11. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI A RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R1 SRI K M NATARAJ, AAG AND SRI VENKATESH DODDERI,
AGA FOR R2 AND 8,
- 17 -
SRI S V RAJESH, ADVOCATE FOR M/S. RAJESH AND RAJESH FOR R3,
K N NITISH, ADV. FOR SRI K V NARASIMHAN FOR R4, SRI M S BHAGWATH, ADVOCATE FOR R7,
SRI N K RAMESH, ADV. FOR R11, R5, 6, 9 AND 10 SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DT. 26.2.2002 AT ANNEXURE-E AND FINAL NOTIFICATION DT. 3.12.2002 AT ANNEXURE-F.
WP No. 361/08 BETWEEN NETHAJI RURAL DEVELOPMENT TRUST (R), SRI. RANGANATHA NILAYA, VIDYANAGAR, HASSAN - 573 201. REP. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTREE, PROF. K.R.SUSHEELA GOWDA. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI M S BHAGWAT, ADVOCATE)
AND 1. THE HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, INFRONT OF GURU THEATRE, B.M.ROAD, HASSAN – 573 201.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
- 18 -
(BY SRI RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI A RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R1
SRI K M NATARAJ, AAG AND SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE R1, IN RESPECT OF THE ORDERS DT.30.10.2006 VIDE ANN-G, VIDE ANN-H DT.30.11.2006.
WP No. 2733/08 BETWEEN 1. SRI K T KARIYAPPAGOWDA
S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/o B KATTIHALLI KOPPAL KASABA HOBLI, TALUK AND DISTRICT HASSAN – 573201. SINCE DECESED BY LRs
1A. SMT.SHARDHAMMA W/o K T KARIYAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS. 1B. SRI K S SATHYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. 1C. SRI THANDAVESHWAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 1D. SRI K K CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 1E. SRI T LOKESH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
- 19 -
2. SRI K T RANGEGOWDA S/o LATE THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/o B KATTIHALLI KOPPAL KASABA HOBLI, TALUK AND DISTRICT HASASN – 573201.
SINCE DECESED BY LRs 2A. SMT. AKKAMMA W/o RANGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS. 2B. SRI K R SREENIVAS, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. 2C. SRI K R BALAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 2D. SRI K R MOHAN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 2E. SRI RAGHAVENDRA RAO, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 3. SRI H T PUTTASWAMY GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/o SARASWATHIPURAM 9TH CROSS, HASSAN – 573 201.
4. SRI S PUTTASWAMY GOWDA S/o M SINGRIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/o B KATTIHALLI KOPPAL KASABA HOBLI,
HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT – 573 201. 5. SMT. P SAROJAMMA
W/o K M HANUMANTHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
- 20 -
R/o B KATTIHALLI KOPPAL KASABA HBLI,
HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT – 573 201. 6. SRI K M CHALUVEGOWD
S/o MALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/o B KATTIHALLI KOPPAL KASABA HOBLI,
HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT – 573 201. 7. SRI S RAJE GOWDA
S/o LATE SINGRIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/o B KATTIHALLI KOPPAL KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT – 573 201.
8. SRI JAVAREGOWDA S/O MANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT – 573 201.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI M B NARGUND, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE.
2. THE COMMISSIONER HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HASSAN. ... RESPONDENTS
- 21 -
(BY SRI K M NATARAJ, AAG AND SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R1,
SRI RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI A RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DT. 26.2.2002 VIDE ANNEX.A AND THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DT. 3.12.2002 VIDE ANNEX.B. IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE LANDS OF THE PETITIONERS.
WP No. 1915/07 BETWEEN 1. SRI R RAJAGOPALA SETTY
S/o LATE R RAMACHANDRA SETTY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT “LAXMI”, SHANKARMUTT ROAD HASSAN - 573 201.
2. SRI H J GANESH S/o H G JAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, No.1584 “SANTHRUPTHI”, SALAGAME ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201.
3. SRI R RAVISH S/o R RAJAGOPALA SETTY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT “LAXMI”, SHANKARMUTT ROAD HASSAN - 573 201. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI NIKILESH RAO, ADVOCATE FOR
M/S. INDUS LAW ASSOCIATES)
- 22 -
AND 1. HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
POST BOX NO.133 OPPOSITE GURU THEATRE B M ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201.
2. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 01, BY THE SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
3. SHARIFF ACADEMY AND HIGHER EDUCATION, HASSAN, EIDGAH COMPLEX, HOSLINE ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201 BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE. (V.O DATED 28.1.2009 RESPONDENT No.3 DELETED)
4. NISARGA EDUCATION TRUST,
NISARGA COLLEGE OF NURSING, PARAMASHIVAPPA BUILDING, OLD TELEPHONE OFFICE, K.R.PURAM, HASSAN - 573 201. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE.
5. KARNATAKA STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION, BANGALORE, 210 M.G.ROAD (M CHINNASWAMY STADIUM) BANGALORE – 560 001. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
6. NETAJI RURAL DEVELOPMENT TRUST, HASSAN, B.KATHI HALLI KOPPAL, ARASIKERE MAIN ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201, BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE
- 23 -
7. DR.A.M.NAGESH, PROPRIETOR, CHETANA NEURO CENTRE, 1ST CROSS, SHANKARMUTT ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201. 8. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION , K H DOUBLE ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE. REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 9. RAJEEV GANDHI RURAL HOUSING CORPORATION IV FLOOR, K H B COMPLEX,
CAUVERY BHAVAN, K G ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 009. REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI A RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R1
SRI K M NATARAJ, AAG AND SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R2
SRI K N NITISH, ADV. FOR SRI K V NARASIMHAN FOR R4 AND 7, SRI S V RAJESH, ADVOCATE FOR
M/S. RAJESH AND RAJESH FOR R5, SRI M S BHAGWATH, ADVOCATE FOR R6, SRI P D SURANA, ADVOCATE FOR R8,
R3 DELETED, R9 SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ALLOTMENT OF LANDS IN THE PROPOSED KRISHNAGAR LAYOUT IN FAVOUR OF R3 TO 6 AND IN FAVOUR OF GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF A KSRB BATTALION AS PER ORDER DT. 16.5.2006 VIDE ANX-F, ARE ILLEGAL, NULL AND VOID.
- 24 -
WP Nos. 17000/08 & 17052-54/08 BETWEEN 1. PARAMESH
S/O LATE DYAVE GOWDA AGED 45 YEARS, SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI TALUK AND DISTRICT HASSAN - 573 201.
2. THIMME GOWDA S/O THIMME GOWDA, AGED 60 YEARS, SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI TALUK AND DISTRICT HASSAN - 573 201.
3. SMT SUSHEELAMMA W/o LATE PUTTE GOWDA, AGED 65 YEARS, SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI TALUK AND DISTRICT HASSAN - 573 201.
4. NARAYANA S/o LATE PUTTE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI TALUK AND DISTRICT HASSAN -573201.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MANJULA N TEJASWI, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, HOUSING AND URBAN
- 25 -
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE.
2. THE COMMISSIONER HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HASSAN DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K M NATARAJ, AAG AND SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R1
SRI RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI A RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R2)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DT. 26.2.2002 AT ANENX-A AND THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DT. 3.12.2002 AT ANNEX-B IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE LANDS OF THE PETITIONERS.
WP Nos. 37548-549/09 BETWEEN 1. RANGEGOWDA
S/o KULLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN DISTRICT
2. P.R. SUBBARAMAIAH S/o RAMASWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT DODDAPURA VILLAGE, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI J PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE)
- 26 -
AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2. HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, P.B. NO. 133, OPPOSITE TO GURU THEATRE,
B.M. ROAD, HASSAN – 573 201. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K M NATARAJ, AAG AND SRI VENKATESH
DODDERI, AGA FOR R1 SRI RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI A RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R2)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DT. 20.3.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURES-C AND D.
WP Nos. 25570-572/09 BETWEEN 1. SRI N C RAMACHANDRA
S/o CHANABASAPPA N B 54 YEARS, R/o NADAHALLI KUMBARA POST SAKLESHPURA, TQ DIST HASSAN.
2. C S MOHAN KUMAR S/o SIDDEGOWDA AGE 42 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/o CHIKKOTE POST ANKEHALLI TQ ALUR DIST HASSAN.
- 27 -
3. B N KUBER S/o B K NANJEGOWDA AGE 48 YEARS, R/o 5454 NANDAKRIPA RAVINDRANAGARA, HASSAN 573 201. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI M B NARGUND, ADVOCATE)
AND 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT M S BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE.
2. THE COMMISSIONER HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HASSAN. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K M NATARAJ, AAG AND SRI VENKATESH
DODDERI, AGA FOR R1 SRI RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI A RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R2)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DTD 26.2.02 AT ANEX-A AND THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DTD 3.12.02 AT ANNEX-B IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE LANDS OF THE PETITIONERS.
WP Nos. 5490-5491/09 BETWEEN 1. SRI C S VISHWANATH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/o C.N. SHANKARA NARAYANA NO. 1071, BENAKA,
- 28 -
10TH CROSS, SAMPEGE ROAD HASSAN - 573 201.
2. SRI. C.S. SRIKANTA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/o C.N. SHANKARA NARAYANA No. 1071, SAMPEGE ROAD HASSAN - 573 201.
3. SRI. C.N. SHANKARA NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS, S/o LATE NANJAPPA No. 1071, SAMPEGE ROAD HASSAN - 573 201. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI NIKILESH RAO, ADVOCATE FOR
M/S. INDUS LAW ASSOCIATES)
AND
1. HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, POST BOX NO. 133, OPPOSITE GURU THEATRE B.M.ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA , SECRETARIAT LEGAL DEPARTMENT, VIDHANASOUDHA, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 01.
3. SHARIFF ACADEMY AND HIGHER EDUCATION, HASSAN, EIDGAH COMPLEX, HOSLINE ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201.
4. NISARGA EDUCATION TRUST, NISARGA COLLEGE OF NURSING , PARAMASHIVAPPA BUILDING, OLD TELEPHONE OFFICE, K.R.PURAM, HASSAN - 573 201.
- 29 -
5. KARNATAKA STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION, BANGALORE, 210, M.G.ROAD, (M. CHINNASWAMY STADIUM) BANGALORE – 560 001.
6. NETAJI RURAL DEVELOPMENT TRUST, HASSAN B KATHI HALLI KOPPAL, ARSIKERE MAIN ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201.
7. DR.A.M.NAGESH, PROPRIETOR, CHETANA NEURO CENTRE, 1ST CROSS, SHANKARMUTT ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201.
8. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION , K H ROAD, CENTRAL OFFICE, BANGALORE – 560 027. 9. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
RAJEEV GANDHI RURAL HOUSING CORPORATION CAUVERY BHAVAN, K H B COMPLEX, K G ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 009. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI A RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R1
SRI K M NATARAJ, AAG AND SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R2
SRI R NATARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R3, SRI S V RAJESH, ADVOCATE FOR
M/S. RAJESH AND RAJESH FOR R5, SRI M S BHAGWATH, ADVOCATE FOR R6,
SRI K N NITISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI K V NARASIMHAN FOR R7,
SRI SRISHAILA FOR SMT. SHWETHA ANAND FOR R8 R4 AND R9 SERVED)
- 30 -
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH TEH ACQUISITION OF THE PETITIONERS LANDS UNDER NOTIFICATION DT.26.2.02, AT ANN-A, AS THE SCHEME ITSELF HAS LAPSED.
