CAUVERY ESTATE DEVELOPERS NO. 137, RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE - 560020, SHRI. B.A. DHAMMANAGI Vs. SHRI. SHAMBU DAYHAL MEENA SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING BANGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN respect of immovable properties whenever there are disputes, the proper forum for resolution is only the Civil Court and definitely not the writ jurisdiction of this Court, more so, whenever the disputed facts and competing claims towards ownership, title and possession etc., are concerned.

(2.) THE complainant was the writ petitioner before this Court in W.P.No.1856/2009 and connected matters seeking for issuance of writ of mandamus to compel the respondent - State of Karnataka and its officials in the Department of Urban Development etc., to consider a representation dated 2.8.2008 said to have been given by the petitioner to the Government for suitably compensating the petitioner that an extent of 6 acres 9 guntas of land said to be in the ownership or in the possession of the writ petitioner had been taken over by the Government for being developed as Chamundi Vihar Nagar Mysore city, etc., and this Court passed the following order: The principal grievance of the petitioner is that the representations filed by it for payment of compensation is not considered by the State Government as yet, though the representation is filed as far back as on 2.8.2008. 2. According to the petitioner, the land is taken possession by the State Government without recourse to acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, or any other such acquisition laws. Therefore, the petitioner shall be compensated in accordance with law. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court passed in WP. No.50269/2003, disposed of on 29.3.2007, in support of the petitioner's contention. However, the said submission is controverted by the learned Government Advocate by contending that the property is taken possession under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 as the said land is excess land. Sri.H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for MUDA submits that the petitioner's property in question is relinquished by the petitioner in favour of the Youth Services Authority. Be that as it may, since the representation has to be considered by the State in accordance with law, this Court does not wish to comment anything on merits of the matter at this stage, in this writ petition. Suffice it to observe that the representation filed by the petitioner vide Annexure -L, dated 2.8.2008 shall be considered by the first respondent in accordance with law and on merits, as expeditiously as possible but not later than the outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of this order after hearing She petitioner. To avoid the delay in serving the notice, this Court proposes to fix the date of hearing as 6th of January, 2010. On that day, either the petitioner or petitioner's advocate /representative shall appear before the first respondent. It is open for the parties to urge all the contentions available to them in law, before the first respondent. Writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.

(3.) WE find no occasion to exercise the contempt jurisdiction for the simple reason that the order passed by this Court in the writ petition is more out of sympathetic ground and with a wishful thought that something good may come out in favour of the complainant and definitely not in the nature of a direction to the accused or a compelling order on the accused.