wp 394.2008 c.w matters -...

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY 2013

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI

WRIT PETITION NO.394 OF 2008 (LA-UDA) C/w WRIT PETITION Nos.9966/08, 1914/07,

2447/08, 361/08, 2733/08, 1915/07, 17000/08 & 17052-54/08, 37548-549/09, 25570-572/09, 5490-5491/09, 2348-2458/11, 11927-11947/11, 14351-14352/11, 39034/10 & 39035/10, 34369-34383/10, 41507-41519/10 & 41676-41695/10

And 41520-41526/10

WP No.394/2008 BETWEEN: 1. THIRUMALAMMA

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, W/o LATE THIMMEGOWDA, 2. LAKSHMINARAYAN

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/o LATE THIMMEGOWDA 3. GOPALA KRISHNA

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/o LATE THIMMEGOWDA, ALL ARE R/o BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE AND KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT.

4. THIRUMALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

R

- 2 -

S/o VENKATEGOWDA, R/ o BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE AND KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT.

5. B M SURESH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/o LATE MANJEGOWDA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE AND KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT.

6. B M NAGESH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/o LATE MANJEGOWDA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE AND KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT.

7. VENKATEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/o LATE VENKATEGOWDA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE AND KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI H C SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE)

AND 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001.

2. THE COMMISSIONER, HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HASSAN. ... RESPONDENTS

- 3 -

(BY SRI K M NATARAJ, AAG AND SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R1

SRI RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI A RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DT. 26.2.2007 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE DT. 28.2.2002 AT ANNEX-G AND ALSO QUASH THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DT. 3.12.2002 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETE DT.3.12.2002 AT ANNEX-H IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LANDS ARE CONCERNED AND ETC.

WP No.9966/08: BETWEEN 1. SMT. KAMALAMMA

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/o LATE SRI CHENNEGOWDA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT.

2. SRI K RANGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI KULLEGOWDA RETD. PRINCIPAL, B KATTIHALLI KOPPALU, GAVANEHALLI POST, HASSAN TALUK - 573 201.

3. SMT. JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/o B BOREGOWDA R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT.

4. SMT. SANNAMMA,

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, W/o SRI SHIKI KAPPANNA GOWDA,

- 4 -

R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT.

5. SMT THIMMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/o SRI SHILKI MANJEGWODA R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT.

6. SRI H B SATYNARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/o SRI BASAVEGOWDA C/o DR V R KRISHNAMURTHY, R/o No.298, B KATIHALLI KOPPALU, ARISIKERE ROAD, HASSAN.

7. SRI B G KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

S/o LATE SRI GOWDAIAH R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT.

8. SRI B E SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/o ERAPPA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT.

9. SRI NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI DYAVEGOWDA R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI B N JAYADEVA, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY P B NO.133, OPP.GURU THEATRE B M ROAD, HASSAN REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

- 5 -

2. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT M S BLDNGS, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE – 560001.

3. THE PRESIDENT KARNATAKA STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION M CHINNASWAMY STADIUM M G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

4. THE PRESIDENT THE NISARGA EDUCATION TRUST (R) BHARATHI NURSING HOME R C ROAD, HASSAN.

5. THE PRESIDENT, ISKON TEMPLE, AKSHAYA PATHRA FOUNDATION, HAREKRISHNA HALL, CHORD ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE.

6. DR A M NAGESH, PROPRIETOR, CHETAN NEURO CENTRE, 1ST CROSS, SHANKAR MUTT ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201.

7. SRI K R SUSHEELAGOWDA, MANAGING TRUSTEE, NETAJI DEVELOPMENT TRUST (R), NO.212, SRI RANGANATH NILAYA, NETHAJI ROAD, VIDYANAGAR, HASSAN - 573 201.

8. THE COMMANDANT 5TH BATTALION, K S R P, LALITHMAHAL ROAD MYSORE –11.

- 6 -

9. RAJIV GANDHI RURAL HOUSING CORPORATION LTD, 4TH FLOOR,

K H B COMPLEX, KAVERI BHAVAN, K G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009. REP BY ITS SECRETARY.

10. PWD DEPARTMENT, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN REP BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.

11. THE DEPOT MANAGER, KSRTC, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR

SRI A RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R1 SRI K M NATARAJ, AAG AND SRI VENKATESH DODDERI,

AGA FOR R-2, 8 AND 10, SRI S V RAJESH, ADVOCATE FOR

M/S. RAJESH AND RAJESH FOR R3, K N NITISH, ADV. FOR SRI K V NARASIMHAN FOR R4,

SRI N K RAMESH, ADV. FOR R11, R5, 6 AND 7 SERVED,

PETITION DISMISSED AS AGAINST R9)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 26.2.2002 AT ANX-E AND FINAL NOTIFICATION DT. 3.12.2002 AT ANX-F.

WP No.1914/07 BETWEEN 1. SRI CHANDREGOWDA

S/O MAVINAKEREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

- 7 -

R/o B KATIHALLI, ARASIKERE ROAD HASSAN

2. SRI DHANARAJ S/o MAVINAKEREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, GRAMA PANCHAYAT MEMBER, R/o B KATIHALLI, ARASIKERE ROAD HASSAN.

3. SRI JAGADISH S/o A R RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/o DODDAPURA, KASABA HOBLI HASSAN.

4. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/o SRI VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT No.1584, “SANTHRUPTHI” SALAGAME ROAD, HASSAN – 573201.

5. SMT. GANGAMMA W/o LATE RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT BEHIND ANJANEYA TEMPLE B KATIHALLI, ARASIKERE ROAD, HASSAN.

6. SRI THIMMEGOWDA S/o MAVINAKEREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS C/o SHANKARA ANGADI RESIDING AT B KATIHALLI KOPPALU ARASIKERE ROAD, HASSAN – 573201.

7. SRI HANUMANTHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/o SRI RANGE GOWDA RESIDING AT B KATIHALLI

- 8 -

OPPPOSITE S B M COLONY ARASIKERE ROAD, HASSAN – 573 201.

... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI NIKILESH RAO, ADVOCATE FOR M/S.INDUS LAW ASSOCIATES)

AND 1. HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

POST BOX NO 133, OPPOSITE GURU THEATRE, B M ROAD, HASSAN – 573 201.

2. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 01.

3. SHARIFF ACADEMY AND HIGHER EDUCATION, HASSAN, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE, EIDGAH COMPLEX, HOSLINE ROAD, HASSAN – 573 201. (V.O. DATED 28.1.2009 RESPONDENT No.3 DELETED)

4. NISARGA EDUCATION TRUST, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE, NISARGA COLLEGE OF NURSING, PARAMASHIVAPPA BUILDING, OLD TELEPHONE OFFICE, KR PURAM, HASSAN.

5. KARNATAKA STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION, BANGALORE, 210 M G ROAD, (M CHINANSWAMY STADIUM) BANGALORE – 560 001.

6. NETAJI RURAL DEVELOPMENT TRUST, HASSAN, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE,

- 9 -

B KATHI HALLI KOPPAL, ARSIKERE MAIN ROAD, HASSAN – 573 201. ... RESPONDENTS



AGA FOR R-2, R3 DELETED,

SRI K N NITISH, ADV. FOR SRI K V NARASIMHAN FOR R4, SRI S V RAJESH, ADVOCATE FOR

M/S. RAJESH AND RAJESH FOR R5, SRI M S BHAGAWATH, ADV. FOR R6)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ALLOTMENT OF LANDS IN THE PROPOSED KRISHNANAGAR LAYOUT IN FAVOUR OF R3 TO 6 AND IN FAVOUR OF GOVT. FOR THE PURPOSE OF A KSRP BATTALION AS PER ORDERS DT. 16.5.2006 AT ANNEX.D. ARE ILLEGAL, NULL AND VOID.

WP No.2447/08 BETWEEN: 1. SRI V R RADHAKRISHNA,

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI D R VENAKTARAMANEGOWDA, R/AT JAGATHARANI, BEHIND DHANALAKSHMI STORES, GOVT. COLLEGE ROAD, HASSAN.

2. SRI B M BOMMEGOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/o SRI B Y MANJEGOWDA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.

- 10 -

3. SRI B M KRISHNAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/o SRI B Y MUNCHEGOWDA, R/O BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.

4. SRI DYAVEGOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/o SRI MATEGOWDA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.

5. SRI CHENNAGOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, S/o SRI MATEGOWDA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.

6. SMT. THIMMAMMA,

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/o SRI MANCHEGOWDA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.

7. SRI B K ERAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/o SRI B KARIYAPPA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.

8. B K NANJAPPA,

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.R.s

i) SMT.DHIVYA, D/O SRI B K NANJAPPA, SRI B N KUMARASWAMY, S/o SRI B K NANJAPPA, ALL MAJORS, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.

- 11 -

9. SMT.DEVAMMA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, W/o SRI KRISHNAPPA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.

10. SRI HULIGOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/o SRI DEVEGOWDA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.

11. SRI B K JAYARAMU,

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/o SRI B KRISHNAPPA, C/o PROVISION STORES, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.

12. SRI B K VISHWANATH,

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/o SRI KRISHNAPPA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.

13. SRI B V BALAKRISHANA,

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/o SRI PUTTASWAMY, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.

14. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR,

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/o SRI PUTTASWAMY, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.

15. SRI B K NARAYANSWAMY,

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI B KAPPANA,

- 12 -

R/AT No. 970, 4TH CROSS, K R PURAM, HASSAN.

16. SRI B K RAMASWAMY,

AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI B KAPPANNA, R/AT No.970/1, 4TH CROSS, K R PURAM, HASSAN.

17. SRI R TEJASHVI,

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O SRI B RANGASWAMY, R/o B M ROAD, HASSAN.

18. SMT.SUMITHA,

AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, W/O SRI R TEJASHWI, R/o B M ROAD, HASSAN.

19. SMT.SUJAYARANGASWAMY,

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/o SRI B RANGASWAMY, R/O B M ROAD, HASSAN.

20. SRI B RANGASWAMY,

AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI B BETTAPPAGOWDA, R/O B M ROAD, HASSAN.

21. SRI BOMMALINGE GOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O SRI KAPPANNAGOWDA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.

22. SRI K BETTEGOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI KAPPANAGOWDA,

- 13 -

R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.

23. SRI B K SHIVASWAMY,

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI KAPPANNAGOWDA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.

24. SRI B K PUTTASWAMY,

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/o LATE KAPPANAGOWDA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.

25. SRI B ERRAPPAGOWDA,

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.R.s 1. E RATHNA,

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 2. B SAROJA,

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 3. B E YESHODA,

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 4. B E INDRANI

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 5. B E NALINI,

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

ALL MAJORS, R/o No.738(1), SESHADRI VATARA, SAMPIGE ROAD, K R PURAM, HASSAN.

26. SRI B JAYARAMU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O SRI DEVEGOWDA, R/o B M ROAD, HASSAN.

- 14 -

27. SRI B K KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI KAPPANNAGOWDA, R/o No.129, HOYSALANAGAR, BHIRANAHALLI KERE, HASSAN.

28. SRI J RANGEGOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/o SRI JAWAREGOWDA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, SHANTHIGRAMA, HASSAN.

29. SRI BALACHANDRA,

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/o SRI ANNEGOWDA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.

30. SRI DEVIRAMMA,

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/o SRI VENKATAKRISHNAIAH, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.

31. SRI J NANJAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/o SRI JAWAREGOWDA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.

32. SRI B K KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/o SMT. PUTTAMMA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, SHANTHIGRAMA, HASSAN.

33. SRI H RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/o SRI HANUMANTHEGOWDA,

- 15 -

R/O BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.

34. SMT.SUBBAMMA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, W/o SRI VENKATEGOWDA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.

35. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/o SRI JAWARIGOWDA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN.

36. SRI B V MANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, S/o SRI VENKATEGOWDA, R/o BHUVANAHALLI POST, HASSAN. ... PETITIONERS


AND

1. HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, P.B.NO.133, OPP.GURU THEATRE, B.M.ROAD, HASSAN REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

2. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT M.S.BUILDINGS, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560001.

3. KARNATAKA STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE – 560001. REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT.

- 16 -

4. NISARGA EDUCATION TRUST (R), BHARATHI NURSING HOME, R.C.ROAD, HASSAN REP.BY ITS SECRETARY.

5. ISKCON & AKSHAYA PATHRA FOUNDATION, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE, REP. BY ITS TRUSTEE.

6. CHETAN NEURO CENTRE AND EEG LABORATORY HASSAN, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

7. NETAJI RURAL DEVELOPMENT TRUST (R) HASSAN, REP. BY ITS TRUSTEE.

8. STATE OF KARNATAKA, POLICE DEPARTMENT, REP. BY SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE.

9. RAJIV GANDHI RURAL HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED HASSAN, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY.

10. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HASSAN. REP. BY ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.

11. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENTS



AGA FOR R2 AND 8,

- 17 -

SRI S V RAJESH, ADVOCATE FOR M/S. RAJESH AND RAJESH FOR R3,

K N NITISH, ADV. FOR SRI K V NARASIMHAN FOR R4, SRI M S BHAGWATH, ADVOCATE FOR R7,

SRI N K RAMESH, ADV. FOR R11, R5, 6, 9 AND 10 SERVED)


& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO

QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DT. 26.2.2002 AT ANNEXURE-E AND FINAL NOTIFICATION DT. 3.12.2002 AT ANNEXURE-F.

WP No. 361/08 BETWEEN NETHAJI RURAL DEVELOPMENT TRUST (R), SRI. RANGANATHA NILAYA, VIDYANAGAR, HASSAN - 573 201. REP. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTREE, PROF. K.R.SUSHEELA GOWDA. ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI M S BHAGWAT, ADVOCATE)

AND 1. THE HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,

REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, INFRONT OF GURU THEATRE, B.M.ROAD, HASSAN – 573 201.

2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

... RESPONDENTS

- 18 -

(BY SRI RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI A RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R1

SRI K M NATARAJ, AAG AND SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R2)


& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE R1, IN RESPECT OF THE ORDERS DT.30.10.2006 VIDE ANN-G, VIDE ANN-H DT.30.11.2006.