WP Nos. 2348-2458/11 BETWEEN 1. SMT JAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, W/o LATE SRI B V MANJEGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI POST KASABA HOBLI HASSAN
2. SRI B MANJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/o SRI BHOMMEGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI HASSAN
3. SMT NANJAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/o LATE SRI BHOMMEGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI HASSAN
4. SRI THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/o SRI RANGEGOWDA R/AT SOMPURA, T D HALLI POST VIA ARAHALLI BELUR TALUK
5. SMT. MANJAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
- 31 -
W/o SRI KAPPANAGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI HASSAN
6. SRI SANJEEVAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/o SRI HANUMANTHEGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI HASSAN
7.i) SRI GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS W/o LATE SRI DYAVAIAH R/AT BHUVANAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI HASSAN
ii) SRI GANESH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI DYAVAIAH R/AT BHUVANAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI HASSAN
iii) SMT KAVITHA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, D/o LATE SRI DYAVAIAH R/AT BHUVANAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI HASSAN
iv) MS LAKSHMI
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, D/o LATE SRI DYAVAIAH R/AT BHUVANAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI HASSAN
- 32 -
8. SRI K THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/o SRI KALEGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN
9.i) SRI L RANGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI LAKSHMEGOWDA
ii) SRI L THIRUMALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI LAKSHMEGOWDA
iii) SRI CHANDREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI LAKSHMEGOWDA
iv) SRI THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI LAKSHMEGOWDA
v) SRI VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI LAKSHMEGOWDA
ALL R/AT KATEHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN
10. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, W/o LATE SRI LAKSHMEGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN
11. SRI EKASHIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/o LATE ERABHADRAGOWDA R/AT DODDAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN
- 33 -
12. SRI MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/o SRI SANNAIAH C/o KUMAR TEXTILES 7TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD K R PURAM, HASSAN
13. SMT. RAJAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/o SRI HANUMANTHU R/AT SHANKARIPURAM NORTH LAYOUT, HASSAN
14. SRI THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI JAVAREGOWDA C/o KUMAR TEXTILES 7TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD K R PURAM HASSAN
15.i) SMT. JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, W/o LATE SRI KENGEGOWDA
ii) SMT. JANAKI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, W/o LATE SRI VENKATESH
iii) SRI MOHAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI KENGEGOWDA
iv) SRI DEVARAJ AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI KENGEGOWDA ALL R/AT B KATTIHALLI KOPPALU KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK
16. SRI P N SHANTHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI NANJEGOWDA
- 34 -
R/AT MYSORE BANK COLONY ARASIKERE ROAD HASSAN TALUK
17. SRI KRISHNAMURTHY MAJOR, S/o SRI PATHAIAH R/AT RAMESHNAGAR SANKENAHALLI DODDAPURA POST HASSAN TALUK
18. SRI GIRIYAPPA MAJOR, S/o SRI PATHAIAH R/AT RAMESHNAGAR SANKENAHALLI DODDAPURA POST HASSAN TALUK
19. SRI DORERAJU MAJOR, S/o SRI MALLAYA R/AT RAMESHNAGAR SANKENAHALLI DODDAPURA POST HASSAN TALUK
20. SMT. SIDDAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/o SRI RANGAIAH R/AT DODDAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK
21. SRI ERAMALLAIAH MAJOR, S/o LATE SRI MALLAIAH R/AT RAMESHNAGAR SANKENAHALLI DODDAPURA POST HASSAN TALUK
- 35 -
22. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA AGED ABOUT 62 YERS, W/o LATE SRI NARASIMHAGOWDA R/AT DODDAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK
23. SRI DEVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI VEERABHADRAGOWDA R/AT DODDAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK
24. SRI GIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/o SHANKARIPURA NORTH LAYOUT HASSAN
25. SRI MYLARASHETTY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/o SRI RAMUSHETTY R/AT BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK
26. SRI KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/o SRI JAVARIGOWDA R/AT DODDAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK
27. SRI NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/o SRI CHENNEGOWDA R/AT DODDAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK
- 36 -
28. SRI MARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, S/o SRI BETTEGOWDA R/AT DODDAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK
29. SRI SANNAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/o SRI JAVAREGOWDA R/AT DODDAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK
30. SMT. PARVATHAMMA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, W/o SRI EREGOWDA R/AT DODDAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK
31. SRI SANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/o SRI NANJEGOWDA R/AT DODDAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK
32. SMT. DEVIRAMMA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, W/o SRI CHELUVAIAH R/AT DODDAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK
33. SRI B K KESHAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI KARIGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK
- 37 -
34. SMT. THIMMAMMA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, W/o SRI VENKATEGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK
35. SMT. DYAVAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/o SRI BETTEGOWDA R/AT DODDAPURA VILLAGE DODDAPURA POST KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK
36. SRI KRISHNEGOWDA MAJOR, S/o SRI THIMMEGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK
37. SRI SHARADAMMA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, W/o SRI RANGASWAMY R/AT RAJAGOPALANAGAR KASTURI LAYOUT, II STAGE, BANGALORE 59
38. SRI D MANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/o SRI DYAVEGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK
39. SRI NINGARAJU AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/o SMT DHYAVAMMA R/AT RAMESHNAGAR POST DODDAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK
- 38 -
40. SRI SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/o SRI PAPPAIAH R/AT RAMESHNAGAR POST, DODDAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK
41. SMT. H L RATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, W/o SRI KANTHARAJU R/AT UDDURAHALLI DUPPA POST, DUPPA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK
42. SRI KANTHARAJU AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/o SRI SANNAIAH R/AT RAMESHNAGAR DODDAPURA POST HASSAN TALUK
43. SMT. GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, W/o SRI SANNAIAH R/AT RAMESHNAGAR DODDAPURA POST HASSAN TALUK
44. SRI B C NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/o SRI CHENNEGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK
45. SRI D CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, S/o LATE DYAVEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI GATE DODDAPURA POST, NEAR B T KOPPALU KASABA TALUK, HASSAN TALUK
- 39 -
46. SRI NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/o LATE CHENNEGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK
47. SMT. DYAVAMMA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, W/o SRI DYAVEGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK
48. SRI SINGEGOWDA MAJOR S/o LATE RAMEGOWDA R/AT DODDAPURA VILLAGE DODDAPURA POST HASSAN TALUK
49.a) SRI CHENNEGOWDA b) SRI RAMACHANDRA GOWDA
MAJORS ALL S/o SRI PUTTEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK
50. SRI R SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/o SRI RANGEGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI POST KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK
51. SMT. JAYAMMA @ JAYALAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, W/o SRI CHENNEGOWDA R/AT SANKANEHALLI VILLAGE DODDAPURA POST HASSAN TALUK
- 40 -
52. SRI G SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, S/o SANNEGOWDA R/AT SANKANEHALLI VILLAGE DODDAPURA POST HASSAN TALUK
53. SRI SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/o SRI GOWDAIAH R/AT BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK
54. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, W/o LATE KARIYAPPA R/AT LIG NO.194, SRINIVASA KRUPA KUVEMPUNAGAR HASSAN 573 201
55. SRI C KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI CHENNEGOWDA R/AT BHAVANI STORES VIDYANAGAR,HASSAN 573 201
56. SRI C DEVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/o SRI CHENNEGOWDA No.16, CHENNAKESHAVA NILAYA SHANKARIPURAM HASSAN - 573 201.
57.i) SRI THIMMASHETTY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/o SRI NARASIMHASETTY
ii) SRI RANGASHETTY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/o SRI NARASIMHASETTY
- 41 -
iii) SRI NARASIMHASHETTY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/o SRI NARASIMHASETTY
iv) SRI CHANDRASHETTY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/o SRI NARASIMHASETTY
v) SMT. NILAMMA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, W/o SRI VENKATASETTY ALL R/ATSANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK
58. SRI LOKESHA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/o SRI THIRUMALEGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK
59. SRI B E JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI ERAPPA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK
60.i) SRI PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/o SRI SANNEGOWDA
ii) SRI YOGESHGOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/o SRI SANNEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK
- 42 -
61. SRI B P DHARMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/o SRI PUTTEGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK
62. SRI RANGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/o RANGEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLIV ILLAG KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
63. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, W/o SRI SHAMNNA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASBA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK.
64. SRI RAMCHANDRA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O THIMMEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
65. SRI MARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI THIMMEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
66. SRI JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI THIMMEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
67. SRI RANGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O RANGEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
- 43 -
68. SRI THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O RANGEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
69. SRI SANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O DYAVEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
70. SRI S L YOGANNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O KULLEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE DODDAPURA POST HASSAN TALUK.
71. S K CHANDRA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O KULLEGODA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE DODDAPURA POST HASSAN TALUK.
72. SRI S R PARAMESHA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O S RAMAPPA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
73. SRI RAMASETTY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O NARASHIMHA SETTY R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
- 44 -
74. SRI RANGEGOWDA ALIAS PUTTANNA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, S/O SANNEGOWDA, R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
75. SRI S T KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O LATE K S THIMMEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
76. SRI PUTTANANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE K S THIMMEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
77.a) SMT JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O LATE SRI DEVARAJU R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
b) SRI CHANDRAKANTHA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O SRI DEVARAJAN
c) SMT. SHAKUNTHALA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, D/O LATE DEVARAJAN
78.a) SMT RUKMINI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/O LATE SRI S T CHANDRAGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
- 45 -
b) SRI MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI S T CHADNRA GOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
c) SMT. MAHALAKSHMI
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, D/O LATE SRI S T CHADNRA GOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
79. SRI S T PARAMESHA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI K S THIMMEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
80. SRI G N ANUSUYADEVI AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS W/O NARASIMHA GOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
81.a) SMT. GANGAVATHI
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O SADASHIVAYYA
b) SRI VEERAMALLAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O LATE MANJAIAH SRI CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI MANJAIAH
- 46 -
c) SRI MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O SRI LATE MANJAIAH ALL R/AT RAMESHWARANAGAR KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
82. SRI B S NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O SHETTY GOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
83. SRI B S APPAJI GOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
84. SRI MALLAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O ERAIAH DODADPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
85. SMT. KAMALAKSHI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O MANJUNATHA DODADPURA RAMESHWARA NAGAR, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
86. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O SRI DODDAIAHA DODADPURA RAMESHWARA NAGAR, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
- 47 -
87. SRI B M PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI MALIGEGOWDA BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
88. SRI RAJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI L RAMEGOWDA KATIHALIL KOPALU ARASIKERE ROAD, HASSAN TALUK.
89. SRI RAMEGWODA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O SRI LAKKEGOWDA KATIHALIL KOPALU ARASIKERE ROAD, HASSAN TALUK.
90. SRI PUTTASIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI AJJEGOWDA BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
91. SRI R RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O SRI RAMEGOWDA KATIHALLI KOPPALU ARASIKERE ROAD, HASSAN TALUK.
92. SRI B C MANJEGWODA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O SRI PUTTEGOWDA NO.993/1, KESHAVA NILAYA SHANKARPAURAM HASSAN. HASSAN TALUK.
- 48 -
93. SMT. NANJAMMA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, W/O SRI CHANNEGOWDA BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
94. SRI BH JAGADEESH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE HANUMANTHEGOWDA BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
95. SRI CHIKKAIAH S/O LATE SRI MALLAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RAMESHWARA NAGAR HASSAN TOWN. 96. SRI THIMEMGODA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI RANGEGOWDA SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
97.A) SMT. RUKMINI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, W/O SRI THIMMEGOWDA SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
97.B) SMT. PARVATHI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, W/O SRI MANJEGOWDA SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
- 49 -
98. SRI MALLASETTY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O SRI RAMASETTY SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
99. SRI KULLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI GOWDAIAH SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
100. SMT BANU AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, D/O SRI CHANDREGOWDA BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
101. SRI SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O SRI BOREGOWDA BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
102. SRI GANESH GOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O SRI BOMMEGOWDA BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
103. SRI B R GOPAL AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O SMT LAKSHMAMMA DODDAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
- 50 -
104. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS W/O SRI THIRUMALEGOWDA BHUVANAHALI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
105. SRI RAJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O SRI DEVYEGOWDA BHUVANAHALI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
106. SRI D B GANGADHAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O SRI DYAVEGOWDA BHUVANAHALI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
107. SRI NANJEGOWA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI RAMEGOWDA DODDAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK,
108. SRI KRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI RAMEGODWA DODDAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK,
109. SMT. BHAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, D/O LATE SRI SANNAIAH RAMESHWARA NAGAR DODAPURA DHAKALE HASSAN TALUK,
- 51 -
110. SRI B P MANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI PUTTEGOWDA NO.993/1, KESHAVA NILAYA SHANKARPURAM HASSAN TALUK,
111. SRI DADAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O LATE SRI ERAAIHSANNAIAH RAMESHWARANAGAR, DODDAPURA DHAKALE HASSAN TALUK. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI B N JAYADEVA, ADVOCATE)
AND 1. HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
P.B.NO.133, OPP. GURU THEATRE, B M ROAD, HASSAN. REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
2. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY THE SECETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M S BUIDLING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001
3. THE PRESIDENT KARNATAKA STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION, M CHINNASWAMY STADIUM, M G ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001
4. NISARGA EDUCATION TRUST (R), BHARATHI NURSING HOME R C ROAD, HASSAN . REP.BY PRESIDENT.
- 52 -
5. ISKCON & AKSHAYA PATHRA FOUNDATION RAJAJINAGAR, HAREKRISHNA HILL WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BANGALORE.
6. CHETAN NEURO CENTRE AND EEG LABORATORY 1ST CROSS, SHANKAR MUTT ROAD, HASSAN REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR DR.A.M. NAGESH.
