DHARMA PRAVARTHA GUBBI NIDASALE CHANNANANJAPPA VEERASHIVA VIDHYARTHI NILAYA TRUST REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI H.K. NAGARAJAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, INFRASTRUCTURE DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a charitable trust, was running a Hostel for the benefit of poor students belonging to the community of Veerashaiva, at its property bearing Khata No. 11/11, comprised in Sy. Nos. 76/1 and 76/2 of Channabasaveshwara Nagar, Tumkur City. To construct a flyover and an over bridge, the 1st respondent issued a notification dated 01.10.2007, as at Annexure -A. Petitioner's property appears at item No. 14 therein. Petitioner's property was acquired by issue of Notification dated 25.03.2008, published in the Karnataka Gazette, as at Annexure -B. Petitioner did not question the notifications, as at Annexures -A and B. It submitted a representation to save the hostel building in the matter of construction of the intended flyover and the over bridge. It referred to the terms of modified plan and submitted that the project could be implemented without damaging its existing Hostel building. W.P. No. 17375/2009 was filed to direct the respondents to act in accordance with the modified plan and save the hostel building. It was held that the prayer sought in the petition cannot be granted and the writ petition is liable to be rejected. However, the writ petition was disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioner to question the correctness of the decision alleged to have been taken by the Committee as per its communication dated 28.02.2008. Steps having been taken to complete the intended project work and finding that the respondents are not proceeding in terms of the modified plan, seeking quashing of a communication dated 23.10.2008 of the Chief Engineer, Communication and Buildings (South), Bangalore, W.P. No. 21691/2009 was filed. Considering the rival contentions, the writ petition was disposed of on 23.04 2010, making it clear that the construction can take place according to the plan, which was approved on 06.08.2009 and the respondents to see if substantial portion of the property of the petitioner can be saved. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed W.A. No. 1987/2010 by contending that if the project is executed in terms of the modified plan, the property of the petitioner can be saved. The appeal having been found to be devoid of merit was dismissed, with an observation that if there is any subsequent event and fresh cause of action has occurred to the petitioner, it is open to it to workout the remedy in accordance with law. Contending that the decision taken by the Chief Engineer in terms of the correspondence dated 23.10.2008 is incorrect and premature one and is yet to be reviewed by taking note of the subsequent developments and that the representation dated 06.08.2010 as still pending and the extent of the property belonging to the petitioner's hostel required to be utilized for project is yet to be decided, this writ petition was filed on 28.03.2011, to hold that the GAD plan dated 06.08.2009 in the matter of construction of project in Tumkur City, Upparahalli Railway LC No. 40 -41 repealed and was substituted by a revised GAD plan as referred to in the correspondence dated 15.03.2008 bearing No. MooAaE 65 RaRaHa 2007, as per Annexure -C and to direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 06.08.2010 vide Annexure -N by taking note of the unofficial note dated 27.01.2010, vide Annexure -P and to direct the 5th respondent to review the decision dated 23.10.2008, vide Annexure -G and consequently direct the respondents 4 and 5 to execute the work in terms of the revised plan as referred to in the correspondence dated 15.03.2008 vide Annexure -C by keeping in view the observation made in an order dated 23.04.2010 passed in W.P. No. 21619/2009. The 6th respondent has filed statement of objections denying the allegations leveled against him and also stating that he being a member of legislative assembly elected from Tumkur Assembly Constituency, being interested in public and the construction of the Railway over bridge and approach road work is getting delayed, he has no alternative except to pressurize the Government functionaries to complete the work i.e., in the interest of public at large.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, in part, Sri Laxminarayan, learned AGA was directed to instruct the 4th respondent to conduct a spot inspection and submit the status of the project work. In pursuance thereof, the 4th respondent having inspected the project site and having taken photographs of the work executed, appeared before the Court today and submitted the project work of construction of flyover and over bridge has been completed and so also the work of laying of service roads on either side of the flyover and over bridge is complete. He submitted that no portion of the property of the petitioner has remained vacant, for being beneficially used and enjoyed.

(3.) LEARNED Additional Government Advocate submitted that an Award in respect of the acquired property has been passed and if the petitioner had any grievance, he ought to have approached the jurisdictional Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. He submitted that in view of the orders passed in W.P. Nos. 17375/2009 and 21691/2009 and the judgment dated 26.08.2010 passed in W.A. No. 1987/2010, there being no fresh cause of action, this writ petition is not maintainable.