WP No. 2733/08 BETWEEN 1. SRI K T KARIYAPPAGOWDA

S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/o B KATTIHALLI KOPPAL KASABA HOBLI, TALUK AND DISTRICT HASSAN – 573201. SINCE DECESED BY LRs

1A. SMT.SHARDHAMMA W/o K T KARIYAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS. 1B. SRI K S SATHYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. 1C. SRI THANDAVESHWAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 1D. SRI K K CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 1E. SRI T LOKESH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.

- 19 -

2. SRI K T RANGEGOWDA S/o LATE THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/o B KATTIHALLI KOPPAL KASABA HOBLI, TALUK AND DISTRICT HASASN – 573201.

SINCE DECESED BY LRs 2A. SMT. AKKAMMA W/o RANGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS. 2B. SRI K R SREENIVAS, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. 2C. SRI K R BALAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 2D. SRI K R MOHAN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 2E. SRI RAGHAVENDRA RAO, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 3. SRI H T PUTTASWAMY GOWDA

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/o SARASWATHIPURAM 9TH CROSS, HASSAN – 573 201.

4. SRI S PUTTASWAMY GOWDA S/o M SINGRIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/o B KATTIHALLI KOPPAL KASABA HOBLI,

HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT – 573 201. 5. SMT. P SAROJAMMA

W/o K M HANUMANTHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

- 20 -

R/o B KATTIHALLI KOPPAL KASABA HBLI,

HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT – 573 201. 6. SRI K M CHALUVEGOWD

S/o MALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/o B KATTIHALLI KOPPAL KASABA HOBLI,

HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT – 573 201. 7. SRI S RAJE GOWDA

S/o LATE SINGRIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/o B KATTIHALLI KOPPAL KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT – 573 201.

8. SRI JAVAREGOWDA S/O MANJEGOWDA

AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT – 573 201.

... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI M B NARGUND, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE.

2. THE COMMISSIONER HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HASSAN. ... RESPONDENTS

- 21 -

(BY SRI K M NATARAJ, AAG AND SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R1,

SRI RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI A RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R2)


& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DT. 26.2.2002 VIDE ANNEX.A AND THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DT. 3.12.2002 VIDE ANNEX.B. IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE LANDS OF THE PETITIONERS.

WP No. 1915/07 BETWEEN 1. SRI R RAJAGOPALA SETTY

S/o LATE R RAMACHANDRA SETTY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT “LAXMI”, SHANKARMUTT ROAD HASSAN - 573 201.

2. SRI H J GANESH S/o H G JAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, No.1584 “SANTHRUPTHI”, SALAGAME ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201.

3. SRI R RAVISH S/o R RAJAGOPALA SETTY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT “LAXMI”, SHANKARMUTT ROAD HASSAN - 573 201. ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI NIKILESH RAO, ADVOCATE FOR

M/S. INDUS LAW ASSOCIATES)

- 22 -


POST BOX NO.133 OPPOSITE GURU THEATRE B M ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201.

2. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 01, BY THE SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.

3. SHARIFF ACADEMY AND HIGHER EDUCATION, HASSAN, EIDGAH COMPLEX, HOSLINE ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201 BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE. (V.O DATED 28.1.2009 RESPONDENT No.3 DELETED)

4. NISARGA EDUCATION TRUST,

NISARGA COLLEGE OF NURSING, PARAMASHIVAPPA BUILDING, OLD TELEPHONE OFFICE, K.R.PURAM, HASSAN - 573 201. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE.

5. KARNATAKA STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION, BANGALORE, 210 M.G.ROAD (M CHINNASWAMY STADIUM) BANGALORE – 560 001. BY ITS CHAIRMAN

6. NETAJI RURAL DEVELOPMENT TRUST, HASSAN, B.KATHI HALLI KOPPAL, ARASIKERE MAIN ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201, BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE

- 23 -

7. DR.A.M.NAGESH, PROPRIETOR, CHETANA NEURO CENTRE, 1ST CROSS, SHANKARMUTT ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201. 8. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION , K H DOUBLE ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE. REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 9. RAJEEV GANDHI RURAL HOUSING CORPORATION IV FLOOR, K H B COMPLEX,

CAUVERY BHAVAN, K G ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 009. REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

… RESPONDENTS


SRI K M NATARAJ, AAG AND SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R2

SRI K N NITISH, ADV. FOR SRI K V NARASIMHAN FOR R4 AND 7, SRI S V RAJESH, ADVOCATE FOR

M/S. RAJESH AND RAJESH FOR R5, SRI M S BHAGWATH, ADVOCATE FOR R6, SRI P D SURANA, ADVOCATE FOR R8,

R3 DELETED, R9 SERVED)


& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ALLOTMENT OF LANDS IN THE PROPOSED KRISHNAGAR LAYOUT IN FAVOUR OF R3 TO 6 AND IN FAVOUR OF GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF A KSRB BATTALION AS PER ORDER DT. 16.5.2006 VIDE ANX-F, ARE ILLEGAL, NULL AND VOID.

- 24 -

WP Nos. 17000/08 & 17052-54/08 BETWEEN 1. PARAMESH

S/O LATE DYAVE GOWDA AGED 45 YEARS, SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI TALUK AND DISTRICT HASSAN - 573 201.

2. THIMME GOWDA S/O THIMME GOWDA, AGED 60 YEARS, SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI TALUK AND DISTRICT HASSAN - 573 201.

3. SMT SUSHEELAMMA W/o LATE PUTTE GOWDA, AGED 65 YEARS, SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI TALUK AND DISTRICT HASSAN - 573 201.

4. NARAYANA S/o LATE PUTTE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI TALUK AND DISTRICT HASSAN -573201.

... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI MANJULA N TEJASWI, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, HOUSING AND URBAN

- 25 -

DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE.

2. THE COMMISSIONER HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HASSAN DISTRICT.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K M NATARAJ, AAG AND SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R1

SRI RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI A RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R2)

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER

ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DT. 26.2.2002 AT ANENX-A AND THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DT. 3.12.2002 AT ANNEX-B IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE LANDS OF THE PETITIONERS.

WP Nos. 37548-549/09 BETWEEN 1. RANGEGOWDA

S/o KULLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN DISTRICT

2. P.R. SUBBARAMAIAH S/o RAMASWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT DODDAPURA VILLAGE, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT

... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI J PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE)

- 26 -

AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

2. HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, P.B. NO. 133, OPPOSITE TO GURU THEATRE,

B.M. ROAD, HASSAN – 573 201. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K M NATARAJ, AAG AND SRI VENKATESH

DODDERI, AGA FOR R1 SRI RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR

SRI A RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R2)

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DT. 20.3.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURES-C AND D.

WP Nos. 25570-572/09 BETWEEN 1. SRI N C RAMACHANDRA

S/o CHANABASAPPA N B 54 YEARS, R/o NADAHALLI KUMBARA POST SAKLESHPURA, TQ DIST HASSAN.

2. C S MOHAN KUMAR S/o SIDDEGOWDA AGE 42 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/o CHIKKOTE POST ANKEHALLI TQ ALUR DIST HASSAN.

- 27 -

3. B N KUBER S/o B K NANJEGOWDA AGE 48 YEARS, R/o 5454 NANDAKRIPA RAVINDRANAGARA, HASSAN 573 201. ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI M B NARGUND, ADVOCATE)

AND 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT M S BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE.

2. THE COMMISSIONER HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HASSAN. ... RESPONDENTS


DODDERI, AGA FOR R1 SRI RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR

SRI A RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R2)

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DTD 26.2.02 AT ANEX-A AND THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DTD 3.12.02 AT ANNEX-B IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE LANDS OF THE PETITIONERS.

WP Nos. 5490-5491/09 BETWEEN 1. SRI C S VISHWANATH

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/o C.N. SHANKARA NARAYANA NO. 1071, BENAKA,

- 28 -

10TH CROSS, SAMPEGE ROAD HASSAN - 573 201.

2. SRI. C.S. SRIKANTA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/o C.N. SHANKARA NARAYANA No. 1071, SAMPEGE ROAD HASSAN - 573 201.

3. SRI. C.N. SHANKARA NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS, S/o LATE NANJAPPA No. 1071, SAMPEGE ROAD HASSAN - 573 201. ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI NIKILESH RAO, ADVOCATE FOR

M/S. INDUS LAW ASSOCIATES)

AND

1. HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, POST BOX NO. 133, OPPOSITE GURU THEATRE B.M.ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201.

2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA , SECRETARIAT LEGAL DEPARTMENT, VIDHANASOUDHA, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 01.

3. SHARIFF ACADEMY AND HIGHER EDUCATION, HASSAN, EIDGAH COMPLEX, HOSLINE ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201.

4. NISARGA EDUCATION TRUST, NISARGA COLLEGE OF NURSING , PARAMASHIVAPPA BUILDING, OLD TELEPHONE OFFICE, K.R.PURAM, HASSAN - 573 201.

- 29 -

5. KARNATAKA STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION, BANGALORE, 210, M.G.ROAD, (M. CHINNASWAMY STADIUM) BANGALORE – 560 001.

6. NETAJI RURAL DEVELOPMENT TRUST, HASSAN B KATHI HALLI KOPPAL, ARSIKERE MAIN ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201.

7. DR.A.M.NAGESH, PROPRIETOR, CHETANA NEURO CENTRE, 1ST CROSS, SHANKARMUTT ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201.

8. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD

TRANSPORT CORPORATION , K H ROAD, CENTRAL OFFICE, BANGALORE – 560 027. 9. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

RAJEEV GANDHI RURAL HOUSING CORPORATION CAUVERY BHAVAN, K H B COMPLEX, K G ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 009. ... RESPONDENTS


SRI K M NATARAJ, AAG AND SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R2

SRI R NATARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R3, SRI S V RAJESH, ADVOCATE FOR

M/S. RAJESH AND RAJESH FOR R5, SRI M S BHAGWATH, ADVOCATE FOR R6,

SRI K N NITISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI K V NARASIMHAN FOR R7,

SRI SRISHAILA FOR SMT. SHWETHA ANAND FOR R8 R4 AND R9 SERVED)

- 30 -

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH TEH ACQUISITION OF THE PETITIONERS LANDS UNDER NOTIFICATION DT.26.2.02, AT ANN-A, AS THE SCHEME ITSELF HAS LAPSED.

WP Nos. 2348-2458/11 BETWEEN 1. SMT JAYAMMA

AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, W/o LATE SRI B V MANJEGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI POST KASABA HOBLI HASSAN

2. SRI B MANJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/o SRI BHOMMEGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI HASSAN

3. SMT NANJAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/o LATE SRI BHOMMEGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI HASSAN

4. SRI THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/o SRI RANGEGOWDA R/AT SOMPURA, T D HALLI POST VIA ARAHALLI BELUR TALUK

5. SMT. MANJAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

- 31 -

W/o SRI KAPPANAGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI HASSAN

6. SRI SANJEEVAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/o SRI HANUMANTHEGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI HASSAN

7.i) SRI GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS W/o LATE SRI DYAVAIAH R/AT BHUVANAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI HASSAN

ii) SRI GANESH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI DYAVAIAH R/AT BHUVANAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI HASSAN

iii) SMT KAVITHA

AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, D/o LATE SRI DYAVAIAH R/AT BHUVANAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI HASSAN

iv) MS LAKSHMI

AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, D/o LATE SRI DYAVAIAH R/AT BHUVANAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI HASSAN

- 32 -

8. SRI K THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/o SRI KALEGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN

9.i) SRI L RANGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI LAKSHMEGOWDA

ii) SRI L THIRUMALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI LAKSHMEGOWDA

iii) SRI CHANDREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI LAKSHMEGOWDA

iv) SRI THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI LAKSHMEGOWDA

v) SRI VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI LAKSHMEGOWDA

ALL R/AT KATEHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN

10. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, W/o LATE SRI LAKSHMEGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN

11. SRI EKASHIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/o LATE ERABHADRAGOWDA R/AT DODDAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN

- 33 -

12. SRI MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/o SRI SANNAIAH C/o KUMAR TEXTILES 7TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD K R PURAM, HASSAN

13. SMT. RAJAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/o SRI HANUMANTHU R/AT SHANKARIPURAM NORTH LAYOUT, HASSAN

14. SRI THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI JAVAREGOWDA C/o KUMAR TEXTILES 7TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD K R PURAM HASSAN

15.i) SMT. JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, W/o LATE SRI KENGEGOWDA

ii) SMT. JANAKI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, W/o LATE SRI VENKATESH

iii) SRI MOHAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI KENGEGOWDA

iv) SRI DEVARAJ AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI KENGEGOWDA ALL R/AT B KATTIHALLI KOPPALU KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK

16. SRI P N SHANTHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI NANJEGOWDA

- 34 -

R/AT MYSORE BANK COLONY ARASIKERE ROAD HASSAN TALUK

17. SRI KRISHNAMURTHY MAJOR, S/o SRI PATHAIAH R/AT RAMESHNAGAR SANKENAHALLI DODDAPURA POST HASSAN TALUK

18. SRI GIRIYAPPA MAJOR, S/o SRI PATHAIAH R/AT RAMESHNAGAR SANKENAHALLI DODDAPURA POST HASSAN TALUK

19. SRI DORERAJU MAJOR, S/o SRI MALLAYA R/AT RAMESHNAGAR SANKENAHALLI DODDAPURA POST HASSAN TALUK

20. SMT. SIDDAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/o SRI RANGAIAH R/AT DODDAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK

21. SRI ERAMALLAIAH MAJOR, S/o LATE SRI MALLAIAH R/AT RAMESHNAGAR SANKENAHALLI DODDAPURA POST HASSAN TALUK

- 35 -

22. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA AGED ABOUT 62 YERS, W/o LATE SRI NARASIMHAGOWDA R/AT DODDAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK

23. SRI DEVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI VEERABHADRAGOWDA R/AT DODDAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK

24. SRI GIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/o SHANKARIPURA NORTH LAYOUT HASSAN

25. SRI MYLARASHETTY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/o SRI RAMUSHETTY R/AT BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK

26. SRI KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/o SRI JAVARIGOWDA R/AT DODDAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK

