KRISHNE GOWDA Vs. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of writ of certiorari and quash the endorsements dated 14-12-2009 and 25-7-2001 which are impugned at Annexures-A and B to the petition. The petitioner has also sought for issue of a direction to the respondents to allot two sites to the petitioners keeping in view the extent of land which has been acquired from the petitioner's family. The case of the petitioner is that he was the owner of the land bearing Sy. No. 116/2 measuring an extent of 2 acres situate at Hinkal Village, Mysore Taluk along with his father, which was notified for acquisition by the respondents to form the Vijayanagar II Stage Layout, Mysore. Notification was published on 31-3-1984 and the process has been completed. The petitioner no doubt had sought for enhancement of compensation by filing AC No. 164 of 1988. The petitioner claims that notwithstanding the compensation granted to the petitioner, the petitioner is also entitled to the grant of one site per acre which had been granted to several other landowners whose lands were acquired. In that regard, the petitioner is stated to have made a representation seeking allotment of the sites. The respondents have issued the endorsement dated 14-12-2009 by which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected and reference was also made to the earlier endorsement dated 25-7-2001 which was issued to the father of the petitioner rejecting a similar request. It is in that circumstance, the petitioner has assailed the endorsements as at Annexures-A and B and has sought for further directions to the respondents to allot the sites.

(2.) The respondents have filed their objection statement. Though the acquisition of the land from the father of the petitioner as contended by the petitioner is admitted, the right as claimed by the petitioner for allotment of sites for the land acquired has been disputed. They contend that first and foremost the lands of the petitioner's family was acquired in accordance with law and the compensation has also been paid, which is thereafter enhanced and therefore, the instant process cannot be considered as a voluntary surrender of the land for claiming the additional benefit of grant of sites. It is further contended that the statutory rules has been framed as far back as in the year 1994 and as such the petitioner cannot claim benefit of the resolution which had been passed earlier for granting the sites. It is further contended that a resolution dated 31-3-2012 has been subsequently passed whereby the earlier resolution dated 22-10-1990 has been recalled and therefore, even otherwise, the petitioner cannot claim for the allotment of sites. It is also contended that when the father of the petitioner had been intimated that his request cannot be considered by issue of endorsement dated 25-7-2001 and the father of the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the said endorsement during his lifetime, though he was alive for a long period of time for nearly about 7 to 8 years, the petitioner, at this juncture, could not have made one more request and approached this Court. It is therefore contended that the endorsement issued to the petitioner is also justified and the same does not call for interference.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.