PUTTASWAMACHARI, S/O. LATE CHELUVACHARI Vs. THE MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSY LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, MYSORE, BY ITS COMMISSIONER, THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSY LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, MYSORE A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LAND bearing Sy. Ncs. 114/1 measuring 11 guntas and 114/2 measuring 2 acres and 30 guntas, situated at Basavanahalli Village of Mysore Taluk and District was notified for the Vijayanagar IV Stage scheme by the 1st respondent on 23.12.1991, by issue of notification under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act (for short, 'the Act'). The said Notification was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 02.01.1992. 3rd respondent issued final Notification under Section 19(1) of the Act on 10.12.1992, which was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 31.12.1992. The Award was passed on 18.07.1994. The petitioners along with others questioned the said Notifications in W.P.Nos. 15648 -650/1995. The prayer for quashing of the Notifications was rejected, as per the order dated 04.03.1998.

(2.) THIS writ petition was filed on 28.08.2003, to declare that the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents pursuant to the said Notifications as having lapsed in so far as the lands of the petitioners are concerned, on account of non -implementation of the scheme as per S. 27 of the Act

(3.) SRI T.P. Vivekananda, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents on the other hand, by referring to the statement of objections fifed on 18.10.2006, contended that the claim of the petitioners that the scheme has lapsed is untenable in view of the findings recorded in the order dated. 11.01.2005 passed in W. P. No. 16054/2004. Learned counsel submitted that persons similarly situated like the petitioners had filed W.P. No. 16054/2004 and had raised similar contention of the scheme having not been implemented and the scheme allegedly having lapsed. Learned counsel submitted that, the facts and figures with regard to implementation of scheme was furnished to this Court by way of an affidavit and upon consideration of the same, it was held that there is substantial implementation of the scheme and the contention was negatived. Learned counsel submitted that, since there is substantial implementation of the scheme within the five years' period, the writ petition is not maintainable.