27. SRI NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/o SRI CHENNEGOWDA R/AT DODDAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK

- 36 -

28. SRI MARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, S/o SRI BETTEGOWDA R/AT DODDAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK

29. SRI SANNAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/o SRI JAVAREGOWDA R/AT DODDAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK

30. SMT. PARVATHAMMA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, W/o SRI EREGOWDA R/AT DODDAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK

31. SRI SANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/o SRI NANJEGOWDA R/AT DODDAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK

32. SMT. DEVIRAMMA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, W/o SRI CHELUVAIAH R/AT DODDAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK

33. SRI B K KESHAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI KARIGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK

- 37 -

34. SMT. THIMMAMMA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, W/o SRI VENKATEGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK

35. SMT. DYAVAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/o SRI BETTEGOWDA R/AT DODDAPURA VILLAGE DODDAPURA POST KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK

36. SRI KRISHNEGOWDA MAJOR, S/o SRI THIMMEGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK

37. SRI SHARADAMMA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, W/o SRI RANGASWAMY R/AT RAJAGOPALANAGAR KASTURI LAYOUT, II STAGE, BANGALORE 59

38. SRI D MANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/o SRI DYAVEGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK

39. SRI NINGARAJU AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/o SMT DHYAVAMMA R/AT RAMESHNAGAR POST DODDAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK

- 38 -

40. SRI SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/o SRI PAPPAIAH R/AT RAMESHNAGAR POST, DODDAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK

41. SMT. H L RATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, W/o SRI KANTHARAJU R/AT UDDURAHALLI DUPPA POST, DUPPA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK

42. SRI KANTHARAJU AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/o SRI SANNAIAH R/AT RAMESHNAGAR DODDAPURA POST HASSAN TALUK

43. SMT. GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, W/o SRI SANNAIAH R/AT RAMESHNAGAR DODDAPURA POST HASSAN TALUK

44. SRI B C NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/o SRI CHENNEGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK

45. SRI D CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, S/o LATE DYAVEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI GATE DODDAPURA POST, NEAR B T KOPPALU KASABA TALUK, HASSAN TALUK

- 39 -

46. SRI NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/o LATE CHENNEGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK

47. SMT. DYAVAMMA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, W/o SRI DYAVEGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK

48. SRI SINGEGOWDA MAJOR S/o LATE RAMEGOWDA R/AT DODDAPURA VILLAGE DODDAPURA POST HASSAN TALUK

49.a) SRI CHENNEGOWDA b) SRI RAMACHANDRA GOWDA

MAJORS ALL S/o SRI PUTTEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK

50. SRI R SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/o SRI RANGEGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI POST KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK

51. SMT. JAYAMMA @ JAYALAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, W/o SRI CHENNEGOWDA R/AT SANKANEHALLI VILLAGE DODDAPURA POST HASSAN TALUK

- 40 -

52. SRI G SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, S/o SANNEGOWDA R/AT SANKANEHALLI VILLAGE DODDAPURA POST HASSAN TALUK

53. SRI SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/o SRI GOWDAIAH R/AT BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK

54. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, W/o LATE KARIYAPPA R/AT LIG NO.194, SRINIVASA KRUPA KUVEMPUNAGAR HASSAN 573 201

55. SRI C KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI CHENNEGOWDA R/AT BHAVANI STORES VIDYANAGAR,HASSAN 573 201

56. SRI C DEVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/o SRI CHENNEGOWDA No.16, CHENNAKESHAVA NILAYA SHANKARIPURAM HASSAN - 573 201.

57.i) SRI THIMMASHETTY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/o SRI NARASIMHASETTY

ii) SRI RANGASHETTY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/o SRI NARASIMHASETTY

- 41 -

iii) SRI NARASIMHASHETTY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/o SRI NARASIMHASETTY

iv) SRI CHANDRASHETTY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/o SRI NARASIMHASETTY

v) SMT. NILAMMA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, W/o SRI VENKATASETTY ALL R/ATSANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK

58. SRI LOKESHA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/o SRI THIRUMALEGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK

59. SRI B E JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI ERAPPA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK

60.i) SRI PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/o SRI SANNEGOWDA

ii) SRI YOGESHGOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/o SRI SANNEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK

- 42 -

61. SRI B P DHARMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/o SRI PUTTEGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK

62. SRI RANGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/o RANGEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLIV ILLAG KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

63. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, W/o SRI SHAMNNA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASBA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK.

64. SRI RAMCHANDRA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O THIMMEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

65. SRI MARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI THIMMEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

66. SRI JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI THIMMEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

67. SRI RANGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O RANGEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

- 43 -

68. SRI THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O RANGEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

69. SRI SANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O DYAVEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

70. SRI S L YOGANNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O KULLEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE DODDAPURA POST HASSAN TALUK.

71. S K CHANDRA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O KULLEGODA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE DODDAPURA POST HASSAN TALUK.

72. SRI S R PARAMESHA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O S RAMAPPA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

73. SRI RAMASETTY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O NARASHIMHA SETTY R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

- 44 -

74. SRI RANGEGOWDA ALIAS PUTTANNA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, S/O SANNEGOWDA, R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

75. SRI S T KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O LATE K S THIMMEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

76. SRI PUTTANANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE K S THIMMEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

77.a) SMT JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O LATE SRI DEVARAJU R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

b) SRI CHANDRAKANTHA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O SRI DEVARAJAN

c) SMT. SHAKUNTHALA

AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, D/O LATE DEVARAJAN

78.a) SMT RUKMINI

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/O LATE SRI S T CHANDRAGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

- 45 -

b) SRI MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI S T CHADNRA GOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

c) SMT. MAHALAKSHMI

AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, D/O LATE SRI S T CHADNRA GOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

79. SRI S T PARAMESHA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI K S THIMMEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

80. SRI G N ANUSUYADEVI AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS W/O NARASIMHA GOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

81.a) SMT. GANGAVATHI

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O SADASHIVAYYA

b) SRI VEERAMALLAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O LATE MANJAIAH SRI CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI MANJAIAH

- 46 -

c) SRI MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O SRI LATE MANJAIAH ALL R/AT RAMESHWARANAGAR KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

82. SRI B S NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O SHETTY GOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

83. SRI B S APPAJI GOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

84. SRI MALLAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O ERAIAH DODADPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

85. SMT. KAMALAKSHI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O MANJUNATHA DODADPURA RAMESHWARA NAGAR, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

86. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O SRI DODDAIAHA DODADPURA RAMESHWARA NAGAR, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

- 47 -

87. SRI B M PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI MALIGEGOWDA BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

88. SRI RAJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI L RAMEGOWDA KATIHALIL KOPALU ARASIKERE ROAD, HASSAN TALUK.

89. SRI RAMEGWODA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O SRI LAKKEGOWDA KATIHALIL KOPALU ARASIKERE ROAD, HASSAN TALUK.

90. SRI PUTTASIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI AJJEGOWDA BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

91. SRI R RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O SRI RAMEGOWDA KATIHALLI KOPPALU ARASIKERE ROAD, HASSAN TALUK.

92. SRI B C MANJEGWODA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O SRI PUTTEGOWDA NO.993/1, KESHAVA NILAYA SHANKARPAURAM HASSAN. HASSAN TALUK.

- 48 -

93. SMT. NANJAMMA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, W/O SRI CHANNEGOWDA BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

94. SRI BH JAGADEESH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE HANUMANTHEGOWDA BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

95. SRI CHIKKAIAH S/O LATE SRI MALLAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

RAMESHWARA NAGAR HASSAN TOWN. 96. SRI THIMEMGODA

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI RANGEGOWDA SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

97.A) SMT. RUKMINI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, W/O SRI THIMMEGOWDA SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

97.B) SMT. PARVATHI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, W/O SRI MANJEGOWDA SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

- 49 -

98. SRI MALLASETTY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O SRI RAMASETTY SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

99. SRI KULLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI GOWDAIAH SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

100. SMT BANU AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, D/O SRI CHANDREGOWDA BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

101. SRI SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O SRI BOREGOWDA BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

102. SRI GANESH GOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O SRI BOMMEGOWDA BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

103. SRI B R GOPAL AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O SMT LAKSHMAMMA DODDAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

- 50 -

104. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS W/O SRI THIRUMALEGOWDA BHUVANAHALI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

105. SRI RAJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O SRI DEVYEGOWDA BHUVANAHALI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

106. SRI D B GANGADHAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O SRI DYAVEGOWDA BHUVANAHALI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

107. SRI NANJEGOWA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI RAMEGOWDA DODDAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK,

108. SRI KRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI RAMEGODWA DODDAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK,

109. SMT. BHAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, D/O LATE SRI SANNAIAH RAMESHWARA NAGAR DODAPURA DHAKALE HASSAN TALUK,

- 51 -

110. SRI B P MANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI PUTTEGOWDA NO.993/1, KESHAVA NILAYA SHANKARPURAM HASSAN TALUK,

111. SRI DADAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O LATE SRI ERAAIHSANNAIAH RAMESHWARANAGAR, DODDAPURA DHAKALE HASSAN TALUK. ... PETITIONERS


AND 1. HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,

P.B.NO.133, OPP. GURU THEATRE, B M ROAD, HASSAN. REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

2. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY THE SECETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M S BUIDLING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001

3. THE PRESIDENT KARNATAKA STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION, M CHINNASWAMY STADIUM, M G ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001

4. NISARGA EDUCATION TRUST (R), BHARATHI NURSING HOME R C ROAD, HASSAN . REP.BY PRESIDENT.

- 52 -

5. ISKCON & AKSHAYA PATHRA FOUNDATION RAJAJINAGAR, HAREKRISHNA HILL WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BANGALORE.

6. CHETAN NEURO CENTRE AND EEG LABORATORY 1ST CROSS, SHANKAR MUTT ROAD, HASSAN REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR DR.A.M. NAGESH.

7. NETAJI RURAL DEVELOPMENT TRUST (R) NO.212, SRI RANGANATH NILAYA NETAJI RAOD, VIDYANAGAR HASSAN REP. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE MR K R SUSHEELA GOWDA.

8. COMMANDENT (BATTALION) 5TH DIVISION, KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POCLIE LALITH MAHAL ROAD, MYSORE - 11.

9. RAJIV GANDHI RURAL HOUSING CORPORATION LTD 4TH FLOOR KHB COMPLEX, CAUVERY BAHVAN BANGALORE 9

10. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN.

11. THE DEPOT MANAGER KARNATAKA STTE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN. ... RESPONDENTS

- 53 -


SRI K M NATARAJ, AAG AND SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R2 AND R10


SRI M S BHAGWATH, ADVOCATE FOR R7, SMT.M.SUMANA BALIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R9

SMT. SHWETHA ANAND FOR R11 R4, 5, 6 AND 8 SERVED)


ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT AND QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DT.26.2.02, AT ANN-E ISSUED BY THE R1 AND FINAL NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE R2 DT.3.12.02 AT ANN-F.

WP Nos. 11927-11947/11 BETWEEN 1. SRI D JAVARE GOWDA

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O SRI PUTTEGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK

2. SRI CHANDREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI MANJEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE DODDAPURA POST HASSAN TALUK

3. SRI S M DEVARAJU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI MANJEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE

- 54 -

KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK

4. SRI PUTTATHIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK

5. SRI GIRISH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI GIDDEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK

6. SRI DEVARAJU AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI GIDDEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK

7. SRI S V THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O SRI VENKATEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK

8. SMT. JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, D/O SRI S V THIMMEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK

9. SRI KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O SRI DYAVE GOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE

- 55 -

KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK

10. SRI VENKATEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O SRI DYAVE GOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK

11. SRI SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O SRI DYAVE GOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK

12. SRI LOKESH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O SRI DYAVE GOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK

13. SRI S P RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O SRI PUTTEGOWDA R/AT SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK

14. SRI DYAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O SRI KARIGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK

15. SRI THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O SRI KARIGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK

- 56 -

16. SRI B G VENKATASETTY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, S/O SRI GIRISHETTY R/AT BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK

17. SRI THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O SRI DYAVEGOWDA R/AT DODDAPURA POST HASSAN TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT

18. SRI B NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O SRI CHENNEGOWDA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK

19. SRI GANGADHAR AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O SRI THIMMEGOWDA R/AT DODDAPURA POST, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT

20. SRI P N HIRIYANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI P LAKSHMINARANAPPA R/AT NO.516, SHARMADA GARUTHAMAN PARK, BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE 560 004

21. SMT. PARVATHAMMA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, W/O SRI HANUMANTHEGOWDA R/AT DODDAPURA POST, HASSAN TALUK. ... PETITIONERS


- 57 -


P B NO.133, OPP GURU THEATRE B M ROAD, HASSAN REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN

2. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M S BUILDINGS, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001

3. THE PRESIDENT KARNATAKA STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION M CHINNASWAMY STADIUM M G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

4. NISARGA EDUCATION TRUST (R) BHARATHI NURSING HOME R C ROAD, HASSAN, REP BY PRESIDENT

5. ISKCON & AKSHAYA PATHRA FOUNDATION RAJAJINAGAR, HAREKRISHNA HILL WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BANGALORE

6. CHETAN NEURO CENTRE AND EEG LABORATORY 1ST CROSS, SHANKAR MUTT ROAD, HASSAN, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR DR A M NAGESH

7. NETAJI RURAL DEVELOPMENT TRUST (R) NO.212, SRI RANGANATH NILAYA NETAJI ROAD, VIDYANAGAR, HASSAN REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE MR K R SUSHEELA GOWDA

- 58 -

8. COMMANDENT (BATTALION) 5TH DIVISION, KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE LALITH MAHAL ROAD, MYSORE - 11.

9. RAJIV GANDHI RURAL HOUSING CORPORATION LTD 4TH FLOOR, KHB COMPLEX, CAUVERY BHAVAN BANGALORE - 560 009. 10. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN

11. THE DEPOT MANAGER KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HASSAN DIVISION HASSAN.

... RESPONDENTS


SRI K M NATARAJ, AAG AND SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R2 AND R10


SRI M S BHAGWATH, ADVOCATE FOR R7, SMT.M.SUMANA BALIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R9

SRI K S BHARATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R11 R4, 5, 6 AND 8 SERVED)


ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 26.02.2002 AT ANNEX. E, ISSUED BY FIRST RESPONDENT AND FINAL NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 31.12.2002 AT ANNEX. F.

