TALAVANE KRISHNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are before this Court assailing the order dated 28.04.2012 passed by the first respondent as also the preliminary notification dated 03.04.2006 issued by the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA for short) which are impugned at Annexures-Y and J respectively.

(2.) THE first petitioner claims to be the owner of the property measuring 23 acres 21 guntas in Sy.No.4 Kurubarahalli and another extent of 4 acres 10 guntas in the same survey number and 30 guntas in Sy.No.41 of Alanahalli village having purchased the same under registered sale deeds. The second petitioner claims to be the owner of property measuring 4 acres 30 guntas in Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli and 10 guntas in Sy.No.41 of Alanahalli. The first petitioner is a medical practitioner and has served in different capacities in USA, Canada and UK for about 30 years. In 1994 he returned to India with the intention to establish a World class Ayurvedic Centre. It is in that context, he purchased the properties indicated in Schedule-A and the second petitioner agreed to sell the property mentioned in Schedule-B to the first petitioner.

(3.) WHEN this was the position, the second respondent issued a notification dated 03.04.2006 under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 ('KUDA Act' for short). The name of the first petitioner had not been indicated despite the khatha being in favour of the first petitioner. The first petitioner challenged the notification in W.P.No.11199/2008 along with the owner of the adjacent properties Smt.H.B.Sulochana Balaram Bhat. The petition was disposed of on 19.01.2009 allowing liberty to the petitioner to file his objections to the preliminary notification which would be considered by the second respondent herein. The first petitioner and the said Smt.H.B.Sulochana Balaram Bhat submitted their representations to the Land Acquisition Officer to drop the proceedings. The first respondent on consideration of the same have dropped the proceedings relating to the property belonging to Smt.Sulochana Balaram Bhat by order dated 05.03.2009 but, the case of the first petitioner has not been considered favourably. The instance of similar requests made by certain other land owners viz., Smt.Nagarathnamma, Sri L.K.Nanjaraja Urs, Sri Manoharlal Jain and several others and the same being considered favourably by the Government is also referred to. While doing so, the Government is stated to have taken into consideration the lack of funds for payment of compensation and as such the same not being viable is averred by the petitioner. Despite the first petitioner having established a well equipped Ayurvedic Centre, the same has not received a favourable consideration by the first respondent. On the other hand the endorsement dated 10.08.2009 was issued indicating that the request of the petitioner cannot be considered. The petitioners assailed the said endorsement in W.P.Nos.38040-46/2009. This Court while disposing of the petition on 27.01.2011 has quashed the endorsement and liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a representation to the first respondent to consider the request to drop the land from acquisition proceedings. Thereafter the petitioner has filed a written submission before the authorities along with the supporting documents as Annexures. The second respondent filed their reply along with the documents relied upon by them. The first respondent having considered the matter has passed the order dated 28.04.2012 rejecting the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner is therefore assailing the said order and also the preliminary notification which is the basis for acquiring the property with which the petitioner is aggrieved.