7. NETAJI RURAL DEVELOPMENT TRUST (R) NO.212, SRI RANGANATH NILAYA NETAJI RAOD, VIDYANAGAR HASSAN REP. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE MR K R SUSHEELA GOWDA.
8. COMMANDENT (BATTALION) 5TH DIVISION, KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POCLIE LALITH MAHAL ROAD, MYSORE - 11.
9. RAJIV GANDHI RURAL HOUSING CORPORATION LTD 4TH FLOOR KHB COMPLEX, CAUVERY BAHVAN BANGALORE 9
10. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN.
11. THE DEPOT MANAGER KARNATAKA STTE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN. ... RESPONDENTS
- 53 -
(BY SRI RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI A RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R1
SRI K M NATARAJ, AAG AND SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R2 AND R10
SRI S V RAJESH, ADVOCATE FOR M/S. RAJESH AND RAJESH FOR R3,
SRI M S BHAGWATH, ADVOCATE FOR R7, SMT.M.SUMANA BALIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R9
SMT. SHWETHA ANAND FOR R11 R4, 5, 6 AND 8 SERVED)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT AND QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DT.26.2.02, AT ANN-E ISSUED BY THE R1 AND FINAL NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE R2 DT.3.12.02 AT ANN-F.
WP Nos. 11927-11947/11 BETWEEN 1. SRI D JAVARE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O SRI PUTTEGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK
2. SRI CHANDREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI MANJEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE DODDAPURA POST HASSAN TALUK
3. SRI S M DEVARAJU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI MANJEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE
- 54 -
KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK
4. SRI PUTTATHIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK
5. SRI GIRISH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI GIDDEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK
6. SRI DEVARAJU AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI GIDDEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK
7. SRI S V THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O SRI VENKATEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK
8. SMT. JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, D/O SRI S V THIMMEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK
9. SRI KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O SRI DYAVE GOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE
- 55 -
KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK
10. SRI VENKATEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O SRI DYAVE GOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK
11. SRI SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O SRI DYAVE GOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK
12. SRI LOKESH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O SRI DYAVE GOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK
13. SRI S P RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O SRI PUTTEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK
14. SRI DYAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O SRI KARIGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK
15. SRI THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O SRI KARIGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK
- 56 -
16. SRI B G VENKATASETTY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, S/O SRI GIRISHETTY R/AT BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK
17. SRI THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O SRI DYAVEGOWDA R/AT DODDAPURA POST HASSAN TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT
18. SRI B NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O SRI CHENNEGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK
19. SRI GANGADHAR AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O SRI THIMMEGOWDA R/AT DODDAPURA POST, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT
20. SRI P N HIRIYANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI P LAKSHMINARANAPPA R/AT NO.516, SHARMADA GARUTHAMAN PARK, BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE 560 004
21. SMT. PARVATHAMMA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, W/O SRI HANUMANTHEGOWDA R/AT DODDAPURA POST, HASSAN TALUK. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI B N JAYADEVA, ADVOCATE)
- 57 -
AND 1. HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
P B NO.133, OPP GURU THEATRE B M ROAD, HASSAN REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN
2. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M S BUILDINGS, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001
3. THE PRESIDENT KARNATAKA STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION M CHINNASWAMY STADIUM M G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.
4. NISARGA EDUCATION TRUST (R) BHARATHI NURSING HOME R C ROAD, HASSAN, REP BY PRESIDENT
5. ISKCON & AKSHAYA PATHRA FOUNDATION RAJAJINAGAR, HAREKRISHNA HILL WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BANGALORE
6. CHETAN NEURO CENTRE AND EEG LABORATORY 1ST CROSS, SHANKAR MUTT ROAD, HASSAN, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR DR A M NAGESH
7. NETAJI RURAL DEVELOPMENT TRUST (R) NO.212, SRI RANGANATH NILAYA NETAJI ROAD, VIDYANAGAR, HASSAN REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE MR K R SUSHEELA GOWDA
- 58 -
8. COMMANDENT (BATTALION) 5TH DIVISION, KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE LALITH MAHAL ROAD, MYSORE - 11.
9. RAJIV GANDHI RURAL HOUSING CORPORATION LTD 4TH FLOOR, KHB COMPLEX, CAUVERY BHAVAN BANGALORE - 560 009. 10. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN
11. THE DEPOT MANAGER KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HASSAN DIVISION HASSAN.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI A RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R1
SRI K M NATARAJ, AAG AND SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R2 AND R10
SRI S V RAJESH, ADVOCATE FOR M/S. RAJESH AND RAJESH FOR R3,
SRI M S BHAGWATH, ADVOCATE FOR R7, SMT.M.SUMANA BALIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R9
SRI K S BHARATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R11 R4, 5, 6 AND 8 SERVED)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 26.02.2002 AT ANNEX. E, ISSUED BY FIRST RESPONDENT AND FINAL NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 31.12.2002 AT ANNEX. F.
- 59 -
WP Nos. 14351-352/11 BETWEEN 1. GIRIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O LATE PAPPAIAH R/O SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE, & KASABA HOBLI, DODDAPURA POST, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT.
2. SMT. RANGAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS W/O LATE LINGAIAH R/O SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE DODDAPURA POST HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI H C SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE)
AND 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M S BUILDINGS, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY P B NO. 133, OPP: GURU THEATRE, B M ROAD, HASSAN REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
3. THE PRESIDENT KARNATAKA STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION, M.CHINNASWAMY STADIUM, M G ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.
- 60 -
4. NISARGA EDUCATION TRUST (R) BHARATHI NURSING HOME, R C ROAD, HASSAN. REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT
5. ISKCON & ADSHAYA PATHRA FOUNDATION, RAJAJINAGAR,
HAREKRISHNA HILL WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BANGALORE 6. CHETAN NEURO CENTRE AND EEG LABORATORY
1ST CROSS, SHANKAR MUTT ROAD, HASSAN, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, DR. A M NAGESH
7. NETAJI RURAL DEVELOPMENT TRUST (R) NO. 212, SRI. RANGANATH NILAYA, NETHAJI ROAD, VIDYANAGAR, HASSAN REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRSUTEE MR. K R SUSHEELA GOWDA
8. COMMANDANT (BATTALLION) 5TH DIVISION, KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE, LALITH MAHAL ROAD, MYSORE-11
9. RAJIV GANDHI RURAL HOUSING CORPORATION
LIMITED, 4TH FOOR K.H.B. COMPLEX, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE – 560 009.
10. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN
11. THE DEPOT MANAGER
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN.
... RESPONDENTS
- 61 -
(BY SRI K M NATARAJ, AAG AND SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R1, 8 AND R10
SRI RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI A RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R2 SRI S V RAJESH, ADVOCATE FOR
M/S. RAJESH AND RAJESH FOR R3, SRI M S BHAGWATH, ADVOCATE FOR R7,
SMT SHWETHA ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R11, R4, 5, 6 AND 9 SERVED)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DTD 26.2.2002 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE DTD 28.2.2002 AT ANNEX-C AND ALSO QUASH THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DTD 3.12.2002 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETE DTD 3.12.2002 AT ANNEX-D IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LANDS ARE CONCERNED.
WP Nos.39034/10 & 39035/10 BETWEEN 1. B R MANJEGOWDA
S/O SRI LATE RANGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING OF BOOVANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT
2. SMT. RANGAMMA W/O SRI LATE RANGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING OF BOOVANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI B M MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
- 62 -
AND 1. HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
P.B. NO. 133, B.M ROAD, HASSAN – 573 201. REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN
2. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001.
3. THE PRESIDENT
KARNATAKA STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION, M.CHINNASWAMY STADIUM, M G ROAD, BANGALORE –01.
4. NISARGA EDUCATION TRUST (R)
BHARATHI NURSING HOME, R C ROAD, HASSAN, REP BY PRESIDENT HASSAN.
5. ISKCON & ADSHAYA PATHRA
FOUNDATION, RAJAJINAGAR, HAREKRISHNA HILL WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BANGALORE
6. CHETAN NEURO CENTRE AND EEG LABORATORY
1ST CROSS, SHANKAR MUTT ROAD, HASSAN CITY, HASSAN, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, DR. A M NAGESH, HASSAN.
7. NETAJI RURAL DEVELOPMENT TRUST (R)
NO. 212, SRI. RANGANATH NILAYA, NETHAJI ROAD, VIDYANAGAR, HASSAN REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRSUTEE MR. K R SUSHEELA GOWDA, HASSAN.
- 63 -
8. COMMANDANT (BATTALLION) 5TH DIVISION, KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE, LALITH MAHAL ROAD, MYSORE-11
9. RAJIV GANDHI RURAL HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED, 4TH FOOR K.H.B. COMPLEX, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE –09.
10. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN CITY, HASSAN.
11. THE DEPOT MANAGER KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN CITY, HASSAN.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI A RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R1
SRI K M NATARAJ, AAG AND SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R2, 8 AND R10,
SRI S V RAJESH, ADVOCATE FOR M/S. RAJESH AND RAJESH FOR R3,
SRI M S BHAGWATH, ADVOCATE FOR R7, SMT SHWETHA ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R11,
R4, 5, 6 AND 9 SERVED)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 26.2.2002 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE DATED 26.2.2002 AT ANNEXURE-K, AND ALSO QUASH THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 3.12.2002 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE DATED 3.12.2002 AT ANNEXURE-L, IN SO FAR AS THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONERS CONCERNED.
- 64 -
WP Nos. 34369-383/10 BETWEEN 1. SRI KRISHNEGOWDA
S/O DEVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT
2. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE SRI CHANDREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT.
3. SRI RAMEGOWDA S/O KULLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT
4. SRI VENKATESH S/O KULLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT
5. SRI RAJEGOWDA @ THIMMEGOWDA S/O KULLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT
6. SRI KALEGOWDA S/O LACHCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O BOOVANAHALLI VILLAGE HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT
- 65 -
7. SRI RAJEGOWDA S/O OORUBAGILU THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O BOOVANAHALLI VILLAGE HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT
8. SRI KUMARA S/O VENKATEEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O B T KOPPALU HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT
9. SRI CHANNEGOWDA S/O VENATEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O BOOVANAHALLI VILLAGE HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT
10. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI W/O LATE SRI THAMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O DODDAPURA VILLAGE HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT
11. SMT. SHUSHEELAMMA W/O LATE SRI CHANDREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O DODDAPURA VILLAGE HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT
12. SRI SRINIVASA W/O LATE SRI VENKATEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O DODDAPURA VILLAGE HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT
13. SRI LAKSHMEGOWDA S/O SANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O DODDAPURA VILLAGE HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT
- 66 -
14. SRI RANGASWAMY S/O GUNDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O DODDAPURA VILLAGE HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT
15. SRI SANNAGUNDEGOWDA S/O GUNDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O DODDAPURA VILLAGE HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI B M MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY P B NO.133, B M ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201. REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN
2. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REP BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE PRESIDENT KARNATAKA STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION, M.CHINNASWAMY STADIUM, M G ROAD, BANGALORE 1, BANGALORE CITY.
4. NISARGA EDUCATION TRUST (R) BHARATHI NURSING HOME, R C ROAD, HASSAN, REP BY PRESIDENT HASSAN.
5. ISKCON & ADSHAYA PATHRA FOUNDATION, RAJAJINAGAR, HAREKRISHNA HILL WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BANGALORE, BANGALORE CITY.
- 67 -
6. CHETAN NEURO CENTRE AND EEG LABORATORY 1ST CROSS, SHANKAR MUTT ROAD, HASSAN CITY, HASSAN, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, DR. A M NAGESH, HASSAN.
7. NETAJI RURAL DEVELOPMENT TRUST (R) NO. 212, SRI. RANGANATH NILAYA, NETHAJI ROAD, VIDYANAGAR, HASSAN REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRSUTEE MR. K R SUSHEELA GOWDA, HASSAN.
8. COMMANDANT (BATTALLION) 5TH DIVISION, KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE, LALITH MAHAL ROAD, MYSORE-11,
9. RAJIV GANDHI RURAL HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED, 4TH FOOR K.H.B. COMPLEX, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE –09, BANGALORE CITY.
10. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN CITY, HASSAN.
