CHIKKAMAYIGOWDA Vs. COMMISSIONER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are before this Court assailing the endorsements dated 24.03.2011 at Annexures -D1 to D7.

(2.) THE petitioners contend that they are the owners of the property bearing Sy. No. 41 measuring 7 acres 6 guntas of Basavanahaili Village, Mysore Taluk, which was acquired by the respondents for formation of residential layout under a final notification dated 10.12.1992. The manner in which the petitioners have acquired right to the property under a partition in R.A. No. 18/1995 where they had entered into a compromise had been referred to. Presently, the petitioners herein are claiming to be aggrieved by the endorsements dated 24.03.2011 issued by respondents No. 1 and 2. By the said endorsements, the petitioners have been intimated that their request for 'incentive site' cannot be accepted since the acquisition process had been completed much earlier and the compensation has also been paid. The petitioners contend that they are entitled to the grant of 'incentive site' in addition to the compensation and it is in that circumstance, they have instituted the present petitions.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners would contend that all the petitioners herein were not parties to the earlier petition. It is contended that petitioners No. 2 to 7 are the sisters and brothers of the first petitioner who had no knowledge about the earlier writ petition being filed and in a circumstance where the earlier petition was filed by a Power of Attorney holder, the dismissal of the said petition would have no bearing on the instant petitions. It is contended that the petitioners being the land owners having acquired their share under a partition and when such property had been acquired, they were entitled to the 'incentive site' under the scheme and they cannot be non -suited.