DODDAMARIGOWDA@MARIGOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petitions are remanded for a fresh consideration by a division bench of this court in writ appeal in WA 8039/2003 and connected writ appeal in WA 7962/2003, by its judgment dated 27.5.2008. In directing reconsideration of this matter, the Division Bench has pronounced thus:-

(2.) Further, for the purpose of formation of Vijayanagar residential layout, with reference to the contentions of the parties and the pleadings in the present writ petitions, out of which these writ appeals arise, namely, Writ Petition Nos.19679-80/2001 and Writ Petition No.21654/2001 dated 21.10.2003, in the absence kof consideration of the pleadings and contentions of the parties and the finding to the effect that Vijayanagar residential layout scheme has lapsed, the impugned order passed only on the basis of the decision of this Court in CHIKKABORAIAH's case (ILR 2003 KAR 3367), wherein, the question was about the lapsing of the claim pertaining to the formation of Bogadhi Layout, it is clear that the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that in Writ Appeal Nos.2106/2007 and 1944/2007, wherein also the residents of the same village as that of the appellants herein namely, Hinkal Village was considered with reference to the question as to whether the Vijayanagar residential layout scheme had lapsed, the Division Bench has held that on 21.08.2000, that the Vijayanagar residential layout scheme has not lapsed, having regard to the documents produced in the said case pertaining to implementation of the scheme. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners submitted that the said decision was not available, when the writ petitions were disposed of by the learned Single Judge and the facts of the present case will have to be considered as to find out whether there is implementation of the Vijayanagar residential layout scheme and the matter may be remitted to the learned Single Judge, so that the learned Single Judge can consider the matter afresh, in accordance with law and it is open to the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to cite the said decision also before the learned Single Judge. Having regard to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and as the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained, we hold that the matter is liable to be remitted back to the learned Single Judge to pass fresh orders in accordance with law, after specifically considering the question as to whether there is lapse of Vijayanagar residential layout scheme under Section 27 of the Act as sought for by the writ petitioners, with reference to the material on record and accordingly, we pass the following :

(3.) The writ appeals are allowed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.19679- 80/2001 dated 27.10.2003 and the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.21654/2001 dated 21.10.2003 are set aside and the writ petitions are remitted back to the learned Single Judge for fresh disposal in accordance with law. All the contentions of the parties are kept open to be urged before the learned Single Judge."