THIRUMALAMMA Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioning land-owners' grievance in W.P.Nos.394/2008, 9966/2008, 1914/2007, 2447/2008, 2733/2008, 1915/2007, 17000/2008 & 17052-17054/2008, 37548-37549/2009, 25570- 25572/2009, 5490-5491/2009, 2348-2458/2011, 11927-11947/2011, 14351-14352/2011, 39034/2010 & 39035/2010, 34369-34383/2010, 41507- 41519/2010 & 41676-41695/2010 and 41520- 41526/2010 is over the issuance of the preliminary notification, dated 26.2.2002 and the final notification, dated 3.12.2002 issued under Sections 17(1) and 19(1) respectively of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 ('KUDA' for short), in so far as they pertain to the petitioners' lands. The acquisition of the land measuring 394 acres 35 guntas is for the benefit of Hassan Urban Development Authority ('HUDA' for short) for the formation of Sri S.M.Krishna Nagar ('SMKN' for short) Layout. Some of the petitioning landowners have also sought the declaration that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed. Further, some of them have also sought the quashing of the bulk allotments made to organizations like Nisarga Educational Trust, Karnataka State Cricket Association ('KSCA' for short), Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation ('KSRTC' for short), Netaji Rural Development Trust, etc.

(2.) W.P.No.361/2008 is filed by Netaji Rural Development Trust (R), in whose favour the HUDA had allotted 6 acres of land. Its grievance is over the cancellation of allotment on account of the delay in paying the allotment consideration.

(3.) Sri Ravivarma Kumar, the Senior Counsel appearing for Sri A.Ravishankar for HUDA has raised two preliminary objections. He submits that the majority of the petitioning land-owners have entered into the consent award and have also received the compensation amount. According to him, once the landowner gives the consent to the acquisition of his land and receives the compensation thereon, he loses the right of raising the challenge to the acquisition proceedings. He sought to draw support from the Apex Court's judgments in the cases of NORTHERN INDIAN GLASS INDUSTRIES v. JASWANT SINGH AND OTHERS, 2003 AIR(SC) 234and URMILA ROY AND OHERS vs. BENGAL PEARLESS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD. AND OTHERS, 2009 5 SCC 242.