SRI. ANAND K., ADVOCATE) v. SRI. SIDDHARATHA H.M., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
Case at a glance
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. We find a very little substance submission of Sri.T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel that the SLAO would not have jurisdiction to delete the land. HC-KAR - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:39309-DB WA No. 786 of 2013 CNR: KAHC010073672013 The SLAO did not delete on his own, but…
- Para 99. We therefore, allow this appeal and hold that the land in question measuring 30 guntas in Sy.No.85/2 of Hinkal Village, Mysore Taluk and District has not been acquired and the appellant remains the owner of the said land. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/-…
Judgment
SRI. A PAPANNA, S/O LATE ANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT HINKAL VILLAGE, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 017. (BY SRI. G.M. NAGABHUSHANA, ADVOCATE SRI. ANAND K., ADVOCATE) ...APPELLANT AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA, KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BY ITS SECRETARY, BANGALORE - 560 001.
THE COMMISSISONER, MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, J.L.B. ROAD, MYSORE - 570 001. HC-KAR - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:39309-DB WA No. 786 of 2013 CNR: KAHC010073672013
THE SPECIAL LAND AQUISITION OFICER, MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, J.L.B. ROAD, MYSORE - 570 001. (BY SRI. S.H. RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R1, SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. SIDDHARATHA H.M., ADVOCATE FOR R3) ...RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.21654/2001(LA-RES) DATED 18.12.2012 AND ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO PSS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF HC-KAR - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:39309-DB WA No. 786 of 2013 CNR: KAHC010073672013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) Heard Sri.C.M.Nagabhushana, learned counsel for Sri. Ananda.K, learned counsel appearing for appellant, Sri.S.H.Raghavendra, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1, Sri. Siddhartha H.M, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri.T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. This intra Court appeal has been impugning the judgment and order dated 18.12.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.19679- 680/2001 c/w W.P.No.21654/2001.
3. The land in question in the present appeal is to an extent of 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.85/2 of Hinkal Village, Mysore Taluk and District.
Initially a Preliminary Notification dated
01.04.1981 came to be issued under Section 16(1) of the HC-KAR - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:39309-DB WA No. 786 of 2013 CNR: KAHC010073672013 City of Mysore Improvement Act, 19031, proposing to acquire an extent of 1023 acres of land at Hinkal Village, Mysore Taluk, for formation of Vijayanagar Layout, which would include to the land in question i.e., Sy.No.85/2.
The State Government accorded approval under Section 17 of the Act of 1903 for formation of I Stage, Vijayanagar Layout by the order dated 22.03.1984 for an extent of 100 acres of land.
On 29.03.1984, the State Government has approved the scheme followed by Final Notification under Section 18(1) of the Act of 1903, which was published in the Official Gazette on 31.03.1984. The Special Land Acquisition Officer2 passed an award dated 30.10.1985, wherein he had observed that 60 acres of land including the land in Sy.No.85/2 i.e., of the appellants stood deleted from the acquisition proceedings, as the said land was 1 "The Act of 1903" for short 2 "SLAO" for short HC-KAR - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:39309-DB WA No. 786 of 2013 CNR: KAHC010073672013 proposed to be acquired by KIADB for formation of a Ring Road and Industrial Estate. Thus, no award was passed in respect of the said land as it stood deleted from the land acquisition proceedings. Interestingly, except for 30 guntas of land, balance land in Sy.No.85/2 has been bought over by the MUDA from the mother of the appellant, on payment of the compensation amount, which was determined in the Award itself.
It is not in dispute that further acquisition proceedings had been undertaken for acquiring this land. Once the land stood deleted from the land acquisition proceedings, unless fresh proceedings were undertaken, there was no question of the old acquisition proceedings continuing in respect of the land in question.
We find a very little substance submission of Sri.T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel that the SLAO would not have jurisdiction to delete the land. HC-KAR - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:39309-DB WA No. 786 of 2013 CNR: KAHC010073672013 The SLAO did not delete on his own, but on direction of the State Government, he had deleted the land.
We therefore, allow this appeal and hold that the land in question measuring 30 guntas in Sy.No.85/2 of Hinkal Village, Mysore Taluk and District has not been acquired and the appellant remains the owner of the said land. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12.1 ct-vn
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.