11. THE DEPOT MANAGER KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN CITY, HASSAN. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI A RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R1
SRI K M NATARAJ, AAG AND SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R2, 8 AND R10,
SRI S V RAJESH, ADVOCATE FOR M/S. RAJESH AND RAJESH FOR R3,
SRI K V NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R4 SRI M S BHAGWATH, ADVOCATE FOR R7,
SMT SHWETHA ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R11, R6 SERVED,
PETITION STANDS DISMISSED AS AGAINST R5 AND 9)
- 68 -
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DT.26.2.02 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAETTER DT.25.2.02 AT ANN-M AND ALSO QUASH THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DT.3.12.02 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAETTER DT.3.12.02 AT ANN-H IN SO FAR AS THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONERS CONCERNED
WP Nos. 41507-519/10 & 41676-695/10 BETWEEN
1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, W/O HONNEGOWDA @ SOMANNA
2. SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O HONNEGOWDA @ SOMANNA BOTH ARE RESIDING OF SANKENEHALLI
VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT. 3. RAJE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O SANKENEHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT.
4. KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O LATE ARASAIAH.
5. SWAMY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O LATE ARASAIAH
- 69 -
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT SANKENEHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT.
6. DEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE KODAIAH
7. ERARAJU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O LATE KODAIAH
8. ARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O LATE KODAIAH
9. APANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE KODAIAH PETITIONER NOS. 6 TO 9 ARE ALL
RESIDING AT SANKENEHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT.
10. HANUME GOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O LATE MANJEGOWDA
11. KARI GOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE MANJEGOWDA
12. PUTTANANJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O LATE MANJEGOWDA
13. MANJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE MANJEGOWDA
- 70 -
PETITIONER Nos. 10 TO 13 ARE ALL RESIDING AT SANKENEHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT.
14. S P RAMESH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O LATE PUTTSWAMAIAH
15. S P CHANDRA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O LATE PUTTASWAMAIAH
16. S P RAVI AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O LATE PUTTASWAMAIAH PETITIONER Nos. 14 TO 16 ARE ALL RESIDING AT SANKENEHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT.
17. R RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O RAMEGOWDA R/O BOOVANAHALLI KOPPAL, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT.
18. KALE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O LATE DYAVE GOWDA
19. VENKATE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O LATE DYAVE GOWDA
20. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O LATE DYAVE GOWDA
- 71 -
21. LOKESHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O LATE DYAVE GOWDA PETITIONER Nos. 18 TO 21 ARE ALL RESIDING AT SANKENEHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT.
22. SMT. YASHODAMMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEAQRS W/O PAPEGOWDA R/O D.NO 50/B, RAILWAY QUARTERS, B M ROAD, HASSAN.
23. KRISHNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O LATE RAMEGOWDA
24. KARI GOWDA @ NANJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O LATE RAME GOWDA PETITIONER Nos. 23 TO 24 ARE ALL R/O DODDEPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT
25. B C NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O LATE CHENNEGOWDA
26. B C DYAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O LATE CHENNEGOWDA
27. B C NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O LATE CHENNEGOWDA
- 72 -
28. B C KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O LATE CHENNEGOWDA PETITIONER Nos. 25 TO 28 ARE R/O BOOBANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT
29. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS W/O THIRUMALEGOWDA
30. SMT. JANAKAMMA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS D/O THIRUMALEGOWDA
31. DORESWAMY
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O THIRUMALEGOWDA
32. GOPAL
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O THIRUMALEGOWDA
PETITIONER Nos. 29 TO 32 ARE ALL R/O BOOVANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT
33. B MARI GOWDA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS S/O JAVAREGOWDA R/O BOOVANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI H C SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE)
- 73 -
AND 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDINGS, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER HASSAN URBAN DEV AUTHORITY HASSAN
3. THE PRESIDENT KARNATAKA STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION, M.CHINNASWAMY STADIUM, M G ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.
4. NISARGA EDUCATION TRUST (R) BHARATHI NURSING HOME, R C ROAD, HASSAN, REP BY PRESIDENT
5. ISKCON & ADSHAYA PATHRA FOUNDATION, RAJAJINAGAR, HAREKRISHNA HILL WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BANGALORE,
6. CHETAN NEURO CENTRE AND EEG LABORATORY 1ST CROSS, SHANKAR MUTT ROAD, HASSAN CITY, HASSAN, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, DR. A M NAGESH.
7. NETAJI RURAL DEVELOPMENT TRUST (R) NO. 212, SRI. RANGANATH NILAYA, NETHAJI ROAD, VIDYANAGAR, HASSAN REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRSUTEE MR. K R SUSHEELA GOWDA.
8. COMMANDANT (BATTALLION) 5TH DIVISION, KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE, LALITH MAHAL ROAD, MYSORE-11,
- 74 -
9. RAJIV GANDHI RURAL HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED, 4TH FOOR K.H.B. COMPLEX, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE –09,
10. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN.
11. THE DEPOT MANAGER KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K M NATARAJ, AAG AND SRI VENKATESH
DODDERI, AGA FOR R1, 8 AND R10, SRI RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI A RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R2 SRI S V RAJESH, ADVOCATE FOR
M/S. RAJESH AND RAJESH FOR R3, SRI K S BHARATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R11,
R4, 5, 6, 7 AND 9 SERVED)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DT.26.2.02, PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE DT.28.2.02, AT ANN-B & ALSO QUASH THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DT.3.12.02, PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAK GAZETTE DT.3.12.02, AT ANN-C IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LANDS ARE CONCERNED UNDER SECTION 17 & 19 (1) OF THE KUDA ACT RESPECTIVELY.
WP Nos. 41520-526/10
BETWEEN
1. NANJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O CHANNE GOWDA R/O BOOVANAHALLI KOPPAL HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT
- 75 -
2. S R HANUME GOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O RAME GOWDA R/O SANKENEHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT
3. B D MANJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O RAME GOWDA R/O SANKENEHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT
4. D CHANNE GOWDA AGED ABOPUT 75 YEARS S/O DYAVE GOWDA R/O SANKENEHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT
5. CHANDRE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O DYAVE GOWDA R/O FARM HOUSE BUILT IN SY NO S.No.87/17, SANKENEHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT
6. S D RAME GOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS D/O DYAVE GOWDA R/O SANKENEHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT
7. SMT. LALITHA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS W/O RAMESH R/O SANKENEHALLI VILLAGE,
- 76 -
KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI H C SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE)
AND 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF AKRNATAKA HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M S BUIDLING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER, HASSAN URBAN DEV. AUTHORITY HASSAN.
3. THE PRESIDENT KARNATAKA STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION, M.CHINNASWAMY STADIUM, M G ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.
4. NISARGA EDUCATION TRUST (R) BHARATHI NURSING HOME, R C ROAD, HASSAN, REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT.
5. ISKCON & ADSHAYA PATHRA FOUNDATION, RAJAJINAGAR, HAREKRISHNA HILL WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BANGALORE,
6. CHETAN NEURO CENTRE AND EEG LABORATORY 1ST CROSS, SHANKAR MUTT ROAD, HASSAN, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, DR. A M NAGESH.
7. NETAJI RURAL DEVELOPMENT TRUST (R) NO. 212, SRI. RANGANATH NILAYA,
- 77 -
NETHAJI ROAD, VIDYANAGAR, HASSAN REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRSUTEE MR. K R SUSHEELA GOWDA.
8. COMMANDANT (BATTALLION) 5TH DIVISION, KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE, LALITH MAHAL ROAD, MYSORE-11,
9. RAJIV GANDHI RURAL HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED, 4TH FOOR K.H.B. COMPLEX, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE – 560 009.
10. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN.
11. THE DEPOT MANAGER KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K M NATARAJ, AAG AND SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R1, 8 AND R10,
SRI RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI A RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R2 SRI S V RAJESH, ADVOCATE FOR
M/S. RAJESH AND RAJESH FOR R3, SRI K S BHARATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R11,
R4, 5, 6, 7 AND 9 SERVED)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 26.2.2002 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE DATED 28.2.2002 AT ANNEXURE-B AND ALSO QUASH THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 3.12.2002 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE DATED 3.12.2002 AT ANNEXURE-C IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LANDS ARE CONCERNED UNDER SECTION 17 AND 19 OF THE KUDA ACT RESPECTIVELY.
- 78 -
THESE WRIT PETITIONS RESERVED ON 12.12.2012 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioning land-owners’ grievance in
W.P.Nos.394/2008, 9966/2008, 1914/2007,
2447/2008, 2733/2008, 1915/2007, 17000/2008 &
17052-17054/2008, 37548-37549/2009, 25570-
25572/2009, 5490-5491/2009, 2348-2458/2011,
11927-11947/2011, 14351-14352/2011, 39034/2010
& 39035/2010, 34369-34383/2010, 41507-
41519/2010 & 41676-41695/2010 and 41520-
41526/2010 is over the issuance of the preliminary
notification, dated 26.2.2002 and the final notification,
dated 3.12.2002 issued under Sections 17(1) and 19(1)
respectively of the Karnataka Urban Development
Authorities Act, 1987 (‘KUDA’ for short), in so far as
they pertain to the petitioners’ lands. The acquisition of
the land measuring 394 acres 35 guntas is for the
benefit of Hassan Urban Development Authority (‘HUDA’
- 79 -
for short) for the formation of Sri S.M.Krishna Nagar
(‘SMKN’ for short) Layout. Some of the petitioning land-
owners have also sought the declaration that the
acquisition proceedings have lapsed. Further, some of
them have also sought the quashing of the bulk
allotments made to organizations like Nisarga
Educational Trust, Karnataka State Cricket Association
(‘KSCA’ for short), Karnataka State Road Transport
Corporation (‘KSRTC’ for short), Netaji Rural
Development Trust, etc.
2. W.P.No.361/2008 is filed by Netaji Rural
Development Trust (R), in whose favour the HUDA had
allotted 6 acres of land. Its grievance is over the
cancellation of allotment on account of the delay in
paying the allotment consideration.
3. Sri Ravivarma Kumar, the Senior Counsel
appearing for Sri A.Ravishankar for HUDA has raised
two preliminary objections. He submits that the
majority of the petitioning land-owners have entered
- 80 -
into the consent award and have also received the
compensation amount. According to him, once the
landowner gives the consent to the acquisition of his
land and receives the compensation thereon, he loses
the right of raising the challenge to the acquisition
proceedings. He sought to draw support from the Apex
Court’s judgments in the cases of NORTHERN INDIAN
GLASS INDUSTRIES v. JASWANT SINGH AND
OTHERS reported in AIR 2003 SC 234 and URMILA
ROY AND OHERS vs. BENGAL PEARLESS HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD. AND OTHERS
reported in (2009) 5 SCC 242.
4. The details of giving the consent to the passing
of the awards and the receipt of the compensation
amounts by the various petitioning land-owners herein
are culled out in the tabular form hereinbelow. It is
based on the statement filed by the HUDA.
- 81 -
Sl. No.
W.P.Nos. No. of petitioners who have given the consent
No. of petitioners who have received the compensation
1. 1914/2007 7 5
2. 1915/2007 3 3
3. 2733/2008 8 8
4. 2447/2008 36 36
5. 17000/2008 and 17052-
54/2008
4 3
6. 394/2008 5 0
7. 9966/2008 8 8
8. 5490-5491/2009
3 0
9. 25570-72/2009 3 3
10. 41507-
519/2010
33 31
11. 41520-26/2010 5 1
12. 2348-2458/2011
88 84
13. 37548-549/2009
2 2
14. 34369-383/2010
15 15
15. 14351-352/2011
2 2
16. 39034 and 39035/2010
1 1
17. 11927 and 11947/2011
21 20
5. The second preliminary objection raised by the
learned Senior Counsel is that these petitions are liable
- 82 -
to be thrown out on the short ground of delay and
laches. He submits that the preliminary notification
and final notifications are issued in 2001 and 2002
respectively. The petitions are filed between 2007 and
2011. In all the cases, there is a delay of 5 to 9 years.
In this regard, he relies on the Apex Court’s decision in
the case of NORTHERN INDIAN GLASS INDUSTRIES
(supra).
6. He submits that on the passing of the award
and taking of the possession, the lands vest in the State
Government. The State Government has made over the
lands to the HUDA. Anything that comes to be vested by
the operation of law cannot be divested at the instance
of the erstwhile landowners.
7. Sri B.N.Jayadeva, the learned counsel for the
petitioners in W.P.Nos.9966/2008, 2447/2008, 2348-
2548/2011 and 11927-11947/2011 alleges the
colourable exercise of power in acquiring the
- 83 -
petitioners’ lands compulsorily. He submits that the
possession of the lands was forcibly taken from the
petitioners by misrepresenting the facts.