- 59 -

WP Nos. 14351-352/11 BETWEEN 1. GIRIYAPPA

AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O LATE PAPPAIAH R/O SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE, & KASABA HOBLI, DODDAPURA POST, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT.

2. SMT. RANGAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS W/O LATE LINGAIAH R/O SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE DODDAPURA POST HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS


AND 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M S BUILDINGS, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001.

2. HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY P B NO. 133, OPP: GURU THEATRE, B M ROAD, HASSAN REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN,

3. THE PRESIDENT KARNATAKA STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION, M.CHINNASWAMY STADIUM, M G ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.

- 60 -

4. NISARGA EDUCATION TRUST (R) BHARATHI NURSING HOME, R C ROAD, HASSAN. REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT

5. ISKCON & ADSHAYA PATHRA FOUNDATION, RAJAJINAGAR,

HAREKRISHNA HILL WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BANGALORE 6. CHETAN NEURO CENTRE AND EEG LABORATORY

1ST CROSS, SHANKAR MUTT ROAD, HASSAN, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, DR. A M NAGESH

7. NETAJI RURAL DEVELOPMENT TRUST (R) NO. 212, SRI. RANGANATH NILAYA, NETHAJI ROAD, VIDYANAGAR, HASSAN REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRSUTEE MR. K R SUSHEELA GOWDA

8. COMMANDANT (BATTALLION) 5TH DIVISION, KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE, LALITH MAHAL ROAD, MYSORE-11

9. RAJIV GANDHI RURAL HOUSING CORPORATION

LIMITED, 4TH FOOR K.H.B. COMPLEX, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE – 560 009.

10. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN

11. THE DEPOT MANAGER

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN.

... RESPONDENTS

- 61 -

(BY SRI K M NATARAJ, AAG AND SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R1, 8 AND R10

SRI RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI A RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R2 SRI S V RAJESH, ADVOCATE FOR

M/S. RAJESH AND RAJESH FOR R3, SRI M S BHAGWATH, ADVOCATE FOR R7,

SMT SHWETHA ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R11, R4, 5, 6 AND 9 SERVED)


ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DTD 26.2.2002 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE DTD 28.2.2002 AT ANNEX-C AND ALSO QUASH THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DTD 3.12.2002 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETE DTD 3.12.2002 AT ANNEX-D IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LANDS ARE CONCERNED.

WP Nos.39034/10 & 39035/10 BETWEEN 1. B R MANJEGOWDA

S/O SRI LATE RANGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING OF BOOVANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT

2. SMT. RANGAMMA W/O SRI LATE RANGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING OF BOOVANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI B M MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

- 62 -


P.B. NO. 133, B.M ROAD, HASSAN – 573 201. REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN

2. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,

REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001.

3. THE PRESIDENT

KARNATAKA STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION, M.CHINNASWAMY STADIUM, M G ROAD, BANGALORE –01.

4. NISARGA EDUCATION TRUST (R)

BHARATHI NURSING HOME, R C ROAD, HASSAN, REP BY PRESIDENT HASSAN.

5. ISKCON & ADSHAYA PATHRA

FOUNDATION, RAJAJINAGAR, HAREKRISHNA HILL WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BANGALORE

6. CHETAN NEURO CENTRE AND EEG LABORATORY

1ST CROSS, SHANKAR MUTT ROAD, HASSAN CITY, HASSAN, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, DR. A M NAGESH, HASSAN.

7. NETAJI RURAL DEVELOPMENT TRUST (R)

NO. 212, SRI. RANGANATH NILAYA, NETHAJI ROAD, VIDYANAGAR, HASSAN REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRSUTEE MR. K R SUSHEELA GOWDA, HASSAN.

- 63 -

8. COMMANDANT (BATTALLION) 5TH DIVISION, KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE, LALITH MAHAL ROAD, MYSORE-11

9. RAJIV GANDHI RURAL HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED, 4TH FOOR K.H.B. COMPLEX, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE –09.

10. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN CITY, HASSAN.

11. THE DEPOT MANAGER KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN CITY, HASSAN.

... RESPONDENTS


SRI K M NATARAJ, AAG AND SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R2, 8 AND R10,


SRI M S BHAGWATH, ADVOCATE FOR R7, SMT SHWETHA ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R11,

R4, 5, 6 AND 9 SERVED)

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 26.2.2002 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE DATED 26.2.2002 AT ANNEXURE-K, AND ALSO QUASH THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 3.12.2002 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE DATED 3.12.2002 AT ANNEXURE-L, IN SO FAR AS THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONERS CONCERNED.

- 64 -

WP Nos. 34369-383/10 BETWEEN 1. SRI KRISHNEGOWDA

S/O DEVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT

2. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE SRI CHANDREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT.

3. SRI RAMEGOWDA S/O KULLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT

4. SRI VENKATESH S/O KULLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT

5. SRI RAJEGOWDA @ THIMMEGOWDA S/O KULLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O SANKENAHALLI VILLAGE HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT

6. SRI KALEGOWDA S/O LACHCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O BOOVANAHALLI VILLAGE HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT

- 65 -

7. SRI RAJEGOWDA S/O OORUBAGILU THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O BOOVANAHALLI VILLAGE HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT

8. SRI KUMARA S/O VENKATEEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O B T KOPPALU HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT

9. SRI CHANNEGOWDA S/O VENATEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O BOOVANAHALLI VILLAGE HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT

10. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI W/O LATE SRI THAMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O DODDAPURA VILLAGE HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT

11. SMT. SHUSHEELAMMA W/O LATE SRI CHANDREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O DODDAPURA VILLAGE HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT

12. SRI SRINIVASA W/O LATE SRI VENKATEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O DODDAPURA VILLAGE HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT

13. SRI LAKSHMEGOWDA S/O SANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O DODDAPURA VILLAGE HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT

- 66 -

14. SRI RANGASWAMY S/O GUNDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O DODDAPURA VILLAGE HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT

15. SRI SANNAGUNDEGOWDA S/O GUNDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O DODDAPURA VILLAGE HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI B M MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY P B NO.133, B M ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201. REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN

2. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REP BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001.

3. THE PRESIDENT KARNATAKA STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION, M.CHINNASWAMY STADIUM, M G ROAD, BANGALORE 1, BANGALORE CITY.

4. NISARGA EDUCATION TRUST (R) BHARATHI NURSING HOME, R C ROAD, HASSAN, REP BY PRESIDENT HASSAN.

5. ISKCON & ADSHAYA PATHRA FOUNDATION, RAJAJINAGAR, HAREKRISHNA HILL WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BANGALORE, BANGALORE CITY.

- 67 -

6. CHETAN NEURO CENTRE AND EEG LABORATORY 1ST CROSS, SHANKAR MUTT ROAD, HASSAN CITY, HASSAN, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, DR. A M NAGESH, HASSAN.

7. NETAJI RURAL DEVELOPMENT TRUST (R) NO. 212, SRI. RANGANATH NILAYA, NETHAJI ROAD, VIDYANAGAR, HASSAN REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRSUTEE MR. K R SUSHEELA GOWDA, HASSAN.

8. COMMANDANT (BATTALLION) 5TH DIVISION, KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE, LALITH MAHAL ROAD, MYSORE-11,

9. RAJIV GANDHI RURAL HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED, 4TH FOOR K.H.B. COMPLEX, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE –09, BANGALORE CITY.

10. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN CITY, HASSAN.

11. THE DEPOT MANAGER KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN CITY, HASSAN. ... RESPONDENTS


SRI K M NATARAJ, AAG AND SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R2, 8 AND R10,


SRI K V NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R4 SRI M S BHAGWATH, ADVOCATE FOR R7,

SMT SHWETHA ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R11, R6 SERVED,

PETITION STANDS DISMISSED AS AGAINST R5 AND 9)

- 68 -

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DT.26.2.02 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAETTER DT.25.2.02 AT ANN-M AND ALSO QUASH THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DT.3.12.02 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAETTER DT.3.12.02 AT ANN-H IN SO FAR AS THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONERS CONCERNED

WP Nos. 41507-519/10 & 41676-695/10 BETWEEN

1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA

AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, W/O HONNEGOWDA @ SOMANNA

2. SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O HONNEGOWDA @ SOMANNA BOTH ARE RESIDING OF SANKENEHALLI

VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT. 3. RAJE GOWDA

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O SANKENEHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT.

4. KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O LATE ARASAIAH.

5. SWAMY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O LATE ARASAIAH

- 69 -

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT SANKENEHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT.

6. DEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE KODAIAH

7. ERARAJU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O LATE KODAIAH

8. ARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O LATE KODAIAH

9. APANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE KODAIAH PETITIONER NOS. 6 TO 9 ARE ALL

RESIDING AT SANKENEHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT.

10. HANUME GOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O LATE MANJEGOWDA

11. KARI GOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE MANJEGOWDA

12. PUTTANANJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O LATE MANJEGOWDA

13. MANJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE MANJEGOWDA

- 70 -

PETITIONER Nos. 10 TO 13 ARE ALL RESIDING AT SANKENEHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT.

14. S P RAMESH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O LATE PUTTSWAMAIAH

15. S P CHANDRA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O LATE PUTTASWAMAIAH

16. S P RAVI AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O LATE PUTTASWAMAIAH PETITIONER Nos. 14 TO 16 ARE ALL RESIDING AT SANKENEHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT.

17. R RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O RAMEGOWDA R/O BOOVANAHALLI KOPPAL, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT.

18. KALE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O LATE DYAVE GOWDA

19. VENKATE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O LATE DYAVE GOWDA

20. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O LATE DYAVE GOWDA

- 71 -

21. LOKESHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O LATE DYAVE GOWDA PETITIONER Nos. 18 TO 21 ARE ALL RESIDING AT SANKENEHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT.

22. SMT. YASHODAMMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEAQRS W/O PAPEGOWDA R/O D.NO 50/B, RAILWAY QUARTERS, B M ROAD, HASSAN.

23. KRISHNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O LATE RAMEGOWDA

24. KARI GOWDA @ NANJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O LATE RAME GOWDA PETITIONER Nos. 23 TO 24 ARE ALL R/O DODDEPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT

25. B C NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O LATE CHENNEGOWDA

26. B C DYAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O LATE CHENNEGOWDA

27. B C NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O LATE CHENNEGOWDA

- 72 -

28. B C KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O LATE CHENNEGOWDA PETITIONER Nos. 25 TO 28 ARE R/O BOOBANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT

29. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS W/O THIRUMALEGOWDA

30. SMT. JANAKAMMA

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS D/O THIRUMALEGOWDA

31. DORESWAMY

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O THIRUMALEGOWDA

32. GOPAL

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O THIRUMALEGOWDA

PETITIONER Nos. 29 TO 32 ARE ALL R/O BOOVANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT

33. B MARI GOWDA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS S/O JAVAREGOWDA R/O BOOVANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT.

... PETITIONERS


- 73 -


GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDINGS, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560001.

2. THE COMMISSIONER HASSAN URBAN DEV AUTHORITY HASSAN


4. NISARGA EDUCATION TRUST (R) BHARATHI NURSING HOME, R C ROAD, HASSAN, REP BY PRESIDENT

5. ISKCON & ADSHAYA PATHRA FOUNDATION, RAJAJINAGAR, HAREKRISHNA HILL WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BANGALORE,

6. CHETAN NEURO CENTRE AND EEG LABORATORY 1ST CROSS, SHANKAR MUTT ROAD, HASSAN CITY, HASSAN, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, DR. A M NAGESH.

7. NETAJI RURAL DEVELOPMENT TRUST (R) NO. 212, SRI. RANGANATH NILAYA, NETHAJI ROAD, VIDYANAGAR, HASSAN REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRSUTEE MR. K R SUSHEELA GOWDA.


- 74 -

9. RAJIV GANDHI RURAL HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED, 4TH FOOR K.H.B. COMPLEX, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE –09,


11. THE DEPOT MANAGER KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN. ... RESPONDENTS


DODDERI, AGA FOR R1, 8 AND R10, SRI RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR

SRI A RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R2 SRI S V RAJESH, ADVOCATE FOR

M/S. RAJESH AND RAJESH FOR R3, SRI K S BHARATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R11,

R4, 5, 6, 7 AND 9 SERVED)

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DT.26.2.02, PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE DT.28.2.02, AT ANN-B & ALSO QUASH THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DT.3.12.02, PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAK GAZETTE DT.3.12.02, AT ANN-C IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LANDS ARE CONCERNED UNDER SECTION 17 & 19 (1) OF THE KUDA ACT RESPECTIVELY.

WP Nos. 41520-526/10

BETWEEN

1. NANJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O CHANNE GOWDA R/O BOOVANAHALLI KOPPAL HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT

- 75 -

2. S R HANUME GOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O RAME GOWDA R/O SANKENEHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT

3. B D MANJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O RAME GOWDA R/O SANKENEHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT

4. D CHANNE GOWDA AGED ABOPUT 75 YEARS S/O DYAVE GOWDA R/O SANKENEHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT

5. CHANDRE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O DYAVE GOWDA R/O FARM HOUSE BUILT IN SY NO S.No.87/17, SANKENEHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT

6. S D RAME GOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS D/O DYAVE GOWDA R/O SANKENEHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT

7. SMT. LALITHA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS W/O RAMESH R/O SANKENEHALLI VILLAGE,

- 76 -

KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS



GOVERNMENT OF AKRNATAKA HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M S BUIDLING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001.

2. THE COMMISSIONER, HASSAN URBAN DEV. AUTHORITY HASSAN.


4. NISARGA EDUCATION TRUST (R) BHARATHI NURSING HOME, R C ROAD, HASSAN, REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT.

