D RAMU v. SMT K M CHIKKATHAYAMMA & Ors.

D RAMU S/O LATE SRI DEVEGOWDA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS SMT K M CHIKKATHAYAMMA W/O LATE D RAMU, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS SRI R KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O LATE D RAMU SMT R HEMA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O LATE D RAMU SMT PARIMALA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS S/O LATE D RAMU SRI R UMESHA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O LATE D RAMU 2 W.A. No.15445/2011 (LA-UDA) 2 a) b) c) d) f) SRI D PAPANNA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS SMT T RENUKA W/O LATE D PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS T PREETHI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS D/O LATE D PAPANNA P KIRAN AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O LATE D PAPANNA P SANTOSH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O LATE D PAPANNA P SUNIL, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS S/O LATE D PAPANNA ALL ARE R/AT NO,. 2768, 1ST MAIN ROAD, SARSWATHIPURAM, MYSORE. ...APPELLANTS (By SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. B L SANJEEV, ADV.) AND : 1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING, BANGALORE REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2 THE MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MYSORE REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3 W.A. No.15445/2011 (LA-UDA) 3 4 THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORTIY, MYSORE SHRUTAKEVALI EDUCATION TRUST, (A REGISTERED TRUST) SHRAVANABELAGOLA, HASSAN DISTRICT REP BY ITS MANAGER TRUSTEE SRI N HEMARAJA JAIN. ...RESPONDENTS (By SMT. M.C. AKKAMAHADEVI, AGA FOR R-1, SRI. P.S. MANJUNATH, ADV. FOR R-2 & R-3, SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, ADV. FOR R-4) This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside the order dated 07.02.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 27994/2001 and grant reliefs as prayed for in W.P. No.27994/2001. This Writ Appeal coming on for Preliminary Hearing this K.L.MANJUNATH. J., delivered the following : day, JUDGMENT By consent of parties the appeal is heard on merits.

2. The legality and correctness of the order passed in W.P. No. 27994/2001 dated 7th February 2011 is called in question in this appeal.

3. The facts leading to this appeal are as hereunder : 4 W.A. No.15445/2011 (LA-UDA) The appellants' claim that they are the owners of certain extent of land in Sy.No. 168, 169/1, 176, 183 and 185 of Dattagadahalli Village in Mysore Taluk. Their lands were sought to be acquired for the benefit of the Mysore Urban Development Authority under the Preliminary Notification dated 19.12.1991. Final Notification was issued on 10th December 1992. Challenging the legality and correctness of the acquisition proceedings, the appellants filed writ petition in W.P. No.27994/2001, which petition came to be allowed on 15.12.2003 and acquisition proceedings were quashed. Challenging the legality and correctness of the order of the learned Single Judge, a writ appeal was filed in W.A. No. 1863/2004 and other connected matters, which appeals came to be allowed on 27.05.2008, the matter was referred to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

4. The matter was re-heard by the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ petition on 07.02.2011. Challenging the legality and correctness of the same, the present appeal is filed.

5. The main contention of the appellants' Counsel before us 5 W.A. No.15445/2011 (LA-UDA) is that, the learned Single Judge without considering the grounds urged by the appellants has dismissed the writ petition only on the ground that the disputed questions of facts cannot be considered by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, he contends that the order of the learned Single Judge is bad in law as none of the grounds urged by the appellants was considered by him. In the circumstances, he requests the Court to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge by allowing this writ appeal.

6. The learned Counsel for the respondents – MUDA Sri. P.S. Manjunath submits that since the matter was taken up in an appeal on an earlier occasion and as the order of the Division Bench has been complied with by the learned Single Judge, there is no necessity to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, he requests the Court to dismiss the appeal.

7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the only point to be considered by us in this appeal is “Whether the learned Single Judge has decided the case of the parties on merits by considering the grounds urged by the appellants” ? 6 W.A. No.15445/2011 (LA-UDA)

8. After reading the entire judgment, the learned Counsel appearing for both parties fairly concede that the writ petition of the appellants has been dismissed only on the ground that disputed questions of facts cannot be appreciated in a writ petition. But unfortunately, whenever a writ petition is filed challenging the acquisition proceedings, it is for the Writ Court to consider the grievances of the petitioners, the petitioners cannot be directed to approach the Civil Court for redressal. Because, long back, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Dhirendra Kumar reported in (1995) 4 SCC 229 has ruled that the parties cannot be permitted to adjudicated the matter before the Civil Court concerning the acquisition of any property. Therefore, the only remedy open to the persons aggrieved by the acquisition proceedings is only by means of filing a writ petition.

9. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge has to be set aside only on the short ground. Accordingly, we do so.

10. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 7th February 2011 in W.P. 7 W.A. No.15445/2011 (LA-UDA) No.27994/2001 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration. We request the Hon'ble Single Judge to re-consider the case of the parties on merits and in accordance with law.

11. The interim order which is said to have in force in favour of the appellants shall be in force till the matter is decided by the learned Single Judge. Sd/- JUDGE. Sd/- JUDGE. Rbv