8. He submits that even before the passing of the
award, the large chunks of the lands were allotted to
bigwigs. He submits that the award was passed
only on 06.11.2003. On 19.11.2003, the HUDA has
allotted 50 acres of land to Shariff Academy of
Higher Education, Hassan vide HUDA’s letter, dated
19.11.2003 (Annexure-R4). He also brings to my notice
the extract of the HUDA's resolution for allotting 50
acres of land to Shariff Academy of Higher
Education, 40 acres to Rajiv Gandhi Educational Trust,
30 acres to KSCA and 10 acres to Cultural Society.
These bulk allotments are un-related to the housing
scheme. He submits that though only a sum of `3.00
lakhs per acre was given to the petitioners, the lands
- 84 -
are sold to the said beneficiaries for a consideration of
`5.00 lakhs per acre.
9. Sri Jayadeva submits that the bulk allotment
to the aforesaid beneficiaries is impermissible under
the provisions of the KUDA Act. Section 16 of the
KUDA Act, dealing with the particulars to be provided
in a development scheme, contains no enabling
provisions for making the bulk allotments to the said
bodies.
10. Nextly, Sri Jayadeva submits that as many as
5 sale deeds are executed by the HUDA in favour
of the beneficiaries. They cover an area of 54 acres.
Such transactions clearly show that the lands are
acquired for benefiting some organisations and
individuals and not for the purpose of developing any
housing layout.
11. Sri Jayadeva submits that the allotments
made are far in excess of the acquired lands. He
- 85 -
submits that the allotment may extend to 500 acres
whereas the acquired lands measure only 394 acres.
This itself is the signal proof of the fraudulent
acts, so submits Sri Jayadeva. He relies on the Apex
Court’s judgment in the case of ROYAL ORCHID
HOTELS LIMITED & ANR. v. G.JAYARAMA REDDY
AND OTHERS reported in MANU/SC/1146/2011=
(2011) 10 SCC 608 and the GREATER NOIDA
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v.
DEVENDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS reported in (2011)
12 SCC 375.
12. Sri Jayadeva submits that the giving of large
chunks of lands to the KSCA does not sub-serve any
public purpose. It is a private society and the public of
Hassan cannot secure entry into the KSCA’s premises
as a matter of right.
13. He submits that once the scheme is brought in
place, there cannot be any amendment to the same. In
- 86 -
the instant case, as the respondents claim to have taken
the possession in 2004 itself, there cannot be any
modification of the scheme after five years. If the
scheme is not implemented in five years, it is to be
presumed that it has lapsed.
14. Sri Jayadeva submits that as the earlier order
according approval to the HUDA’s scheme is given by
the Cabinet, any modification has to be approved only
by the Cabinet. According to him, the approval to the
modified scheme is given only by the Under Secretary.
He has also produced the copies of the agenda note and
of the Cabinet’s resolution to show that the earlier
scheme (as it stood before modification) was approved
by the Cabinet.
15. Sri Jayadeva brings to my notice the making of
the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities
(Allotment of Sites in Lieu of compensation for the land
acquired) Rules, 2009. Rule 3 of the said Rules entitles
- 87 -
the land-losers to get the developed lands between 35%
and 40%, if he agrees to be compensated by way of
residential sites. He further brings to my notice that the
HUDA vide its letter, dated 08.06.2010 has requested
the Government to take a decision in the matter of
application of said Rules for the petitioners’ cases. The
said decision cannot be taken at HUDA’s discretion.
16. Sri B.M.Mohan Kumar, the learned counsel for
the petitioners in W.P.Nos.39034 and 39035/2010 and
34369-34383/2010 submits that the compensation
paid is too meagre. Because of certain political
compulsions, the petitioners had to sign the consent
award. He submits that the possession of the
petitioners’ land is not taken in a manner known to the
provisions contained in the KUDA Act and the Rules
framed thereunder.
17. Sri Mohan Kumar submits that the lands are
being sold at a much higher price. He submits that the
- 88 -
petitioners in W.P.Nos.39034 & 39035/2010 have
constructed the residential buildings. He submits that
the petitioners and their family members have been
residing there. They have been paying the property tax.
The petitioners’ umpteen number of representations to
exclude the lands in question from acquisition have not
evoked any response from them.
18. Sri Mohan Kumar further produced the copies
of the details of metre installations serviced by the KEB,
of the electricity charges paid receipts and of the
property tax paid receipts issued by the local body.
19. He submits that the petitioners in
W.P.Nos.39034 & 39035/2010 have not received the
compensation in respect of 7 guntas of land out of total
extent of 1 acre, 27 guntas. He submits that on the
said 7 guntas of land, the petitioners have raised the
residential structure and the cattle-sheds.
- 89 -
20. Sri M.B.Naragund, the learned counsel for the
petitioners in W.P.Nos.2733/2008 and 25570-72/2009
complains of the total inaction in the matter of
implementing the scheme. He submits that the HUDA is
evincing interest only in allotting the poor farmers’ lands to
the influential bodies. He also reiterates the submissions
made by the other learend advocates appearing for the
petitoning land-owners. Smt.Manjula N.Tejaswi, the learned
counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.17000/2008 and
W.P.Nos.17052-54/2008 submits that she adopts the
submissions made by the other learned advocates
appearing on behalf of the petitioning land-owners in this
batch of petitions.
21. Sri H.C.Shivaramu, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.394/2008, 14351-
14352/2011, 41507-41519/2010 and 41520-41526/2010
submits that the scheme is not implemented at all; not even
an inch of land is developed by the HUDA. On the other
hand, 90% of the acquired lands is sold to the third parties
- 90 -
on as is where is basis. When the HUDA has not even
started the implementation of the scheme, it is to be held
that the scheme has lapsed. He submits that the
respondents are guilty of the dereliction of duty. He prays
for the restoration of the land to the poor farmers. When
there was no demand from the public for the housing sites,
there was no need for the development scheme at all, so
contends Sri Shivaramu.
22. The learned counsel submits that the Government
has made it very clear that the HUDA may take up the
scheme, if it has the necessary financial capability. It never
approved or authorised the HUDA to raise the financial
assistance for the purpose of acquiring the land.
23. He complains that the respondents have deviated
from the public purpose and that they have misused their
power conferred by the statute. Just because the poor
ignorant farmers have received the compensation, the
respondents cannot carry on with the acquisition
proceedings, as per their whims and fancies.
- 91 -
24. He has also relied on the Division Bench
judgment of this Court in the case of SMT.NINGAMMA
AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
OTHERS reported in 2011 (4) KCCR 2919, wherein it
is held that if the acquisiton of land is flawed by the
arbitrary exercise of power, the entire development
scheme is liable to be quashed and the land-owners are
entitled to the restoration of the lands.
25. Sri Shivaramu brings to my notice the
resolution passed by HUDA on 1.2.2000 and
16.12.2004 in respect of other lands. The said
resolutions provide for the sharing of the land between
HUDA and the land-losers in the ratio of 60:40. He
prays for the equal protection of law.
26. Sri Shivaramu makes a specific submission
with reference to the petitioners in W.P.No.394/2008.
He submits that the petitioners in the said case have
not availed of the compensation and that they have built
- 92 -
permanent structures on the lands in question and
have been residing therein.
27. Sri Nikilesh Rao, the learned counsel for the
petitioners in W.P.Nos.1914/2007, 1915/2007 and
5490-91/2009 submits that neither the delay nor the
passing of the consent awards would come in the way of
the petitioners challenging the acquisition proceedings,
as it is a case of fraudulent exercise of power. He would
contend that the cause of action for filing these petitions
are the subsequent transactions between the HUDA and
the several organisations and societies in whose favour
the bulk allotments are made, even when the approved
scheme does not provide for the same. He would
submit that the acquisition proceedings cannot be
saved in part on the ground that some of the petitioners
had given their consent to the passing of the award. In
support of his submissions, he relies on the Apex
- 93 -
Court’s judgment in the case of ROYAL ORCHID
HOTELS LIMITED (supra).
28. Sri Nikilesh Rao has also relied on the Apex
Court’s judgment in the case of GREATER NOIDA
(supra) to advance the submission that the quashment
of the acquisition proceedings cannot be confined only
to those who have not accepted the compensation. He
would contend that as the acquisition proceedings are
actuated by malafides, they cannot be sustained even in
respect of those land-owners, who have given the
consent to the passing of the award. He read out para
47 of the said decision. It is extracted hereinbelow:
“47. We do no find any substance in the
argument of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that quashing of the acquisition
proceedings should have been confined to
those who had not accepted the amount of
compensation. Once the High Court came to
the conclusion that the acquisition of land
was vitiated due to want of good faith and
- 94 -
the provisions of the 1894 Act had been
invoked for a private purpose, there could not
have been any justification for partially
sustaining the acquisition on the ground that
some of the landowners or their transferees
had accepted compensation by entering into
an agreement with the Authority. The
situation in which the people belonging to this
class are placed in the matter of acquisition of
their land leaves little choice to them but to
make compromises and try to salvage
whatever they can. Therefore, even though
some persons may not have resisted the
acquisition and may have accepted the
compensation by entering into agreements, it
is not possible to find any fault in the
approach adopted by the High Court.”
29. Sri S.V.Rajesh, the learned counsel appearing
for KSCA, respondent No.5 in W.P.Nos.1914/2007,
1915/2007, 5490-5491/2009 and respondent No.3 in
W.P.Nos.9966/2008, 2447/2008, 2348-2458/2011,
11927-11947/2011, 14351-14352/2011, 39034/2010
- 95 -
and 39035/2010, 34369-34383/2010, 41507-
41519/2010 and 41676-41695/2010 and 41520-
41526/2010 submits that the Government vide its
letter, dated 5.10.2005 (Annexure-R14 to the HUDA’s
statement of objections) has accorded approval to the
HUDA’s resolution to allot 25 acres to the KSCA at the
rate of `3 lakhs per acre. The learned counsel submits
that Section 39 of KUDA Act permits the sale of the
lands, if it is for the purpose of playground. He read out
Section 39, which is as follows:
“39. Prohibition of the use of area reserved
for parks, playground and civic amenities for
other purposes – The authority shall not sell
or otherwise dispose of any area reserved for
public parks and playgrounds and civic
amenities, for any other purpose and any
disposition so made shall be null and void.”
30. He submits that the Zoning Regulations also
permit the sale of the land reserved for playground. He
submits that the acquisition proceedings are completed
- 96 -
within 5 years from the date of the granting of the
approval to the scheme. Therefore, it may be incorrect
on the part of the petitioners to state that the scheme is
not substantially implemented. He brings to my notice
the Division Bench’s judgment of this Court in the case
of URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SHIMOGA v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in
2004(5) KLJ 233. He read out the following portion of
the order:
”6 ………………………… The making of the
award based on the declarations issued
under Sections 17 and 19 of the Act would in
our opinion constitute a step in the direction of
implementing the scheme. Other steps like
taking of possession, laying of roads and
allotment of sites would also contribute to the
implementation of the scheme in some
measure or the other. Suffice it to say that the
least which the authority was required to do
was to ensure that an award is made in
accordance with the provisions under the
Land Acquisition Act within a period of 5
- 97 -
years to save the scheme from lapsing under
Section 27 of the Karnataka Urban
Development Authorities act.”
31. He submits that as the possession of the land
is already taken by the Government and made over to
the HUDA, the erstwhile landowners are not entitled to
have the acquisition proceedings invalidated and to seek
the re-possession of their lands. He sought to draw the
support from the Apex Court’s judgment in the case of
Northern Indian Glass Industries (supra). The
relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted
hereinbelow:
“It is well settled position in law that after
passing the award and taking possession
under Section 16 of the Act, the acquired land
vests with the Government free from all
encumbrances. Even if the land is not used
for the purpose for which it is acquired, the
land owner does not get any right to ask for
revesting the land in him and to ask for
restitution of the possession.”
- 98 -
32. Nextly, the learned counsel brings to my notice
this Court’s decision in the case of JEELANI MOSQUE
COMMITTEE (R) v. THE SHIMOGA URBAN
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER reported
in ILR 2005 KAR 5819. He read out para 10 of the
said decision, which reads as follows:
“10. Section 39 imposes a fetter on the 1st
respondent not to sell or otherwise dispose off
the reserved area for any other purpose as
any such disposition is declared to be null
and void. It is true that Community Hall does
not find a place in the definition of ‘Civic
Amenity’, while Section 39 prohibits disposal
of the civic amenity site for any other
purpose. The learned counsel for the 1st
respondent was not able to point out to any
other provision of the KUDA Act, which
couched the authority with the power to
change the user of the site from the purpose
for which it is reserved. The legislature
having not empowered the 1st respondent to
change the user of the site, reserved for
- 99 -
Community Hall, the action of the 1st
respondent tantamounts to breach of public
trust.”