5. ISKCON & ADSHAYA PATHRA FOUNDATION, RAJAJINAGAR, HAREKRISHNA HILL WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BANGALORE,

6. CHETAN NEURO CENTRE AND EEG LABORATORY 1ST CROSS, SHANKAR MUTT ROAD, HASSAN, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, DR. A M NAGESH.

7. NETAJI RURAL DEVELOPMENT TRUST (R) NO. 212, SRI. RANGANATH NILAYA,

- 77 -

NETHAJI ROAD, VIDYANAGAR, HASSAN REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRSUTEE MR. K R SUSHEELA GOWDA.


9. RAJIV GANDHI RURAL HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED, 4TH FOOR K.H.B. COMPLEX, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE – 560 009.


11. THE DEPOT MANAGER KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K M NATARAJ, AAG AND SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R1, 8 AND R10,

SRI RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI A RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R2 SRI S V RAJESH, ADVOCATE FOR

M/S. RAJESH AND RAJESH FOR R3, SRI K S BHARATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R11,

R4, 5, 6, 7 AND 9 SERVED)

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 26.2.2002 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE DATED 28.2.2002 AT ANNEXURE-B AND ALSO QUASH THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 3.12.2002 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE DATED 3.12.2002 AT ANNEXURE-C IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LANDS ARE CONCERNED UNDER SECTION 17 AND 19 OF THE KUDA ACT RESPECTIVELY.

- 78 -

THESE WRIT PETITIONS RESERVED ON 12.12.2012 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioning land-owners’ grievance in

W.P.Nos.394/2008, 9966/2008, 1914/2007,

2447/2008, 2733/2008, 1915/2007, 17000/2008 &

17052-17054/2008, 37548-37549/2009, 25570-

25572/2009, 5490-5491/2009, 2348-2458/2011,

11927-11947/2011, 14351-14352/2011, 39034/2010

& 39035/2010, 34369-34383/2010, 41507-

41519/2010 & 41676-41695/2010 and 41520-

41526/2010 is over the issuance of the preliminary

notification, dated 26.2.2002 and the final notification,

dated 3.12.2002 issued under Sections 17(1) and 19(1)

respectively of the Karnataka Urban Development

Authorities Act, 1987 (‘KUDA’ for short), in so far as

they pertain to the petitioners’ lands. The acquisition of

the land measuring 394 acres 35 guntas is for the

benefit of Hassan Urban Development Authority (‘HUDA’

- 79 -

for short) for the formation of Sri S.M.Krishna Nagar

(‘SMKN’ for short) Layout. Some of the petitioning land-

owners have also sought the declaration that the

acquisition proceedings have lapsed. Further, some of

them have also sought the quashing of the bulk

allotments made to organizations like Nisarga

Educational Trust, Karnataka State Cricket Association

(‘KSCA’ for short), Karnataka State Road Transport

Corporation (‘KSRTC’ for short), Netaji Rural

Development Trust, etc.

2. W.P.No.361/2008 is filed by Netaji Rural

Development Trust (R), in whose favour the HUDA had

allotted 6 acres of land. Its grievance is over the

cancellation of allotment on account of the delay in

paying the allotment consideration.

3. Sri Ravivarma Kumar, the Senior Counsel

appearing for Sri A.Ravishankar for HUDA has raised

two preliminary objections. He submits that the

majority of the petitioning land-owners have entered

- 80 -

into the consent award and have also received the

compensation amount. According to him, once the

landowner gives the consent to the acquisition of his

land and receives the compensation thereon, he loses

the right of raising the challenge to the acquisition

proceedings. He sought to draw support from the Apex

Court’s judgments in the cases of NORTHERN INDIAN

GLASS INDUSTRIES v. JASWANT SINGH AND

OTHERS reported in AIR 2003 SC 234 and URMILA

ROY AND OHERS vs. BENGAL PEARLESS HOUSING

DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD. AND OTHERS

reported in (2009) 5 SCC 242.

4. The details of giving the consent to the passing

of the awards and the receipt of the compensation

amounts by the various petitioning land-owners herein

are culled out in the tabular form hereinbelow. It is

based on the statement filed by the HUDA.

- 81 -

Sl. No.

W.P.Nos. No. of petitioners who have given the consent

No. of petitioners who have received the compensation

1. 1914/2007 7 5

2. 1915/2007 3 3

3. 2733/2008 8 8

4. 2447/2008 36 36

5. 17000/2008 and 17052-

54/2008

4 3

6. 394/2008 5 0

7. 9966/2008 8 8

8. 5490-5491/2009

3 0

9. 25570-72/2009 3 3

10. 41507-

519/2010

33 31

11. 41520-26/2010 5 1

12. 2348-2458/2011

88 84

13. 37548-549/2009

2 2

14. 34369-383/2010

15 15

15. 14351-352/2011

2 2

16. 39034 and 39035/2010

1 1

17. 11927 and 11947/2011

21 20

5. The second preliminary objection raised by the

learned Senior Counsel is that these petitions are liable

- 82 -

to be thrown out on the short ground of delay and

laches. He submits that the preliminary notification

and final notifications are issued in 2001 and 2002

respectively. The petitions are filed between 2007 and

2011. In all the cases, there is a delay of 5 to 9 years.

In this regard, he relies on the Apex Court’s decision in

the case of NORTHERN INDIAN GLASS INDUSTRIES

(supra).

6. He submits that on the passing of the award

and taking of the possession, the lands vest in the State

Government. The State Government has made over the

lands to the HUDA. Anything that comes to be vested by

the operation of law cannot be divested at the instance

of the erstwhile landowners.

7. Sri B.N.Jayadeva, the learned counsel for the

petitioners in W.P.Nos.9966/2008, 2447/2008, 2348-

2548/2011 and 11927-11947/2011 alleges the

colourable exercise of power in acquiring the

- 83 -

petitioners’ lands compulsorily. He submits that the

possession of the lands was forcibly taken from the

petitioners by misrepresenting the facts.

8. He submits that even before the passing of the

award, the large chunks of the lands were allotted to

bigwigs. He submits that the award was passed

only on 06.11.2003. On 19.11.2003, the HUDA has

allotted 50 acres of land to Shariff Academy of

Higher Education, Hassan vide HUDA’s letter, dated

19.11.2003 (Annexure-R4). He also brings to my notice

the extract of the HUDA's resolution for allotting 50

acres of land to Shariff Academy of Higher

Education, 40 acres to Rajiv Gandhi Educational Trust,

30 acres to KSCA and 10 acres to Cultural Society.

These bulk allotments are un-related to the housing

scheme. He submits that though only a sum of `3.00

lakhs per acre was given to the petitioners, the lands

- 84 -

are sold to the said beneficiaries for a consideration of

`5.00 lakhs per acre.

9. Sri Jayadeva submits that the bulk allotment

to the aforesaid beneficiaries is impermissible under

the provisions of the KUDA Act. Section 16 of the

KUDA Act, dealing with the particulars to be provided

in a development scheme, contains no enabling

provisions for making the bulk allotments to the said

bodies.

10. Nextly, Sri Jayadeva submits that as many as

5 sale deeds are executed by the HUDA in favour

of the beneficiaries. They cover an area of 54 acres.

Such transactions clearly show that the lands are

acquired for benefiting some organisations and

individuals and not for the purpose of developing any

housing layout.

11. Sri Jayadeva submits that the allotments

made are far in excess of the acquired lands. He

- 85 -

submits that the allotment may extend to 500 acres

whereas the acquired lands measure only 394 acres.

This itself is the signal proof of the fraudulent

acts, so submits Sri Jayadeva. He relies on the Apex

Court’s judgment in the case of ROYAL ORCHID

HOTELS LIMITED & ANR. v. G.JAYARAMA REDDY

AND OTHERS reported in MANU/SC/1146/2011=

(2011) 10 SCC 608 and the GREATER NOIDA

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v.

DEVENDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS reported in (2011)

12 SCC 375.

12. Sri Jayadeva submits that the giving of large

chunks of lands to the KSCA does not sub-serve any

public purpose. It is a private society and the public of

Hassan cannot secure entry into the KSCA’s premises

as a matter of right.

13. He submits that once the scheme is brought in

place, there cannot be any amendment to the same. In

- 86 -

the instant case, as the respondents claim to have taken

the possession in 2004 itself, there cannot be any

modification of the scheme after five years. If the

scheme is not implemented in five years, it is to be

presumed that it has lapsed.

14. Sri Jayadeva submits that as the earlier order

according approval to the HUDA’s scheme is given by

the Cabinet, any modification has to be approved only

by the Cabinet. According to him, the approval to the

modified scheme is given only by the Under Secretary.

He has also produced the copies of the agenda note and

of the Cabinet’s resolution to show that the earlier

scheme (as it stood before modification) was approved

by the Cabinet.

15. Sri Jayadeva brings to my notice the making of

the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities

(Allotment of Sites in Lieu of compensation for the land

acquired) Rules, 2009. Rule 3 of the said Rules entitles

- 87 -

the land-losers to get the developed lands between 35%

and 40%, if he agrees to be compensated by way of

residential sites. He further brings to my notice that the

HUDA vide its letter, dated 08.06.2010 has requested

the Government to take a decision in the matter of

application of said Rules for the petitioners’ cases. The

said decision cannot be taken at HUDA’s discretion.

16. Sri B.M.Mohan Kumar, the learned counsel for

the petitioners in W.P.Nos.39034 and 39035/2010 and

34369-34383/2010 submits that the compensation

paid is too meagre. Because of certain political

compulsions, the petitioners had to sign the consent

award. He submits that the possession of the

petitioners’ land is not taken in a manner known to the

provisions contained in the KUDA Act and the Rules

framed thereunder.

17. Sri Mohan Kumar submits that the lands are

being sold at a much higher price. He submits that the

- 88 -

petitioners in W.P.Nos.39034 & 39035/2010 have

constructed the residential buildings. He submits that

the petitioners and their family members have been

residing there. They have been paying the property tax.

The petitioners’ umpteen number of representations to

exclude the lands in question from acquisition have not

evoked any response from them.

18. Sri Mohan Kumar further produced the copies

of the details of metre installations serviced by the KEB,

of the electricity charges paid receipts and of the

property tax paid receipts issued by the local body.

19. He submits that the petitioners in

W.P.Nos.39034 & 39035/2010 have not received the

compensation in respect of 7 guntas of land out of total

extent of 1 acre, 27 guntas. He submits that on the

said 7 guntas of land, the petitioners have raised the

residential structure and the cattle-sheds.

- 89 -

20. Sri M.B.Naragund, the learned counsel for the

petitioners in W.P.Nos.2733/2008 and 25570-72/2009

complains of the total inaction in the matter of

implementing the scheme. He submits that the HUDA is

evincing interest only in allotting the poor farmers’ lands to

the influential bodies. He also reiterates the submissions

made by the other learend advocates appearing for the

petitoning land-owners. Smt.Manjula N.Tejaswi, the learned

counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.17000/2008 and

W.P.Nos.17052-54/2008 submits that she adopts the

submissions made by the other learned advocates

appearing on behalf of the petitioning land-owners in this

batch of petitions.

21. Sri H.C.Shivaramu, the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.394/2008, 14351-

14352/2011, 41507-41519/2010 and 41520-41526/2010

submits that the scheme is not implemented at all; not even

an inch of land is developed by the HUDA. On the other

hand, 90% of the acquired lands is sold to the third parties

- 90 -

on as is where is basis. When the HUDA has not even

started the implementation of the scheme, it is to be held

that the scheme has lapsed. He submits that the

respondents are guilty of the dereliction of duty. He prays

for the restoration of the land to the poor farmers. When

there was no demand from the public for the housing sites,

there was no need for the development scheme at all, so

contends Sri Shivaramu.

22. The learned counsel submits that the Government

has made it very clear that the HUDA may take up the

scheme, if it has the necessary financial capability. It never

approved or authorised the HUDA to raise the financial

assistance for the purpose of acquiring the land.

23. He complains that the respondents have deviated

from the public purpose and that they have misused their

power conferred by the statute. Just because the poor

ignorant farmers have received the compensation, the

respondents cannot carry on with the acquisition

proceedings, as per their whims and fancies.

- 91 -

24. He has also relied on the Division Bench

judgment of this Court in the case of SMT.NINGAMMA

AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND

OTHERS reported in 2011 (4) KCCR 2919, wherein it

is held that if the acquisiton of land is flawed by the

arbitrary exercise of power, the entire development

scheme is liable to be quashed and the land-owners are

entitled to the restoration of the lands.

25. Sri Shivaramu brings to my notice the

resolution passed by HUDA on 1.2.2000 and

16.12.2004 in respect of other lands. The said

resolutions provide for the sharing of the land between

HUDA and the land-losers in the ratio of 60:40. He

prays for the equal protection of law.

26. Sri Shivaramu makes a specific submission

with reference to the petitioners in W.P.No.394/2008.

He submits that the petitioners in the said case have

not availed of the compensation and that they have built

- 92 -

permanent structures on the lands in question and

have been residing therein.

27. Sri Nikilesh Rao, the learned counsel for the

petitioners in W.P.Nos.1914/2007, 1915/2007 and

5490-91/2009 submits that neither the delay nor the

passing of the consent awards would come in the way of

the petitioners challenging the acquisition proceedings,

as it is a case of fraudulent exercise of power. He would

contend that the cause of action for filing these petitions

are the subsequent transactions between the HUDA and

the several organisations and societies in whose favour

the bulk allotments are made, even when the approved

scheme does not provide for the same. He would

submit that the acquisition proceedings cannot be

saved in part on the ground that some of the petitioners

had given their consent to the passing of the award. In

support of his submissions, he relies on the Apex

- 93 -

Court’s judgment in the case of ROYAL ORCHID

HOTELS LIMITED (supra).

