GANAPATSA SHANKARSA KALBURGI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first set of these petitions are listed for preliminary hearing and the second set are posted for orders. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on both the sides, they are heard on merits and disposed of by this order.

(2.) ). The petitioners are stated to be the holders of agreements of sale executed by respondents 5 to 12 in their favour in respect of different sites in Sy. Nos. 403/2b, 408/2b+2a/2, 406/4, 392/2c+3b/3, 399/4, 396/2 and 397/3, 398/3+4/a, 499/1a+1b/2/1 and 15/1/1a+1b+2a+2b+2c situated in Unkal Village, Hubli Taluk. The aforesaid lands alongwith other lands were notified for acquisition pursuant to the scheme prepared by the third respondent. After complying with the provisions of Sections 17 (5) and 18, a declaration is also issued u/s. 19 (1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act, 1987. The owners of the aforesaid lands have formed sites and agreed to transfer the same in favour of the petitioners after the publication of the preliminary notification and receipt of notice u/s. 17 (5) of the Urban Development Authorities Act. The petitioners contend that, they are put in possession of respective sites agreed to be sold in their favour and they have also put up certain constructions. They were not aware of the acquisition proceedings; they came to know of the acquisition proceedings when they received notices under the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. The petitioners have, therefore, filed these petitions for quashing the acquisition proceedings and also the notices issued under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as per Annexures B and B1 and the notices issued under the provisions of the Planning Act as per Annexure-E and E1, with a further writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 4 to regularise the unauthorised constructions of buildings on plot numbers and survey numbers shown by the petitioners.

(3.) IN view of the decision of this Court in Poornaprajna House Building Co-operative Society v. Bailamma alias Dodda Bailamma, ILR 1998 Kant 1441 : (1998 AIHC 2358), the petitioners have no locus to assail the acquisition proceedings and the consequences thereof. These petitions in so far as they relate to the challenge to the acquisition proceedings and the impugned notices as per Annexures D, D1, E and E1 are liable to be rejected on the ground that the petitioners have no locus-standi to question the correctness of the same.