33. He submits that these petitions are liable to be
rejected on the short ground of delay and laches. He
submits that the decision of the Apex Court in the case
of Royal Orchid (supra) does not come to the rescue of
the petitioners in any way, as the facts of the said case
and the facts of this case are entirely different. He
submits that in the case of Royal Orchid (supra) the
property developer had already entered into an
agreement with the owners of the lands, whose lands
came to be notified subsequently at his instance. He
also offered the funds in return for the lands. Thus, as
the fraud vitiated the initiation of the acquisition
proceedings, the Apex Court held that the delay and
laches would not militate against the landowners. In
the instant case, as there is no fraud on power as such,
it is not open to the petitioners to challenge the
- 100 -
acquisition proceedings after 5 long years of the
issuance of the acquisition notification and that too
after receiving the compensation.
34. Sri K.S.Bharath Kumar, the learned counsel
appearing for the KSRTC – the respondent No.11 in
W.P.Nos.11927-11947/2011, 41507-41519/2010 and
41676-41695/2010 and 41520-41526/2010 and Sri
Srishaila, the learned counsel appearing for Smt.Swetha
Anand for the KSRTC – the respondent No.8 in
W.P.Nos.1915/2007 and 5490-5491/2009 and
respondent No.11 in W.P.Nos.2348-2458/2011, 14351-
14352/2011, 39034/2010 and 39035/2010 and 34369-
34383/2010 make the submissions akin to the
submissions of Sri S.V.Rajesh.
35. Sri M.S. Bhagwat, the learned counsel for
Nethaji Rural Development Trust (petitioner in W.P.
No.361/2008 and respondent No.6 in
W.P.Nos.1914/2007, 1915/2007 & 5490-5491/2009,
- 101 -
respondent No.7 in W.P. No.9966/2008, 2447/2008,
2348-2458/2011, 11927-11947/2011, 14351-
14352/2011, 39034 & 39035/2010, 34369-
34383/2010, 41507-41519/2010 & 41676-695/2010
and 41520-51526/2010) submits that the six acres of
land was allotted by HUDA for a consideration of Rs. 5
lakhs per acre. He submits that as the allotment is
unilaterally cancelled, the said party has approached
this Court with a prayer for quashing the cancellation
order and consequently for a direction to HUDA to re-
allot the land.
36. Sri Bhagwat submits that the writ petitions
filed by the landowners are not in public interest. As
none of the landowners are the applicants for the
allotment of sites, they cannot have any grievance over
the allotment of sites to the third parties. He also prays
for the rejection of the petitions filed by the landowners
on the ground of locus-standi and on the ground of
- 102 -
delay and laches. His last submission is that the
original scheme has to be retained; if the modified
scheme is given effect to, the said party would loose the
opportunity of getting the land measuring six acres.
37. Sri K.N. Nitish, the learned counsel
appearing for Sri K.V.Narasimhan for Nisarga
Educational Trust (respondent No. 4 in
W.P.Nos.9966/2008, 1914/2007, 2447/2008,
1915/2007, 5490-5491/2009, 2348-2458/2011,
11927-11947/2011, 14351-14352/2011, 39034 &
39035/2010, 34369-34383/2010, 41507-41519/2010
& 41520-41526/2010) and for Chethana Neuro Centre
(respondent No. 6 in W.P.Nos.5490-5491/2009, 2348-
2458/2011, 11927-11947/2011, 14351-14352/2011,
39034 & 39035/2010, 34369-34383/2010 & 41507-
41519/2010) submits that the said Trust is a bonafide
purchaser of the land measuring 10 acres for a
consideration of Rs.5 lakhs per acre. He submits that,
- 103 -
as the said land is given for starting the educational
institution, it falls within the meaning of civic amenities
site. He also submits that the HUDA’s resolution is
further approved by the Government. It is only on
taking the Government’s sanction that the HUDA has
executed the sale deed. He submits that the recitals
and clauses in the sale deed are clearly indicative that
the HUDA has the power to execute the sale deed.
Without prejudice to these submissions, he contends
that whether the HUDA really has such a power or not
is a matter of indoor management of the HUDA, with
which the allottees or purchasers are not concerned.
For its internal problems, HUDA cannot cancel the sale
deed. By cancelling the sale deed, the said Trust’s
precious rights cannot be extinguished. He submits
that the rights and liabilities of the buyer and seller are
governed by the provisions contained in Section 55 of
the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
- 104 -
38. On the impermissibility of the cancellation of
the sale deed in the writ proceedings, he read out
paragraph 80 and 86 of the Full Bench judgment of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 2006 (6) ALT
523 in the case of YANALA MALLESHWARI AND
OTHERS v. ANANTHULA SAYAMMA AND OTHERS.
They are extracted hereinbelow :
“80. Assuming that the petitioners filed
suits before the civil Court for the relief, as is
prayed herein before this Court, having
regard to the pleadings, the civil Court has to
necessarily frame the issues, which would
be somewhat like this, namely, (i) whether
the sale deeds executed by the vendors in
favour of the petitioners are valid and
binding on the owners of the property; (ii)
whether the GPA executed by the owner in
favour of the persons, who executed sale
deeds enables such GPA holder to convey or
transfer the immovable property; (iii)
whether the person who obtained GPA from
the real owner has not played fraud and
misrepresentation on the real owner; (iv)
- 105 -
whether the sale deed executed is void or
voidable as vitiated by fraud and
misrepresentation; and (v) whether the
cancellation deed is liable to be cancelled.
There could be other incidental or related
issues but mainly these will be issues in
case the petitioners go to civil Court. This
Court cannot resolve these issues in writ
petitions. Each one of the issues requires
evidence – both oral and documentary. Such
evidence must be relevant and must relate to
existence or non-existence of every disputed
fact in issue. Mere pleadings either by way
of plaint or written statement or for that
matter, an affidavit would not be sufficient
to decide the issue either way. in such a
situation, an assumption that a vendor
cannot cancel the sale deed or the
registering authority cannot accept and
register the cancellation deed would be
legally incorrect.
86. Whether the vendors file suits for
cancellation of the instrument under Section
31 or for declaration of title under Section 34
- 106 -
or whether vendees file suits for cancellation
of the cancellation deed, there are bound to
be allegations of fraud, misrepresentation
and illegality by both the parties. an
elaborate procedure is available under Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), Evidence Act,
Specific Relief Act and Transfer of Property
Act, which has to be followed by a civil
Court. Certain issues cannot be adjudicated
by resorting to summary procedure. In a
writ petition, this Court decides the issues
based on the affidavit evidence. Whenever
affidavit evidence is not sufficient and
further probe is required in the sense that
persons who swear affidavits need to be
cross-examined and confirmed with
documentary evidence, a writ petition is not
a proper remedy. In a sale transaction, it is
essentially a contract between two persons
and if one person after conclusion of the
contract goes back and makes attempt or
purports to make an attempt to deny the
benefit of the contract of the other party, the
remedy is only in the civil Court.”
- 107 -
39. He also sought to draw support from the Full
Bench judgment of Madras High Court in the case of
M/s. Latif Estate Line India Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Hadeeja
Ammal in W.A. Nos. 592 & 938/2009. The relevant
paragraph in the said judgment is extracted hereunder :
“59. After giving our anxious
consideration on the questions raised in the
instant case, we come to the following
conclusion :-
(i) A deed of cancellation of a sale
unilaterally executed by the transferor does
not create, assign, limit or extinguish any
right, title or interest in the property and is of
no effect. Such a document does not create
any encumbrance in the property already
transferred. Hence such a deed of
cancellation cannot be accepted for
registration. (ii) Once title to the property is
vested in the transferee by the sale of the
property, it cannot be divested unto the
transferor by execution and registration of a
deed of cancellation even with the consent of
the parties. The proper course would be re-
- 108 -
convey the property by a deed of conveyance
by the transferee in favour of the transferor.
(iii) Where a transfer is effected by way of
sale with the condition that title will pass on
payment of consideration, and such
intention is clear from the recital in the deed,
then such instrument or sale can be
cancelled by a deed of cancellation with the
consent of both the parties on the ground of
non-payment of consideration. The reason is
that in such a sale deed, admittedly, the title
remained with the transferor, (iv) In other
cases, a complete and absolute sale can be
cancelled at the instance of the transferor
only by taking recourse to the Civil Court by
obtaining a decree of cancellation of sale
deed on the ground interalia of fraud or any
other valid reasons.”
40. He also brought to my notice of the Apex
Court’s Judgment in the case SUNIL PANNALAL
BANTHIA AND OTHERS v. CITY AND INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF MAHARASHTRA
LTD. AND ANOTHER reported in 2007 STPL(LE)
- 109 -
38200 SC. He read out paragraph 22, which is as
follows :
“22. On the legal question, it is quite obvious
that having acted and held out assurances to
the appellants which caused the appellants to
alter their position to their prejudice, it was not
open to CIDCO to take a unilateral decision to
cancel the allotment on the ground that it had
acted without jurisdiction and/or in excess of
jurisdiction and in violation of its rules and
regulations. Even on that score, the argument
advanced on behalf of CIDCO is unacceptable
having regard to Regulation 4 of the New
Bombay Disposal of Land Regulations, 1975
extracted hereinabove which empowered CIDCO
to dispose of plots of land even on the basis of
individual applications. The said aspect of the
matter has been dealt with in detail in Civil
Appeal Nos. 408/07 and 410/07 referred to
hereinabove.”
41. Sri Ravivarma Kumar, the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for Sri Ravishankar for the HUDA
submits that there is no departure or aberration from
the modified scheme, as approved by the Government.
- 110 -
The HUDA has already received 16,651 applications for
allotment. He submits that this number includes the
applications made for allotment of sites in other layouts,
where the applicants could not secure their allotment.
He brings to my notice the demand survey report. It is
stated therein that the cases of the unsuccessful
applicants for allotment of sites in other layouts could
be considered on priority basis for the allotment of sites
in the SMKN layout. He submits that the HUDA’s letter,
dated 15.12.2000 and its accompanying documents are
self-explanatory. The internal annexure to the said
document reads as follows:
“3. F »AzÉ ¤UÀ¢vÀ s̈ÁUÀUÀ¼À°è ¤ªÉñÀö£À PÉÆÃj 16651
d£À ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ £ÉÆöÃAzÀt ºÀt ¸À°è¹ vÀªÀÄä ºÉ¸ÀgÀö£ÀÄß
£ÉÆöÃAzÁ¬Ä¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. EzÀgÀ°è PÉ®ªÀÅ d£À ¤ªÉñÀö£ÀzÀ MlÄÖ
ºÀtzÀ PÁ®Ä s̈ÁUÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ ¥ÁªÀw¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F jÃw
¤ªÉñÀö£À ºÀAaPÉUÁöV ¤jÃQë¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀªÀjUÉ GzÉÝÃö²vÀ
§qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è ªÉÆzÀ® DzÀåvÉ ¤ÃqÀ̄ ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.”
- 111 -
42. To show that the allotment proceedings are of
continuing nature, he read out Clause (iv) of the HUDA’s
Notification, dated 06.09.2005 calling for applications
for allotment. It reads as follows:
“F »AzÉÀ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ ¤ªÉñÀö£À PÉÆöÃj Cfð À̧°è¸ÀĪÁUÀ
1/4£É s̈ÁUÀ ºÀt vÀÄA©gÀĪÀ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ. FUÀ ««zsÀ
D¼ÀvÉAiÀÄ ¤ªÉñÀö£ÀUÀ½UÉ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ ªÀÄÄAUÀqÀ ºÀtPÉÌ
ªÀåvÁå¸À«zÀÝ°. ªÀåvÁå À̧zÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀæ ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.”
43. He also submits that the fixation of the
allotment consideration at Rs.56.40 per sq.ft. is done on
scientific lines, as is discernible from internal Annexure-
5 to the said letter.
44. To show that the preliminary notification
issued under Section 17(1) of the KUDA Act is
also published in local newspaper in compliance
with the requirements of Section 17(3) of the KUDA
Act, he has produced the original ‘Hassan
- 112 -
Madyama’ issue, dated 23.03.2001 containing the said
notification.
45. The learned Senior Counsel submits that in
compliance with the interim order, dated 08.04.2009
passed by this Court, the Government has accorded
approval to the modified scheme on 20.05.2009
(Annexure R60 to HUDA’s additional statement of
objections).
46. The learned Senior Counsel assures that the
SMKN Layout would be an ideal layout in the State and
perhaps in the country itself. It would have ultra-
modern facilities. All the requirements for achieving
this goal would be scrupulously adhered to.