28. Sri Nikilesh Rao has also relied on the Apex

Court’s judgment in the case of GREATER NOIDA

(supra) to advance the submission that the quashment

of the acquisition proceedings cannot be confined only

to those who have not accepted the compensation. He

would contend that as the acquisition proceedings are

actuated by malafides, they cannot be sustained even in

respect of those land-owners, who have given the

consent to the passing of the award. He read out para

47 of the said decision. It is extracted hereinbelow:

“47. We do no find any substance in the

argument of the learned counsel for the

petitioners that quashing of the acquisition

proceedings should have been confined to

those who had not accepted the amount of

compensation. Once the High Court came to

the conclusion that the acquisition of land

was vitiated due to want of good faith and

- 94 -

the provisions of the 1894 Act had been

invoked for a private purpose, there could not

have been any justification for partially

sustaining the acquisition on the ground that

some of the landowners or their transferees

had accepted compensation by entering into

an agreement with the Authority. The

situation in which the people belonging to this

class are placed in the matter of acquisition of

their land leaves little choice to them but to

make compromises and try to salvage

whatever they can. Therefore, even though

some persons may not have resisted the

acquisition and may have accepted the

compensation by entering into agreements, it

is not possible to find any fault in the

approach adopted by the High Court.”

29. Sri S.V.Rajesh, the learned counsel appearing

for KSCA, respondent No.5 in W.P.Nos.1914/2007,

1915/2007, 5490-5491/2009 and respondent No.3 in

W.P.Nos.9966/2008, 2447/2008, 2348-2458/2011,

11927-11947/2011, 14351-14352/2011, 39034/2010

- 95 -

and 39035/2010, 34369-34383/2010, 41507-

41519/2010 and 41676-41695/2010 and 41520-

41526/2010 submits that the Government vide its

letter, dated 5.10.2005 (Annexure-R14 to the HUDA’s

statement of objections) has accorded approval to the

HUDA’s resolution to allot 25 acres to the KSCA at the

rate of `3 lakhs per acre. The learned counsel submits

that Section 39 of KUDA Act permits the sale of the

lands, if it is for the purpose of playground. He read out

Section 39, which is as follows:

“39. Prohibition of the use of area reserved

for parks, playground and civic amenities for

other purposes – The authority shall not sell

or otherwise dispose of any area reserved for

public parks and playgrounds and civic

amenities, for any other purpose and any

disposition so made shall be null and void.”

30. He submits that the Zoning Regulations also

permit the sale of the land reserved for playground. He

submits that the acquisition proceedings are completed

- 96 -

within 5 years from the date of the granting of the

approval to the scheme. Therefore, it may be incorrect

on the part of the petitioners to state that the scheme is

not substantially implemented. He brings to my notice

the Division Bench’s judgment of this Court in the case

of URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SHIMOGA v.

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in

2004(5) KLJ 233. He read out the following portion of

the order:

”6 ………………………… The making of the

award based on the declarations issued

under Sections 17 and 19 of the Act would in

our opinion constitute a step in the direction of

implementing the scheme. Other steps like

taking of possession, laying of roads and

allotment of sites would also contribute to the

implementation of the scheme in some

measure or the other. Suffice it to say that the

least which the authority was required to do

was to ensure that an award is made in

accordance with the provisions under the

Land Acquisition Act within a period of 5

- 97 -

years to save the scheme from lapsing under

Section 27 of the Karnataka Urban

Development Authorities act.”

31. He submits that as the possession of the land

is already taken by the Government and made over to

the HUDA, the erstwhile landowners are not entitled to

have the acquisition proceedings invalidated and to seek

the re-possession of their lands. He sought to draw the

support from the Apex Court’s judgment in the case of

Northern Indian Glass Industries (supra). The

relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted

hereinbelow:

“It is well settled position in law that after

passing the award and taking possession

under Section 16 of the Act, the acquired land

vests with the Government free from all

encumbrances. Even if the land is not used

for the purpose for which it is acquired, the

land owner does not get any right to ask for

revesting the land in him and to ask for

restitution of the possession.”

- 98 -

32. Nextly, the learned counsel brings to my notice

this Court’s decision in the case of JEELANI MOSQUE

COMMITTEE (R) v. THE SHIMOGA URBAN

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER reported

in ILR 2005 KAR 5819. He read out para 10 of the

said decision, which reads as follows:

“10. Section 39 imposes a fetter on the 1st

respondent not to sell or otherwise dispose off

the reserved area for any other purpose as

any such disposition is declared to be null

and void. It is true that Community Hall does

not find a place in the definition of ‘Civic

Amenity’, while Section 39 prohibits disposal

of the civic amenity site for any other

purpose. The learned counsel for the 1st

respondent was not able to point out to any

other provision of the KUDA Act, which

couched the authority with the power to

change the user of the site from the purpose

for which it is reserved. The legislature

having not empowered the 1st respondent to

change the user of the site, reserved for

- 99 -

Community Hall, the action of the 1st

respondent tantamounts to breach of public

trust.”

33. He submits that these petitions are liable to be

rejected on the short ground of delay and laches. He

submits that the decision of the Apex Court in the case

of Royal Orchid (supra) does not come to the rescue of

the petitioners in any way, as the facts of the said case

and the facts of this case are entirely different. He

submits that in the case of Royal Orchid (supra) the

property developer had already entered into an

agreement with the owners of the lands, whose lands

came to be notified subsequently at his instance. He

also offered the funds in return for the lands. Thus, as

the fraud vitiated the initiation of the acquisition

proceedings, the Apex Court held that the delay and

laches would not militate against the landowners. In

the instant case, as there is no fraud on power as such,

it is not open to the petitioners to challenge the

- 100 -

acquisition proceedings after 5 long years of the

issuance of the acquisition notification and that too

after receiving the compensation.

34. Sri K.S.Bharath Kumar, the learned counsel

appearing for the KSRTC – the respondent No.11 in

W.P.Nos.11927-11947/2011, 41507-41519/2010 and

41676-41695/2010 and 41520-41526/2010 and Sri

Srishaila, the learned counsel appearing for Smt.Swetha

Anand for the KSRTC – the respondent No.8 in

W.P.Nos.1915/2007 and 5490-5491/2009 and

respondent No.11 in W.P.Nos.2348-2458/2011, 14351-

14352/2011, 39034/2010 and 39035/2010 and 34369-

34383/2010 make the submissions akin to the

submissions of Sri S.V.Rajesh.

35. Sri M.S. Bhagwat, the learned counsel for

Nethaji Rural Development Trust (petitioner in W.P.

No.361/2008 and respondent No.6 in

W.P.Nos.1914/2007, 1915/2007 & 5490-5491/2009,

- 101 -

respondent No.7 in W.P. No.9966/2008, 2447/2008,

2348-2458/2011, 11927-11947/2011, 14351-

14352/2011, 39034 & 39035/2010, 34369-

34383/2010, 41507-41519/2010 & 41676-695/2010

and 41520-51526/2010) submits that the six acres of

land was allotted by HUDA for a consideration of Rs. 5

lakhs per acre. He submits that as the allotment is

unilaterally cancelled, the said party has approached

this Court with a prayer for quashing the cancellation

order and consequently for a direction to HUDA to re-

allot the land.

36. Sri Bhagwat submits that the writ petitions

filed by the landowners are not in public interest. As

none of the landowners are the applicants for the

allotment of sites, they cannot have any grievance over

the allotment of sites to the third parties. He also prays

for the rejection of the petitions filed by the landowners

on the ground of locus-standi and on the ground of

- 102 -

delay and laches. His last submission is that the

original scheme has to be retained; if the modified

scheme is given effect to, the said party would loose the

opportunity of getting the land measuring six acres.

37. Sri K.N. Nitish, the learned counsel

appearing for Sri K.V.Narasimhan for Nisarga

Educational Trust (respondent No. 4 in

W.P.Nos.9966/2008, 1914/2007, 2447/2008,

1915/2007, 5490-5491/2009, 2348-2458/2011,

11927-11947/2011, 14351-14352/2011, 39034 &

39035/2010, 34369-34383/2010, 41507-41519/2010

& 41520-41526/2010) and for Chethana Neuro Centre

(respondent No. 6 in W.P.Nos.5490-5491/2009, 2348-

2458/2011, 11927-11947/2011, 14351-14352/2011,

39034 & 39035/2010, 34369-34383/2010 & 41507-

41519/2010) submits that the said Trust is a bonafide

purchaser of the land measuring 10 acres for a

consideration of Rs.5 lakhs per acre. He submits that,

- 103 -

as the said land is given for starting the educational

institution, it falls within the meaning of civic amenities

site. He also submits that the HUDA’s resolution is

further approved by the Government. It is only on

taking the Government’s sanction that the HUDA has

executed the sale deed. He submits that the recitals

and clauses in the sale deed are clearly indicative that

the HUDA has the power to execute the sale deed.

Without prejudice to these submissions, he contends

that whether the HUDA really has such a power or not

is a matter of indoor management of the HUDA, with

which the allottees or purchasers are not concerned.

For its internal problems, HUDA cannot cancel the sale

deed. By cancelling the sale deed, the said Trust’s

precious rights cannot be extinguished. He submits

that the rights and liabilities of the buyer and seller are

governed by the provisions contained in Section 55 of

the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

- 104 -

38. On the impermissibility of the cancellation of

the sale deed in the writ proceedings, he read out

paragraph 80 and 86 of the Full Bench judgment of the

Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 2006 (6) ALT

523 in the case of YANALA MALLESHWARI AND

OTHERS v. ANANTHULA SAYAMMA AND OTHERS.

They are extracted hereinbelow :

“80. Assuming that the petitioners filed

suits before the civil Court for the relief, as is

prayed herein before this Court, having

regard to the pleadings, the civil Court has to

necessarily frame the issues, which would

be somewhat like this, namely, (i) whether

the sale deeds executed by the vendors in

favour of the petitioners are valid and

binding on the owners of the property; (ii)

whether the GPA executed by the owner in

favour of the persons, who executed sale

deeds enables such GPA holder to convey or

transfer the immovable property; (iii)

whether the person who obtained GPA from

the real owner has not played fraud and

misrepresentation on the real owner; (iv)

- 105 -

whether the sale deed executed is void or

voidable as vitiated by fraud and

misrepresentation; and (v) whether the

cancellation deed is liable to be cancelled.

There could be other incidental or related

issues but mainly these will be issues in

case the petitioners go to civil Court. This

Court cannot resolve these issues in writ

petitions. Each one of the issues requires

evidence – both oral and documentary. Such

evidence must be relevant and must relate to

existence or non-existence of every disputed

fact in issue. Mere pleadings either by way

of plaint or written statement or for that

matter, an affidavit would not be sufficient

to decide the issue either way. in such a

situation, an assumption that a vendor

cannot cancel the sale deed or the

registering authority cannot accept and

register the cancellation deed would be

legally incorrect.

86. Whether the vendors file suits for

cancellation of the instrument under Section

31 or for declaration of title under Section 34

- 106 -

or whether vendees file suits for cancellation

of the cancellation deed, there are bound to

be allegations of fraud, misrepresentation

and illegality by both the parties. an

elaborate procedure is available under Code

of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), Evidence Act,

Specific Relief Act and Transfer of Property

Act, which has to be followed by a civil

Court. Certain issues cannot be adjudicated

by resorting to summary procedure. In a

writ petition, this Court decides the issues

based on the affidavit evidence. Whenever

affidavit evidence is not sufficient and

further probe is required in the sense that

persons who swear affidavits need to be

cross-examined and confirmed with

documentary evidence, a writ petition is not

a proper remedy. In a sale transaction, it is

essentially a contract between two persons

and if one person after conclusion of the

contract goes back and makes attempt or

purports to make an attempt to deny the

benefit of the contract of the other party, the

remedy is only in the civil Court.”

- 107 -

39. He also sought to draw support from the Full

Bench judgment of Madras High Court in the case of

M/s. Latif Estate Line India Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Hadeeja

Ammal in W.A. Nos. 592 & 938/2009. The relevant

paragraph in the said judgment is extracted hereunder :

“59. After giving our anxious

consideration on the questions raised in the

instant case, we come to the following

conclusion :-

(i) A deed of cancellation of a sale

unilaterally executed by the transferor does

not create, assign, limit or extinguish any

right, title or interest in the property and is of

no effect. Such a document does not create

any encumbrance in the property already

transferred. Hence such a deed of

cancellation cannot be accepted for

registration. (ii) Once title to the property is

vested in the transferee by the sale of the

property, it cannot be divested unto the

transferor by execution and registration of a

deed of cancellation even with the consent of

the parties. The proper course would be re-

- 108 -

convey the property by a deed of conveyance

by the transferee in favour of the transferor.

(iii) Where a transfer is effected by way of

sale with the condition that title will pass on

payment of consideration, and such

intention is clear from the recital in the deed,

then such instrument or sale can be

cancelled by a deed of cancellation with the

consent of both the parties on the ground of

non-payment of consideration. The reason is

that in such a sale deed, admittedly, the title

remained with the transferor, (iv) In other

cases, a complete and absolute sale can be

cancelled at the instance of the transferor

only by taking recourse to the Civil Court by

obtaining a decree of cancellation of sale

deed on the ground interalia of fraud or any

other valid reasons.”

40. He also brought to my notice of the Apex

Court’s Judgment in the case SUNIL PANNALAL

BANTHIA AND OTHERS v. CITY AND INDUSTRIAL

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF MAHARASHTRA

LTD. AND ANOTHER reported in 2007 STPL(LE)

- 109 -

38200 SC. He read out paragraph 22, which is as

follows :

“22. On the legal question, it is quite obvious

that having acted and held out assurances to

the appellants which caused the appellants to

alter their position to their prejudice, it was not

open to CIDCO to take a unilateral decision to

cancel the allotment on the ground that it had

acted without jurisdiction and/or in excess of

jurisdiction and in violation of its rules and

regulations. Even on that score, the argument

advanced on behalf of CIDCO is unacceptable

having regard to Regulation 4 of the New

Bombay Disposal of Land Regulations, 1975

extracted hereinabove which empowered CIDCO

to dispose of plots of land even on the basis of

individual applications. The said aspect of the

matter has been dealt with in detail in Civil

Appeal Nos. 408/07 and 410/07 referred to

hereinabove.”

41. Sri Ravivarma Kumar, the learned Senior

Counsel appearing for Sri Ravishankar for the HUDA

submits that there is no departure or aberration from

the modified scheme, as approved by the Government.

- 110 -

The HUDA has already received 16,651 applications for

allotment. He submits that this number includes the

applications made for allotment of sites in other layouts,

where the applicants could not secure their allotment.

