BASHEER AHMED, SON OF LATE SRI. ABDUL SATTAR AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE, MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners claim as owners of 2 acres of land, each, in land bearing Survey No. 64 of Mandakalli village, Mysore District, which totally measures 10 acres and 10 guntas. The petitioners claim that they have purchased the land under five registered sale deeds dated 6.5.1996 and that the mutation was effected in their names in the records pertaining to the land in question with effect from the year 1995 -96. The petitioners claim that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the land. It is on 28.11.1996 that a notification under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'KUDA Act' for brevity,) was issued proposing to acquire the land of the petitioners along with other lands, for the purpose of establishing a heavy truck terminal. The petitioners had filed objections to the acquisition proceedings claiming that the land was not suitable for acquisition and that the petitioners are left with no other agricultural lands and that such other lands that were available have been acquired for the purpose of Varuna Channel by the State and that the petitioners had purchased the land in question to establish an industry. It was also pointed out that respondent no. 2 was in possession of land in Survey nos. 179 and 180, which are located adjacent to the Regulated Market Committee and that the land can be used for the very purposes for which the lands of the petitioners were sought to be acquired. The objections were ignored and a declaration under Section 19(1) of the KUDA Act was made as on 3.6.1997 and was duly published in the Official Gazette. It is stated that several land owners had challenged the acquisition proceedings before this court in writ proceedings in WP 8024 -26/1991, which was allowed by this court by its order dated 3.4.1998, holding that there was no prior sanction for the Scheme as required under section 18(3) of the KUDA Act and that the objections filed by the petitioners therein were not considered as required under Section 18(1) of the KUDA Act. The entire acquisition proceedings were thus held to be illegal. During the pendency of the said writ petitions, respondent no. 3, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mysore Urban Development Authority had passed an award in respect of the land and notices of the award were also sent to the petitioners. Since this court had quashed the acquisition proceedings in respect of their lands, which were part of the same Scheme, the petitioners were under the impression that the Scheme would not be pursued and that the petitioners would be given back their lands, as even the compensation amount which was in deposit was withdrawn by them and there was indication of the entire proceedings being abandoned. But, it transpires that the amount had been redeposited by the respondents and the petitioners, therefore, had made several representations to delete their lands from acquisition proceedings. They had approached the Minister, Urban Development in this regard and he also recommended the deletion of lands from the acquisition proceedings. It is also contended that more than 5 years had elapsed from the date of the Scheme having been declared and therefore the Scheme itself had lapsed and since no action had been taken by the respondents to delete the land of the petitioners from the acquisition proceedings or to drop the acquisition proceedings, the petitioners who continued to be in possession of the property, are before this court.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the above sequence of events, would emphasize that it is already held in respect of the very proceedings that the final notification was not preceded by prior sanction under Section 18(3) of the KUDA Act and therefore, is vitiated. Secondly, even if the petitioners had not questioned the acquisition proceedings, the Scheme not having been implemented within 5 years from the date of final notification, in terms of Section 27 of the KUDA Act, the entire proceedings would lapse and Section 36 becomes inoperative. The question of the respondents utilising the land for any other purpose, if it has not been utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired, it can only be on the basis of fresh sanction given by the State Government, in the absence of which, the land claiming to have been vested in the State is not tenable and seeks to place reliance on the following authorities, in support of his contentions: 1. Banda Development Authority, Banda Vs. Moti Lal Agarwal and Others, JT (2011) 5 SC 106 , 2. Poornima Girish vs. Revenue Department, 2011 (1) AIR Kar. R 613,

(3.) NAGANNA (Deceased) by L.Rs and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, ILR (1998) KAR 3503 ,