47. On the Court’s specifically asking the learned
Senior Counsel as to how some portions of the acquired
lands came to be sold to certain parties, on what basis
the sale consideration came to be fixed, on what basis
the extent of the land came to be determined in the
- 113 -
absence of the auditing of the land requirements and
further as to how the public property came to be
disposed of without even issuing the
advertisement/notification calling for applications for
allotment, he fairly submits that some irregularities
have taken place in the matter of allotment. He seeks
leave of the Court to re-trace the HUDA’s steps so that
its acts could be brought in conformity with the
approved scheme.
48. He submits that the sale deeds are not
upholdable at all and that therefore they are liable to be
set aside. For advancing the contention that under
certain circumstances even the registered deeds,
transferring the property, can be set aside in the writ
proceedings, he brings to my notice the Apex Court
judgment in the case of B.L.WADHERA v. UNION OF
INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (2002) 9 SCC 108.
- 114 -
He read out the operative portion of the said judgment
from para 46(i); it is extracted hereinbelow:
“46 (i) consequent upon quashing of the
Gram Panchayat resolutions dated
23.10.1983 and 8.12.1989, the government
orders dated 3.3.1984 and 6.6.1990 and the
gift deeds executed by the Gram Panchayat in
favour of the respondent Trust, the
possession of the land, the subject-matter of
this litigation shall be handed over by
respondent No.7, its Chairman, Directors,
employees, representatives and agents,
initially to the State Government who shall
thereafter deliver it to the Gram Panchayat
with specific directions for utilization of the
land in the manner prescribed.
49. He also sought to draw support from the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of AKHIL
BHARTIYA UPBHOKTA CONGRESS v. STATE OF M.P.
AND OTHERS reported in (2011) 5 SCC 29. The Apex
Court is pleased to say in para 83 of the said
judgment:
- 115 -
“83. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
The impugned order of the Division Bench of
the High Court is set aside and the writ
petition filed by the appellant is allowed. The
allotment of 20 acres of land to respondent 5
is declared illegal and quashed. The
Notifications dated 6.6.2008 and 5.9.2008
issued by the State Government under
Sections 23-A(1)(a) and (2) are also quashed.
The Commissioner, Town and Country
Planning, Bhopal is directed to take
possession of the land and use the same
strictly in accordance with the Bhopal
Development Plan. The State Government is
directed to refund the amount deposited by
respondent 5 within a period of 15 days from
today.”
50. He also relies on this Court’s decision in the
case of D.RAJENDRA KUMAR vs. STATE OF
KARNATAKA & ORS. reported in ILR 2009 Kar.2029
wherein the allotment made by and the agreement
executed by the Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Board in favour of the allottee came to be
- 116 -
quashed, as the same were running contrary to the
Rules.
51. On being asked, what is the rate of interest at
which the HUDA would give back the sale consideration
which it has received from the allottees/purchasers in
the event of the cancellation of the transactions, he
submits that the interest rate cannot be more than 6%,
as the HUDA itself has borrowed the funds from the
financial institutions at the rate of 14.5% per annum.
52. The learned Senior Counsel submits that
nothing survives for any consideration of the allegations
being made by the petitioning land-owners, as they were
relevant only in the context of the original scheme. On
the approval accorded by the Government on
20.05.2009 to the HUDA’s modified scheme, it is the
anxiety of the HUDA to utilise the acquired lands
strictly in accordance with law.
- 117 -
53. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the
petitioners are not entitled to the allotment of any site
under the incentive scheme, as they have resisted the
compulsory acquisition by filing these petitions.
54. The learned Additional Advocate General Sri
Nataraj submits that the matter is mainly between the
petitioners and the HUDA. He submits that the
eligibility list for the grant of sites as per the Karnataka
Urban Development Authorities (Incentive for Voluntary
Surrender of Sites) Rules, 1991 is prepared. He would
further hasten to clarify that its basis is the extent of
the land acquired from the petitioners; it cannot be
construed as the list of the entitled persons.
55. The learned Additional Advocate General
submits that even when the scheme may have elapsed,
the acquisition is intact. The lapsing of the scheme in
no way entitles the erstwhile landowners to seek the
reversion or restoration of the land to themselves. He
brings to my notice the Apex Court judgment in the case
- 118 -
of OFFSHORE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED v.
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND
OTHERS. reported in (2011) 3 SCC 139. The
provisions found in the relevant Sections 27 and 36 of
the KUDA Act have received the following interpretation
at the hands of the Apex Court:
“38. On a conjunctive reading of the
provisions of Sections 27 and 36 of the State
Act, it is clear that where a scheme lapses,
the acquisition may not. This, of course, will
depend upon the facts and circumstances of a
given case. Where, upon completion of the
acquisition proceedings, the land has vested
in the State Government in terms of Section
16 of the Land Acquisition Act, the acquisition
would not lapse or terminate as a result of
lapsing of the scheme under Section 27 of the
BDA Act. An argument to the contrary cannot
be accepted for the reason that on vesting, the
land stands transferred and vested in the
State/Authority free from all encumbrances
and such status of the property is incapable
of being altered by fiction of law either by the
- 119 -
State Act or by the Central Act. Both these
Acts do not contain any provision in terms of
which property, once and absolutely, vested
in the State can be reverted to the owner on
any condition. There is no reversal of the title
and possession of the State. However, this
may not be true in cases where acquisition
proceedings are still pending and land has
not been vested in the Government in terms of
Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act.
39. What is meant by the language of
Section 27 of the BDA Act i.e., “provisions of
Section 36 shall become inoperative”, is that if
the acquisition proceedings are pending and
where the scheme has lapsed, further
proceedings in terms of Section 36(3) of the
BDA Act i.e., with reference to the land which,
upon its acquisition, has vested in the State
and thereafter vested in the Authority in
terms of Section 36(3); such vesting is
incapable of being disturbed except in the
case where the Government issues a
notification for revesting the land in itself, or a
corporation, or a local authority in cases
where the land is not required by the
- 120 -
Authority under the provisions of Section
37(3) of the BDA Act.”
56. He has also relied on the Apex Court’s
judgment in the case of NORTHERN INDIAN GLASS
INDUSTRIES (supra). He read out para 12 of the said
judgment, which is extracted hereinbelow:
“12. If the land was not used for the
purpose for which it was acquired, it was
open to the State Government to take action
but that did not confer any right on the
respondents to ask for restitution of the land.
As already noticed, the State Government in
this regard has already initiated proceedings
for resumption of the land. In our view, there
arises no question of any unjust enrichment
to the appellant Company.”
57. Based on the aforesaid judicial view, he
submits that the HUDA may use the acquired lands for
some other purpose, if the scheme has lapsed or at the
most the Government may draw the acquired lands to
itself and give them to a Government Corporation or a
- 121 -
local authority. It is his emphatic submission that for
no reason and under no circumstances, the lands
vested in the Government/authority can be revested in
favour of the erstwhile land-owners.
58. He submits that as the petitioning land-
owners have agreed to the acquisition of their lands and
as their grievances are only over the outright sale of
some portions of the properties in favour of some
parties, their interest would be met, if the sale
transactions are held to be bad.
59. He submits that the sale deeds executed by
the HUDA in favour of the third parties is absolutely
unjust. On the ground of outright sale of the lands in
question, the acquisition proceedings cannot be
invalidated. Only the sale transactions can be
invalidated.
- 122 -
60. If the acquisition proceedings are to be
quashed only in respect of the lands belonging to the
petitioners, it would create serious problems, so
submits the learned Additional Advocate General. Many
landowners have accepted the compensation; they may
have invested their compensation amount into long
term projects and altered their positions materially. If
the land acquisition proceedings are quashed in their
entirety, that too without hearing them, it would affect
their interest adversely.
61. He submits that as per the demand raised by
the petitioners, this Court may kindly give a direction to
the HUDA to meaningfully implement the modified
scheme.
62. In the course of rejoinder, Sri Nikilesh Rao, the
learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
authorities relied upon by Sri Nitesh do not come to the
rescue of the purchasers in any way. He submits that
- 123 -
in the reported cases, relied upon by the purchasers,
the transactions are between two private parties. What
distinguishes this case from the facts of the reported
cases are that there is no provision in law for executing
the sale deed in favour of a party by the HUDA in
respect of a civic amenity site or the area earmarked for
the purpose of a playground. As the HUDA did not have
the competence to execute the sale deed, no valid title
has passed on to the purchasers.
63. It is submitted by Sri Nikilesh Rao that the
petitioners in W.P.Nos.5490-5491/2009 have already
filed the objections to the acquisition of the lands in
question on the ground that they fall within the green
belt.
64. The two preliminary objections are required to
be considered first. Whether the petitions filed by the
landowners are to be rejected on the short ground of
maintainability, as some of them have given their
- 124 -
consent to the passing of the award and have received
the compensation thereof. The HUDA’s reliance on the
decisions in the cases of NORTHERN INDIAN GLASS
INDUSTRIES AND URMILA ROY (supra) would come to
the HUDA’s rescue but in a qualified way. In the said
decisions, it is laid down that once a land owner
agitates for higher compensation, he loses the right of
resisting land acquisition. In the instant case, majority
of the petitioning land-owners have given their consent
to the passing of the award and have also received the
compensation amount thereof. They are therefore
estopped from challenging the acquisition notifications.
Their challenge to the impugned notifications fails. But
that does not mean that no relief can be given to them.
If the acquisition proceedings are found to be not liable
to be invalidated, then the question of moulding the
relief has to be examined.
- 125 -
65. Similarly, the second threshold objection of
delay and laches also militate against the petitioning
land-owners. As rightly pointed out by the learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of HUDA, there is a
delay of 5-9 years in challenging the acquisition
notifications. The challenge to the acquisition
notifications is liable to be negatived on the short
ground of delay and laches. But the same does not
disentitle the petitioners to get the moulded relief in
these proceedings.
66. As held by the Apex Court in the case of
ROYAL ORCHID (supra), the High Court may not
enquire into belated or stale claim and may deny relief
to the petitioner, if he is found guilty of laches. The
Apex Court has also observed that the rule against the
laches is one of the practice and not of law. In the said
reported case, the owner of the land challenged the
validity of the acquisition notifications after 12 years.
- 126 -
The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ
petition on the ground of delay. The Division Bench of
the High Court nullified the acquisition of the land on
the ground of fraud and directed the return of the land
to the land-owner. The Division Bench’s judgment was
affirmed by the Apex Court, because the challenge to
the acquisition proceedings was initiated on the
alienation of the acquired lands to the private parties.
In the instant case also, the grievance of the land-
owners is over the diversification of the lands and the
violation of the approved housing scheme.
67. On thus considering the preliminary
objections, this Court proposes to take up the following
core issues ad seriatim:
1) Whether the allotments made and sale deeds
executed by HUDA in favour of organizations
like, Nisarga Educational Trust, KSCA,
Chetana Neuro Centre, Netaji Rural
- 127 -
Development Trust, etc. withstand the scrutiny of
law?
2) Whether the acquisition proceedings are liable to
be declared as lapsed?
3) What relief, if any, can be given to the petitioning
land owners?
68. In Re.Question 1): The allotments made by
HUDA in favour of organizations like Nisarga
Educational Trust, KSCA, Chethana Neuro Centre,
Netaji Rural Development Trust, etc. are unsupportable
and unsustainable for one simple reason. The
requirements of public law are not complied with at all.
No advertisement is issued calling for the applications
from the desirous parties for the allotment of civic
amenity sites. The allotment of land, as held by the
Apex Court in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta
Congress (supra), has to be founded on a sound,
transparent, discernable and well-defined policy. If the
- 128 -
allotments are made without calling for the applications,
such acts are to be treated as arbitrary and
discriminatory. The allotment of land to the
institutions/organizations engaged in educational,
cultural, social or philanthropic activities or rendering
services to society cannot be done in a manner
inconsistent with the doctrine of equality.
69. There is no provision in the KUDA or the Rules
framed thereunder for making the allotment of land
without issuing the advertisement and without calling
for the applications from eligible and desirous parties.
70. It is also helpful to refer to the Apex Court’s
judgment in the case of CENTRE FOR PUBLIC
INTEREST LITIGATION AND OTHERS v. UNION OF
INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (2012) 3 SCC 1,
wherein the Apex Court has expressed the considered
view that the methods like ‘first come first served’ when
used for alienations of natural resources/public
- 129 -
property are likely to be misused by unscrupulous
people, who are only interested in garnering maximum
financial benefit and have no respect for the
constitutional ethos and values.
71. Equal opportunity, fairness and transparency
can be ensured either by conducting a duly publicized
auction or by fixing the allotment consideration and
calling for applications and comparatively evaluating
them for sub-serving the public interest.