He brings to my notice the demand survey report. It is

stated therein that the cases of the unsuccessful

applicants for allotment of sites in other layouts could

be considered on priority basis for the allotment of sites

in the SMKN layout. He submits that the HUDA’s letter,

dated 15.12.2000 and its accompanying documents are

self-explanatory. The internal annexure to the said

document reads as follows:

“3. F »AzÉ ¤UÀ¢vÀ s̈ÁUÀUÀ¼À°è ¤ªÉÃ±Àö£À PÉÆÃj 16651

d£À ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ £ÉÆöÃAzÀtÂ ºÀt ¸À°è¹ vÀªÀÄä ºÉ¸ÀgÀö£ÀÄß

£ÉÆöÃAzÁ¬Ä¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. EzÀgÀ°è PÉ®ªÀÅ d£À ¤ªÉÃ±Àö£ÀzÀ MlÄÖ

ºÀtzÀ PÁ®Ä s̈ÁUÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ ¥ÁªÀw¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F jÃw

¤ªÉÃ±Àö£À ºÀAaPÉUÁöV ¤jÃQë¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀªÀjUÉ GzÉÝÃö²vÀ

§qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è ªÉÆzÀ® DzÀåvÉ ¤ÃqÀ̄ ÁUÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ.”

- 111 -

42. To show that the allotment proceedings are of

continuing nature, he read out Clause (iv) of the HUDA’s

Notification, dated 06.09.2005 calling for applications

for allotment. It reads as follows:

“F »AzÉÀ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ ¤ªÉÃ±Àö£À PÉÆöÃj Cfð À̧°è¸ÀÄªÁUÀ

1/4£É s̈ÁUÀ ºÀt vÀÄA©gÀÄªÀ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ. FUÀ ««zsÀ

D¼ÀvÉAiÀÄ ¤ªÉÃ±Àö£ÀUÀ½UÉ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀÄªÀ ªÀÄÄAUÀqÀ ºÀtPÉÌ

ªÀåvÁå¸À«zÀÝ°. ªÀåvÁå À̧zÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀæ ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.”

43. He also submits that the fixation of the

allotment consideration at Rs.56.40 per sq.ft. is done on

scientific lines, as is discernible from internal Annexure-

5 to the said letter.

44. To show that the preliminary notification

issued under Section 17(1) of the KUDA Act is

also published in local newspaper in compliance

with the requirements of Section 17(3) of the KUDA

Act, he has produced the original ‘Hassan

- 112 -

Madyama’ issue, dated 23.03.2001 containing the said

notification.

45. The learned Senior Counsel submits that in

compliance with the interim order, dated 08.04.2009

passed by this Court, the Government has accorded

approval to the modified scheme on 20.05.2009

(Annexure R60 to HUDA’s additional statement of

objections).

46. The learned Senior Counsel assures that the

SMKN Layout would be an ideal layout in the State and

perhaps in the country itself. It would have ultra-

modern facilities. All the requirements for achieving

this goal would be scrupulously adhered to.

47. On the Court’s specifically asking the learned

Senior Counsel as to how some portions of the acquired

lands came to be sold to certain parties, on what basis

the sale consideration came to be fixed, on what basis

the extent of the land came to be determined in the

- 113 -

absence of the auditing of the land requirements and

further as to how the public property came to be

disposed of without even issuing the

advertisement/notification calling for applications for

allotment, he fairly submits that some irregularities

have taken place in the matter of allotment. He seeks

leave of the Court to re-trace the HUDA’s steps so that

its acts could be brought in conformity with the

approved scheme.

48. He submits that the sale deeds are not

upholdable at all and that therefore they are liable to be

set aside. For advancing the contention that under

certain circumstances even the registered deeds,

transferring the property, can be set aside in the writ

proceedings, he brings to my notice the Apex Court

judgment in the case of B.L.WADHERA v. UNION OF

INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (2002) 9 SCC 108.

- 114 -

He read out the operative portion of the said judgment

from para 46(i); it is extracted hereinbelow:

“46 (i) consequent upon quashing of the

Gram Panchayat resolutions dated

23.10.1983 and 8.12.1989, the government

orders dated 3.3.1984 and 6.6.1990 and the

gift deeds executed by the Gram Panchayat in

favour of the respondent Trust, the

possession of the land, the subject-matter of

this litigation shall be handed over by

respondent No.7, its Chairman, Directors,

employees, representatives and agents,

initially to the State Government who shall

thereafter deliver it to the Gram Panchayat

with specific directions for utilization of the

land in the manner prescribed.

49. He also sought to draw support from the

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of AKHIL

BHARTIYA UPBHOKTA CONGRESS v. STATE OF M.P.

AND OTHERS reported in (2011) 5 SCC 29. The Apex

Court is pleased to say in para 83 of the said

judgment:

- 115 -

“83. In the result, the appeal is allowed.

The impugned order of the Division Bench of

the High Court is set aside and the writ

petition filed by the appellant is allowed. The

allotment of 20 acres of land to respondent 5

is declared illegal and quashed. The

Notifications dated 6.6.2008 and 5.9.2008

issued by the State Government under

Sections 23-A(1)(a) and (2) are also quashed.

The Commissioner, Town and Country

Planning, Bhopal is directed to take

possession of the land and use the same

strictly in accordance with the Bhopal

Development Plan. The State Government is

directed to refund the amount deposited by

respondent 5 within a period of 15 days from

today.”

50. He also relies on this Court’s decision in the

case of D.RAJENDRA KUMAR vs. STATE OF

KARNATAKA & ORS. reported in ILR 2009 Kar.2029

wherein the allotment made by and the agreement

executed by the Karnataka Industrial Areas

Development Board in favour of the allottee came to be

- 116 -

quashed, as the same were running contrary to the

Rules.

51. On being asked, what is the rate of interest at

which the HUDA would give back the sale consideration

which it has received from the allottees/purchasers in

the event of the cancellation of the transactions, he

submits that the interest rate cannot be more than 6%,

as the HUDA itself has borrowed the funds from the

financial institutions at the rate of 14.5% per annum.

52. The learned Senior Counsel submits that

nothing survives for any consideration of the allegations

being made by the petitioning land-owners, as they were

relevant only in the context of the original scheme. On

the approval accorded by the Government on

20.05.2009 to the HUDA’s modified scheme, it is the

anxiety of the HUDA to utilise the acquired lands

strictly in accordance with law.

- 117 -

53. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the

petitioners are not entitled to the allotment of any site

under the incentive scheme, as they have resisted the

compulsory acquisition by filing these petitions.

54. The learned Additional Advocate General Sri

Nataraj submits that the matter is mainly between the

petitioners and the HUDA. He submits that the

eligibility list for the grant of sites as per the Karnataka

Urban Development Authorities (Incentive for Voluntary

Surrender of Sites) Rules, 1991 is prepared. He would

further hasten to clarify that its basis is the extent of

the land acquired from the petitioners; it cannot be

construed as the list of the entitled persons.

55. The learned Additional Advocate General

submits that even when the scheme may have elapsed,

the acquisition is intact. The lapsing of the scheme in

no way entitles the erstwhile landowners to seek the

reversion or restoration of the land to themselves. He

brings to my notice the Apex Court judgment in the case

- 118 -

of OFFSHORE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED v.

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND

OTHERS. reported in (2011) 3 SCC 139. The

provisions found in the relevant Sections 27 and 36 of

the KUDA Act have received the following interpretation

at the hands of the Apex Court:

“38. On a conjunctive reading of the

provisions of Sections 27 and 36 of the State

Act, it is clear that where a scheme lapses,

the acquisition may not. This, of course, will

depend upon the facts and circumstances of a

given case. Where, upon completion of the

acquisition proceedings, the land has vested

in the State Government in terms of Section

16 of the Land Acquisition Act, the acquisition

would not lapse or terminate as a result of

lapsing of the scheme under Section 27 of the

BDA Act. An argument to the contrary cannot

be accepted for the reason that on vesting, the

land stands transferred and vested in the

State/Authority free from all encumbrances

and such status of the property is incapable

of being altered by fiction of law either by the

- 119 -

State Act or by the Central Act. Both these

Acts do not contain any provision in terms of

which property, once and absolutely, vested

in the State can be reverted to the owner on

any condition. There is no reversal of the title

and possession of the State. However, this

may not be true in cases where acquisition

proceedings are still pending and land has

not been vested in the Government in terms of

Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act.

39. What is meant by the language of

Section 27 of the BDA Act i.e., “provisions of

Section 36 shall become inoperative”, is that if

the acquisition proceedings are pending and

where the scheme has lapsed, further

proceedings in terms of Section 36(3) of the

BDA Act i.e., with reference to the land which,

upon its acquisition, has vested in the State

and thereafter vested in the Authority in

terms of Section 36(3); such vesting is

incapable of being disturbed except in the

case where the Government issues a

notification for revesting the land in itself, or a

corporation, or a local authority in cases

where the land is not required by the

- 120 -

Authority under the provisions of Section

37(3) of the BDA Act.”

56. He has also relied on the Apex Court’s

judgment in the case of NORTHERN INDIAN GLASS

INDUSTRIES (supra). He read out para 12 of the said

judgment, which is extracted hereinbelow:

“12. If the land was not used for the

purpose for which it was acquired, it was

open to the State Government to take action

but that did not confer any right on the

respondents to ask for restitution of the land.

As already noticed, the State Government in

this regard has already initiated proceedings

for resumption of the land. In our view, there

arises no question of any unjust enrichment

to the appellant Company.”

57. Based on the aforesaid judicial view, he

submits that the HUDA may use the acquired lands for

some other purpose, if the scheme has lapsed or at the

most the Government may draw the acquired lands to

itself and give them to a Government Corporation or a

- 121 -

local authority. It is his emphatic submission that for

no reason and under no circumstances, the lands

vested in the Government/authority can be revested in

favour of the erstwhile land-owners.

58. He submits that as the petitioning land-

owners have agreed to the acquisition of their lands and

as their grievances are only over the outright sale of

some portions of the properties in favour of some

parties, their interest would be met, if the sale

transactions are held to be bad.

59. He submits that the sale deeds executed by

the HUDA in favour of the third parties is absolutely

unjust. On the ground of outright sale of the lands in

question, the acquisition proceedings cannot be

invalidated. Only the sale transactions can be

invalidated.

- 122 -

60. If the acquisition proceedings are to be

quashed only in respect of the lands belonging to the

petitioners, it would create serious problems, so

submits the learned Additional Advocate General. Many

landowners have accepted the compensation; they may

have invested their compensation amount into long

term projects and altered their positions materially. If

the land acquisition proceedings are quashed in their

entirety, that too without hearing them, it would affect

their interest adversely.

61. He submits that as per the demand raised by

the petitioners, this Court may kindly give a direction to

the HUDA to meaningfully implement the modified

scheme.

62. In the course of rejoinder, Sri Nikilesh Rao, the

learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

authorities relied upon by Sri Nitesh do not come to the

rescue of the purchasers in any way. He submits that

- 123 -

in the reported cases, relied upon by the purchasers,

the transactions are between two private parties. What

distinguishes this case from the facts of the reported

cases are that there is no provision in law for executing

the sale deed in favour of a party by the HUDA in

respect of a civic amenity site or the area earmarked for

the purpose of a playground. As the HUDA did not have

the competence to execute the sale deed, no valid title

has passed on to the purchasers.

63. It is submitted by Sri Nikilesh Rao that the

petitioners in W.P.Nos.5490-5491/2009 have already

filed the objections to the acquisition of the lands in

question on the ground that they fall within the green

belt.

64. The two preliminary objections are required to

be considered first. Whether the petitions filed by the

landowners are to be rejected on the short ground of

maintainability, as some of them have given their

- 124 -

consent to the passing of the award and have received

the compensation thereof. The HUDA’s reliance on the

decisions in the cases of NORTHERN INDIAN GLASS

INDUSTRIES AND URMILA ROY (supra) would come to

the HUDA’s rescue but in a qualified way. In the said

decisions, it is laid down that once a land owner

agitates for higher compensation, he loses the right of

resisting land acquisition. In the instant case, majority

of the petitioning land-owners have given their consent

to the passing of the award and have also received the

compensation amount thereof. They are therefore

estopped from challenging the acquisition notifications.

Their challenge to the impugned notifications fails. But

that does not mean that no relief can be given to them.

If the acquisition proceedings are found to be not liable

to be invalidated, then the question of moulding the

relief has to be examined.

- 125 -

65. Similarly, the second threshold objection of

delay and laches also militate against the petitioning

land-owners. As rightly pointed out by the learned

Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of HUDA, there is a

delay of 5-9 years in challenging the acquisition

notifications. The challenge to the acquisition

notifications is liable to be negatived on the short

ground of delay and laches. But the same does not

disentitle the petitioners to get the moulded relief in

these proceedings.

66. As held by the Apex Court in the case of

ROYAL ORCHID (supra), the High Court may not

enquire into belated or stale claim and may deny relief

to the petitioner, if he is found guilty of laches. The

Apex Court has also observed that the rule against the

laches is one of the practice and not of law. In the said

reported case, the owner of the land challenged the

validity of the acquisition notifications after 12 years.

- 126 -

The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ

petition on the ground of delay. The Division Bench of

the High Court nullified the acquisition of the land on

the ground of fraud and directed the return of the land

to the land-owner. The Division Bench’s judgment was

affirmed by the Apex Court, because the challenge to

the acquisition proceedings was initiated on the

alienation of the acquired lands to the private parties.

In the instant case also, the grievance of the land-

owners is over the diversification of the lands and the

violation of the approved housing scheme.

67. On thus considering the preliminary

objections, this Court proposes to take up the following

core issues ad seriatim:

1) Whether the allotments made and sale deeds

executed by HUDA in favour of organizations

like, Nisarga Educational Trust, KSCA,

Chetana Neuro Centre, Netaji Rural

- 127 -

Development Trust, etc. withstand the scrutiny of

law?

2) Whether the acquisition proceedings are liable to

be declared as lapsed?

3) What relief, if any, can be given to the petitioning

land owners?

