VEER KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims to be the owner who is presently in possession of land measuring 17 acres and 21 guntas spread over land bearing various survey numbers at Dattagalh, Mysore District. The said lands along with another extent of 3 acres and 28 guntas of land are said to have been acquired by the third respondent, the Mysore Urban Development Authority, for the purposes of formation of a road and the Dattagahalli Layout in Mysore City. A preliminary notification under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KUDA Act', for brevity) was said to have been issued on 15.3.1990. Subsequently, a final notification is said to have been issued under Section 19(1) of the Act as on 25.4.1991. It transpires that several land owners, including the vendors of the petitioner, had challenged the said proceedings before this court in Writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 10621 -629/1998. The said petitions were allowed by an order dated 17.9.1998, the final notification was quashed and the respondents were given liberty to pursue the acquisition, if so inclined, from an appropriate stage.

(2.) THE Learned counsel Shri P.S. Manjunath on behalf of Respondent No. 3 contends that with the disposal of the Civil Appeal 2934/2010, the Apex court had directed the State Government to hear the request of the petitioner seeking withdrawal from the acquisition proceedings, afresh. It was open for the petitioner to place such material as was available to demonstrate that possession of the lands in question was not taken and hence the Government could indeed withdraw from the acquisition. It was also open to the MUDA to establish possession was indeed taken and hence the State Government could no longer exercise any power under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the LA Act', for brevity).