PUTTANANANJAPPA S/O LATE PUTTAMADAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING, BANGALORE 1, THE MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER JLB ROAD, MYSORE. AND THE SPEC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have sought for quashing the Preliminary notification dated 23.12.1991 and final notification dated 10.12.1992 vide Annexures -A and B. They have also sought for a declaration that the acquisition notifications are null and void. Further direction is asked against the respondents to consider representation Annexure -D dated 14.3.2011. The contention of the petitioners is that the scheme for which the lands are acquired is not implemented and consequently the same is lapsed.

(2.) THE records reveal that the petitioners are the measuring 8 acres 28 guntas situated at Basavanhalli village, Kasaba Mobil, Mysore Taluk. Said lands alongwith various other properties were acquired for formation of Vijayanagar 4th Stage layout for executing the scheme formed under the provisions of Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act,1987 by 2nd respondent.

(3.) THE records maintained by Mysore Development Authority reveals that about 12,255 sites have been formed in different measurements i.e., 3,850 sites measuring 30' x 40', 2850 sites measuring 20' x 30', 3486 sites measuring 40 ' x 60', 1980 sites measuring 50' x 80'. Out of the sites so formed, 1124 sites measuring 30' x 40' and 977 sites measuring 20' x 30' were already allotted in favour of eligible persons even prior to year 2005. Hakku patras have been issued in respect of such allottees. Further 1460 sites measuring 40' x60' and 390 sites measuring 50' x 80' were also allotted and hakku patras in favour of eligible applicants were issued prier to 2005 itself. It is also borne out by the records that 90% of the work such as drainage facilities and electricity facilities have been provided prior to 2005. All the aforementioned factors are referred to by thi3 Court in W.P. No. 16054/2004 at the time of disposal. Based on the material on record, this Court has concluded in the year 2005 itself that the scheme is substantially implemented. I respectfully agree with the reasons assigned and the conclusion reached by this Court in W.P. No. 16054/2004 by my learned brother in W.P. No. 16054/2004. Even otherwise on facts, I conclude that the scheme is already implemented substantially. Hence, the contention of the petitioners in this regard fails.