68. In Re.Question 1): The allotments made by

HUDA in favour of organizations like Nisarga

Educational Trust, KSCA, Chethana Neuro Centre,

Netaji Rural Development Trust, etc. are unsupportable

and unsustainable for one simple reason. The

requirements of public law are not complied with at all.

No advertisement is issued calling for the applications

from the desirous parties for the allotment of civic

amenity sites. The allotment of land, as held by the

Apex Court in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta

Congress (supra), has to be founded on a sound,

transparent, discernable and well-defined policy. If the

- 128 -

allotments are made without calling for the applications,

such acts are to be treated as arbitrary and

discriminatory. The allotment of land to the

institutions/organizations engaged in educational,

cultural, social or philanthropic activities or rendering

services to society cannot be done in a manner

inconsistent with the doctrine of equality.

69. There is no provision in the KUDA or the Rules

framed thereunder for making the allotment of land

without issuing the advertisement and without calling

for the applications from eligible and desirous parties.

70. It is also helpful to refer to the Apex Court’s

judgment in the case of CENTRE FOR PUBLIC

INTEREST LITIGATION AND OTHERS v. UNION OF

INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (2012) 3 SCC 1,

wherein the Apex Court has expressed the considered

view that the methods like ‘first come first served’ when

used for alienations of natural resources/public

- 129 -

property are likely to be misused by unscrupulous

people, who are only interested in garnering maximum

financial benefit and have no respect for the

constitutional ethos and values.

71. Equal opportunity, fairness and transparency

can be ensured either by conducting a duly publicized

auction or by fixing the allotment consideration and

calling for applications and comparatively evaluating

them for sub-serving the public interest.

72. In the instant case, the bulk allotments made

by HUDA in favour of some societies/organizations is

abhorable. It is not known on what basis the

societies/organizations made the applications for the

allotment of the lands. Further, neither the HUDA nor

the Government have audited the land requirements of

the allottee societies/organizations. The fixation of the

allotment consideration is also not uniform for several

allottee societies/organizations. It is not shown to this

- 130 -

Court that the approved scheme provides for such

allotments.

73. The allotments in favour of the said societies

and organisations have deprived the land-owners of

their land under the cover of public purpose; the

diversification of the land for a private purpose is not

permissible.

74. Considering all these aspects of the matter, I

have no hesitation in holding that the allotment made in

favour of Nisarga Educational Trust, KSCA, Chethana

Neuro Centre, Netaji Rural Development Trust, etc. do

not withstand the scrutiny of law. Such allotments are

liable to be withdrawn, if they are already not yet

withdrawn.

75. Subsequent to the allotments made in favour

of the said organizations, good sense has dawned on the

HUDA. In its meeting held on 29.2.2012, it has passed

- 131 -

the resolution that without achieving the purpose of the

scheme, making the bulk allotments is illegal. It has

also resolved that the allotment consideration be

refunded to the said organizations/societies.

76. The allied question that arises for my

consideration is whether the HUDA is justified in

cancelling the allotments without affording an

opportunity of hearing to the allottees. The

administrative decision-making, if it involves civil

consequences, has to be made by adhering to the

principles of natural justice. But when the allotments

are void abinitio, the observance of the principles of

natural justice would only be an empty formality. When

the allotments are illegal per se, any direction to hear

the allottess before cancelling the allotment would only

amount to issuing a futile writ. In taking this view, I am

fortified by the Apex Court’s judgment in the case of

S.L.KAPOOR v. JAGMOHAN AND OTHERS reported in

- 132 -

AIR 1981 SC 136. The relevant paragraph of the said

judgment reads as follows:

“In our view the principles of natural

justice know of no exclusionary rule

dependent on whether it would have made

any difference if natural justice had been

observed. The non-observance of natural

justice is itself prejudice to any man and proof

of prejudice independently of proof of denial

of natural justice is unnecessary. It ill comes

from a person who has denied justice that the

person who has been denied justice is not

prejudiced. As we said earlier where on the

admitted or indisputable facts only one

conclusion is possible and under the law only

one penalty is permissible, the Court may not

issue its writ to compel the observance of

natural justice, not because it is not

necessary to observe natural justice but

because Courts do not issue futile writs. We

do not agree with the contrary view taken by

the Delhi High Court in the judgment under

appeal.”

- 133 -

77. In the case of GREATER NOIDA (supra) the

Apex Court has held that the builders, who have

engineered the acquisition of land, cannot step into the

shoes of the state functionaries and offer justification

for the acquisition of a particular parcel of land. The

grievance of the builders of not being given an

opportunity of hearing was held to be misconceived.

The Apex Court took the considered view that the

complaint of violation of audi alteram partem stands

redressed, as they have been given the sufficient

opportunity of hearing by it (Hon’ble Supreme Court).

78. The allotments made to the said organizations

are directed to be cancelled, if they are not yet

cancelled. Any amounts that HUDA has received from

the said organizations shall be refunded to them within

four weeks from the date of the issuance of the certified

copy of today’s order. The said amounts shall carry

interest at the rate of 9.5% per annum from the date of

- 134 -

the receipt of the amounts till the date of refund. This

rate of interest is specified and prescribed based on the

HUDA’s resolution, dated 29.02.2012, wherein a

reference is made to the HUDA taking the financial

assistance from the Vijaya Bank at the rate of 9.5% per

annum.

79. It is also made clear that the liberty is

reserved to the said societies/organizations to respond

to the advertisement, if, as and when HUDA issues the

same calling for the applications for allotment. Other

things remaining the same, that is, if the claims of the

present allottees and of the fresh applicants are

evaluated and found to be possessing the same merits

and if they are required to pay the same allotment

consideration, be it a pre-fixed allotment consideration

or the open auction, the present allottees would be

preferred.

- 135 -

80. A further consideration of the case of the

allottees is required, if the allotment has culminated in

the execution of the sale deed. The registered sale deed

cannot be cancelled by an unilateral act of the vendor.

In taking this view, I am fortified by the decisions of this

Court in the cases of BINNY MILL LABOUR WELFARE

HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED

v. D.R.MRUTHYUNJAYA ARADHYA reported in ILR

2008 KAR 2245 and K.RAJU v. BANGALORE

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY reported in ILR 2011

KAR 120.

81. Following the said decisions, I direct HUDA to

take steps for the cancellation of the sale deeds

executed in favour of the allottees by filing the duly

constituted suits in the competent civil court. I do not

propose to set aside the sale deed in the writ

proceedings. The facts of B.L.Wadhera’s case (supra)

and of the cases on hand are different. In

- 136 -

B.L.Wadhera’s case, the gift deeds executed by Gram

Panchayat were quashed.

82. Further, the civil court shall make every

possible endeavour to dispose of the anticipated

suit/suits within eight months of its/their filing.

83. In Re.Question 2): No irregularities in the

acquisition proceedings are pointed out. The

irregularities are in the post-acquisition period. The

bulk allotments of lands are made to different

organizations/societies in contravention of the approved

scheme and defying the requirements of public law.

This aspect of the matter is already dealt with at length

while examing with the question No.1. But on the

ground of allotments being illegal, the acquisition

proceedings cannot be declared as lapsed. As held by

the Apex Court in the case of Offshore Holdings

Private Limited (supra), once the acquired lands come

to be vested in the Government, they cannot be

- 137 -

divested. It is not in dispute that the award is passed

and the possession of the lands is taken over by the

Government, which in turn has placed them at the

disposal of the HUDA. At this juncture, there cannot be

any reversal of title and possession by restoring the

lands to the owners. If the scheme itself has lapsed, the

acquisition proceedings would lapse, if they (acquisition

proceedings) have not attained the finality. In the

instant case, as the acquisition proceedings are

concluded, there cannot be any re-vesting of the lands

in the erstwhile owners.

84. In the case of Northern Indian Glass

Industries (supra), the Apex Court has held that the

land owner has no right to seek the re-vesting of the

land in himself, even if the land is not used for the

purpose for which it is acquired. I see considerable

force in the submissions urged on behalf of the

Government that even if it is assumed that the scheme

- 138 -

has lapsed, the Government may at the most draw the

acquired lands to itself from the HUDA.

85. As the majority of the land-owners have

accorded their consent to the land acquisition and have

received the compensation-amounts, they are not

justified in demanding the restoration of the lands to

them. It is also to be noticed that besides some of the

land-owners, who have accepted the compensation

amounts have not come before the Court seeking the

relief of restoration of the lands to them. If the lands

are ordered to be restored to the petitioning land-owners

and if the lands of those land-owners, who have not

filed the writ petitions, are left with the HUDA, it would

create not merely confusion but chaotic state of affairs.

No housing layout can be formed in stray and isolated

bits of lands. If the acquisition is intact in some

pockets and disrupted in other pockets, it would affect

the contiguity of the project adversely. Vesting of some

lands in the State and re-vesting of some lands in

- 139 -

favour of the land owners may render the

implementation of the housing scheme an impossibility.

86. It is profitable to refer to the Apex Court’s

judgment in the case of OM PRAKASH AND ANOTHER

vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS reported in (1998) 6

SCC 1. In para 30 of the said decision, the Apex court

has this to say:

“………. We find considerable force in the

contention of the learned Senior counsel for

the respondent that it is neither advisable nor

feasible to interfere with the acquisition of

such large tracts of lands when the occupants

of 9/10th of the acquired lands have not

thought it fit to challenge these acquisition

proceedings and the occupants of only 1/10th

of lands are agitating their grievance since

more than six years, firstly before the High

Court and then before this Court. ………”

87. Following the aforesaid decision of the Apex

Court, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of

THIMMAPPA AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF

- 140 -

KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in 2003 (6)

Kar.L.J.5 declined to interfere with the acquisition

proceedings, as the land acquisition in respect of 6

acres 10 guntas out of 7 acres 26 guntas had become

final.

88. Considering all these aspects of the matter, I

decline to grant the relief of declaration that the

acquisition proceedings have lapsed. The second

question is answered accordingly.

89. In Re.Question 3: It is not in dispute that the

land-owners did not resist the acquisition in the first

instance. On the other hand, they have readily

accepted the compulsory acquisition of their lands.

Majority of them have even given their consent to the

passing of the award and received the compensation

thereof. They have also made over the possession of

their respective lands to the Government. It is only

when the bulk allotments were being made in

- 141 -

contravention of the approved scheme that some of the

land-owners have chosen to file these writ petitions.

Just because they have filed these writ petitions

aggreived by the subsequent developments, they cannot

be disentitled to any relief. Nor there can be any

discrimination between the land-owners, who have not

filed the writ petitions and who have filed the writ

petitions. The principle of equal protection of law has to

be extended to the petitioning land-owners.

90. It is also not in dispute that HUDA had made

bulk allotment of lands to the various

organizations/societies even when there was no

provision for the same in the sanctioned scheme. The

HUDA has admitted its mistake and has made an

honest effort to rectify the same. In its meeting held on

29.2.2012, the HUDA has said that because of the

unsustainable bulk allotments, the land-owners are

losing the opportunity to get the incentive sites. It is in

this background that it has resolved to implement the

- 142 -

housing scheme in question by giving 40% of the

developed lands to the land-owners by requiring them to

return the entire compensation amount with interest.

91. The Karnataka Urban Development

Authorities (Allotment of sites in lieu of compensation

for the land acquired) Rules, 2009 also provide for the

allotment of sites to the persons, who voluntarily give

up their lands. These Rules are made to speed up the

land acquisition process free from litigation.

92. Section 31(3) and (4) of the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894 also provide for the grant of other lands in

exchange for the acquired land.

93. The HUDA’s resolutions, dated 01.02.2000

and 16.12.2004 in respect of other lands, also provide

for taking the land by the HUDA and the land-owners in

the ratio of 60:40. This healthy precedent has to be

followed in these cases too.

94. My answer to the question No.3 is that the

petitioning land-owners are entitled to the allotment of

- 143 -

developed lands. Their entitlement is to 40% of the

lands acquired from them. Their obligation shall be to

return the entire compensation amount along with

interest at the rate of 9.5% per annum from the date of

the receipt of the amounts till the date of the return of

the amounts. I am prescribing the interest at the rate of

9.5% per annum based on the agenda note for the

HUDA’s meeting on 29.2.2012. The agenda note states

that the HUDA has availed of the financial assistance in

the region of Rs.15 crores from Vijaya Bank with

interest at the rate of 9.5% per annum. While imposing

the interest, neither the HUDA nor the petitioning land-

owners can be permitted to make unlawful gain. The

petitioning land-owners cannot be saddled with more

interest liability than what is borne by the HUDA.

95. The Government shall accord approval to the

HUDA’s resolution, dated 29.2.2012 within one month

from the date of the issuance of the certified copy of

today’s order. Needless to observe that the Government

- 144 -

shall approve the said resolution on such terms, as are

permissible in law.

96. The HUDA is directed to issue the demand

notice to the land-owners, who have received the

compensation, quantifying the amounts liable to be paid

by them. It shall be done within one month from the

date of the receipt of the Government’s order of approval

for the said resolution of the HUDA.

97. It is made clear that taking the alternative site

or retaining the compensation is the option of the land-

owners. If the land-owners opt for the incentive site

allotments, they shall comply with the demand notice of

the HUDA for the payment of amounts within three

months from the date of the receipt of the demand

notice.

98. W.P.Nos.394/2008, 9966/2008, 1914/2007,

2447/2008, 2733/2008, 1915/2007, 17000/2008 &

17052-167054/2008, 37548-37549/2009, 25570-

- 145 -

25572/2009, 5490-5491/2009, 2348-2458/2011,

11927-11947/2011, 14351-14352/2011, 39034/2010

& 39035/2010, 34369-34383/2010, 41507-

41519/2010 & 41676-41695/2010 and 41520-

41526/2010 are accordingly allowed but to the extent

indicated hereinabove. W.P.No.361/2008 is dismissed

but subject to the observations made in the paragraphs

dealing with question No.1 hereinabove.

99. Now that the main matters themselves are

disposed of, nothing survives for Misc.W.2323/2009 for

modification of the order, dated 14.6.2007 and I.A.s for

vacating the stay. They are dismissed as having become

unnecessary.

100. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE MD/Cm

wp 394.2008 c.w matters -...

Documents

Transcript of wp 394.2008 c.w matters -...