72. In the instant case, the bulk allotments made
by HUDA in favour of some societies/organizations is
abhorable. It is not known on what basis the
societies/organizations made the applications for the
allotment of the lands. Further, neither the HUDA nor
the Government have audited the land requirements of
the allottee societies/organizations. The fixation of the
allotment consideration is also not uniform for several
allottee societies/organizations. It is not shown to this
- 130 -
Court that the approved scheme provides for such
allotments.
73. The allotments in favour of the said societies
and organisations have deprived the land-owners of
their land under the cover of public purpose; the
diversification of the land for a private purpose is not
permissible.
74. Considering all these aspects of the matter, I
have no hesitation in holding that the allotment made in
favour of Nisarga Educational Trust, KSCA, Chethana
Neuro Centre, Netaji Rural Development Trust, etc. do
not withstand the scrutiny of law. Such allotments are
liable to be withdrawn, if they are already not yet
withdrawn.
75. Subsequent to the allotments made in favour
of the said organizations, good sense has dawned on the
HUDA. In its meeting held on 29.2.2012, it has passed
- 131 -
the resolution that without achieving the purpose of the
scheme, making the bulk allotments is illegal. It has
also resolved that the allotment consideration be
refunded to the said organizations/societies.
76. The allied question that arises for my
consideration is whether the HUDA is justified in
cancelling the allotments without affording an
opportunity of hearing to the allottees. The
administrative decision-making, if it involves civil
consequences, has to be made by adhering to the
principles of natural justice. But when the allotments
are void abinitio, the observance of the principles of
natural justice would only be an empty formality. When
the allotments are illegal per se, any direction to hear
the allottess before cancelling the allotment would only
amount to issuing a futile writ. In taking this view, I am
fortified by the Apex Court’s judgment in the case of
S.L.KAPOOR v. JAGMOHAN AND OTHERS reported in
- 132 -
AIR 1981 SC 136. The relevant paragraph of the said
judgment reads as follows:
“In our view the principles of natural
justice know of no exclusionary rule
dependent on whether it would have made
any difference if natural justice had been
observed. The non-observance of natural
justice is itself prejudice to any man and proof
of prejudice independently of proof of denial
of natural justice is unnecessary. It ill comes
from a person who has denied justice that the
person who has been denied justice is not
prejudiced. As we said earlier where on the
admitted or indisputable facts only one
conclusion is possible and under the law only
one penalty is permissible, the Court may not
issue its writ to compel the observance of
natural justice, not because it is not
necessary to observe natural justice but
because Courts do not issue futile writs. We
do not agree with the contrary view taken by
the Delhi High Court in the judgment under
appeal.”
- 133 -
77. In the case of GREATER NOIDA (supra) the
Apex Court has held that the builders, who have
engineered the acquisition of land, cannot step into the
shoes of the state functionaries and offer justification
for the acquisition of a particular parcel of land. The
grievance of the builders of not being given an
opportunity of hearing was held to be misconceived.
The Apex Court took the considered view that the
complaint of violation of audi alteram partem stands
redressed, as they have been given the sufficient
opportunity of hearing by it (Hon’ble Supreme Court).
78. The allotments made to the said organizations
are directed to be cancelled, if they are not yet
cancelled. Any amounts that HUDA has received from
the said organizations shall be refunded to them within
four weeks from the date of the issuance of the certified
copy of today’s order. The said amounts shall carry
interest at the rate of 9.5% per annum from the date of
- 134 -
the receipt of the amounts till the date of refund. This
rate of interest is specified and prescribed based on the
HUDA’s resolution, dated 29.02.2012, wherein a
reference is made to the HUDA taking the financial
assistance from the Vijaya Bank at the rate of 9.5% per
annum.
79. It is also made clear that the liberty is
reserved to the said societies/organizations to respond
to the advertisement, if, as and when HUDA issues the
same calling for the applications for allotment. Other
things remaining the same, that is, if the claims of the
present allottees and of the fresh applicants are
evaluated and found to be possessing the same merits
and if they are required to pay the same allotment
consideration, be it a pre-fixed allotment consideration
or the open auction, the present allottees would be
preferred.
- 135 -
80. A further consideration of the case of the
allottees is required, if the allotment has culminated in
the execution of the sale deed. The registered sale deed
cannot be cancelled by an unilateral act of the vendor.
In taking this view, I am fortified by the decisions of this
Court in the cases of BINNY MILL LABOUR WELFARE
HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED
v. D.R.MRUTHYUNJAYA ARADHYA reported in ILR
2008 KAR 2245 and K.RAJU v. BANGALORE
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY reported in ILR 2011
KAR 120.
81. Following the said decisions, I direct HUDA to
take steps for the cancellation of the sale deeds
executed in favour of the allottees by filing the duly
constituted suits in the competent civil court. I do not
propose to set aside the sale deed in the writ
proceedings. The facts of B.L.Wadhera’s case (supra)
and of the cases on hand are different. In
- 136 -
B.L.Wadhera’s case, the gift deeds executed by Gram
Panchayat were quashed.
82. Further, the civil court shall make every
possible endeavour to dispose of the anticipated
suit/suits within eight months of its/their filing.
83. In Re.Question 2): No irregularities in the
acquisition proceedings are pointed out. The
irregularities are in the post-acquisition period. The
bulk allotments of lands are made to different
organizations/societies in contravention of the approved
scheme and defying the requirements of public law.
This aspect of the matter is already dealt with at length
while examing with the question No.1. But on the
ground of allotments being illegal, the acquisition
proceedings cannot be declared as lapsed. As held by
the Apex Court in the case of Offshore Holdings
Private Limited (supra), once the acquired lands come
to be vested in the Government, they cannot be
- 137 -
divested. It is not in dispute that the award is passed
and the possession of the lands is taken over by the
Government, which in turn has placed them at the
disposal of the HUDA. At this juncture, there cannot be
any reversal of title and possession by restoring the
lands to the owners. If the scheme itself has lapsed, the
acquisition proceedings would lapse, if they (acquisition
proceedings) have not attained the finality. In the
instant case, as the acquisition proceedings are
concluded, there cannot be any re-vesting of the lands
in the erstwhile owners.
84. In the case of Northern Indian Glass
Industries (supra), the Apex Court has held that the
land owner has no right to seek the re-vesting of the
land in himself, even if the land is not used for the
purpose for which it is acquired. I see considerable
force in the submissions urged on behalf of the
Government that even if it is assumed that the scheme
- 138 -
has lapsed, the Government may at the most draw the
acquired lands to itself from the HUDA.
85. As the majority of the land-owners have
accorded their consent to the land acquisition and have
received the compensation-amounts, they are not
justified in demanding the restoration of the lands to
them. It is also to be noticed that besides some of the
land-owners, who have accepted the compensation
amounts have not come before the Court seeking the
relief of restoration of the lands to them. If the lands
are ordered to be restored to the petitioning land-owners
and if the lands of those land-owners, who have not
filed the writ petitions, are left with the HUDA, it would
create not merely confusion but chaotic state of affairs.
No housing layout can be formed in stray and isolated
bits of lands. If the acquisition is intact in some
pockets and disrupted in other pockets, it would affect
the contiguity of the project adversely. Vesting of some
lands in the State and re-vesting of some lands in
- 139 -
favour of the land owners may render the
implementation of the housing scheme an impossibility.
86. It is profitable to refer to the Apex Court’s
judgment in the case of OM PRAKASH AND ANOTHER
vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS reported in (1998) 6
SCC 1. In para 30 of the said decision, the Apex court
has this to say:
“………. We find considerable force in the
contention of the learned Senior counsel for
the respondent that it is neither advisable nor
feasible to interfere with the acquisition of
such large tracts of lands when the occupants
of 9/10th of the acquired lands have not
thought it fit to challenge these acquisition
proceedings and the occupants of only 1/10th
of lands are agitating their grievance since
more than six years, firstly before the High
Court and then before this Court. ………”
87. Following the aforesaid decision of the Apex
Court, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
THIMMAPPA AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF
- 140 -
KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in 2003 (6)
Kar.L.J.5 declined to interfere with the acquisition
proceedings, as the land acquisition in respect of 6
acres 10 guntas out of 7 acres 26 guntas had become
final.
88. Considering all these aspects of the matter, I
decline to grant the relief of declaration that the
acquisition proceedings have lapsed. The second
question is answered accordingly.
89. In Re.Question 3: It is not in dispute that the
land-owners did not resist the acquisition in the first
instance. On the other hand, they have readily
accepted the compulsory acquisition of their lands.
Majority of them have even given their consent to the
passing of the award and received the compensation
thereof. They have also made over the possession of
their respective lands to the Government. It is only
when the bulk allotments were being made in
- 141 -
contravention of the approved scheme that some of the
land-owners have chosen to file these writ petitions.
Just because they have filed these writ petitions
aggreived by the subsequent developments, they cannot
be disentitled to any relief. Nor there can be any
discrimination between the land-owners, who have not
filed the writ petitions and who have filed the writ
petitions. The principle of equal protection of law has to
be extended to the petitioning land-owners.
90. It is also not in dispute that HUDA had made
bulk allotment of lands to the various
organizations/societies even when there was no
provision for the same in the sanctioned scheme. The
HUDA has admitted its mistake and has made an
honest effort to rectify the same. In its meeting held on
29.2.2012, the HUDA has said that because of the
unsustainable bulk allotments, the land-owners are
losing the opportunity to get the incentive sites. It is in
this background that it has resolved to implement the
- 142 -
housing scheme in question by giving 40% of the
developed lands to the land-owners by requiring them to
return the entire compensation amount with interest.
91. The Karnataka Urban Development
Authorities (Allotment of sites in lieu of compensation
for the land acquired) Rules, 2009 also provide for the
allotment of sites to the persons, who voluntarily give
up their lands. These Rules are made to speed up the
land acquisition process free from litigation.
92. Section 31(3) and (4) of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 also provide for the grant of other lands in
exchange for the acquired land.
93. The HUDA’s resolutions, dated 01.02.2000
and 16.12.2004 in respect of other lands, also provide
for taking the land by the HUDA and the land-owners in
the ratio of 60:40. This healthy precedent has to be
followed in these cases too.
94. My answer to the question No.3 is that the
petitioning land-owners are entitled to the allotment of
- 143 -
developed lands. Their entitlement is to 40% of the
lands acquired from them. Their obligation shall be to
return the entire compensation amount along with
interest at the rate of 9.5% per annum from the date of
the receipt of the amounts till the date of the return of
the amounts. I am prescribing the interest at the rate of
9.5% per annum based on the agenda note for the
HUDA’s meeting on 29.2.2012. The agenda note states
that the HUDA has availed of the financial assistance in
the region of Rs.15 crores from Vijaya Bank with
interest at the rate of 9.5% per annum. While imposing
the interest, neither the HUDA nor the petitioning land-
owners can be permitted to make unlawful gain. The
petitioning land-owners cannot be saddled with more
interest liability than what is borne by the HUDA.
95. The Government shall accord approval to the
HUDA’s resolution, dated 29.2.2012 within one month
from the date of the issuance of the certified copy of
today’s order. Needless to observe that the Government
- 144 -
shall approve the said resolution on such terms, as are
permissible in law.
96. The HUDA is directed to issue the demand
notice to the land-owners, who have received the
compensation, quantifying the amounts liable to be paid
by them. It shall be done within one month from the
date of the receipt of the Government’s order of approval
for the said resolution of the HUDA.
97. It is made clear that taking the alternative site
or retaining the compensation is the option of the land-
owners. If the land-owners opt for the incentive site
allotments, they shall comply with the demand notice of
the HUDA for the payment of amounts within three
months from the date of the receipt of the demand
notice.
98. W.P.Nos.394/2008, 9966/2008, 1914/2007,
2447/2008, 2733/2008, 1915/2007, 17000/2008 &
17052-167054/2008, 37548-37549/2009, 25570-
- 145 -
25572/2009, 5490-5491/2009, 2348-2458/2011,
11927-11947/2011, 14351-14352/2011, 39034/2010
& 39035/2010, 34369-34383/2010, 41507-
41519/2010 & 41676-41695/2010 and 41520-
41526/2010 are accordingly allowed but to the extent
indicated hereinabove. W.P.No.361/2008 is dismissed
but subject to the observations made in the paragraphs
dealing with question No.1 hereinabove.
99. Now that the main matters themselves are
disposed of, nothing survives for Misc.W.2323/2009 for
modification of the order, dated 14.6.2007 and I.A.s for
vacating the stay. They are dismissed as having become
unnecessary.
100. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE MD/Cm
top related