Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021 BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.1999 OF 2016 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI T H VIJAYA KUMAR S/O LATE T H HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/A NO.9, 3RD MAIN(HGH) GANGANAGARA LAYOUT, R T NAGAR POST BANGALORE-560032
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LR’S 1.(a) SMT KRISHNAVENI S.T.
W/O LATE VIJAYAKUMAR T.H.
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT NO.9, 3RD MAIN ROAD,
H.G.H. LAYOUT, GANGANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560032
1.(b) HANUMESH VIJAYA KUMAR
S/O LATE VIJAYAKUMAR T.H.
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT NO.9, 3RD MAIN ROAD,
H.G.H. LAYOUT, GANGANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560032
1.(c) HARISH VIJAYAKUMAR
S/O LATE VIJAYAKUMAR T.H.
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT NO.9, 3RD MAIN ROAD,
H.G.H. LAYOUT, GANGANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560032
SRI I RAGHAVA REDDY S/O LATE T IAYYAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/A NO.4/16(OLD NO.912/22) RAVI THEJA, PATEL NANJAPPA REDDY COLONY IST MAIN ROAD, YESHAWANTHAPURA BANGALORE-560022
SRI N S GANAPATHI RAO S/O LATE N SUBBA RAO AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/A NO.669, 16TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS SRINIVASANAGARA 2ND STAGE BANGALORE-560050
SMT ROOPA S RAO W/O G SHASHIKANTH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/A NO.T2, KRISHNA KUNJ APARTMENT IST CROSS, INCOME TAX LAYOUT ATTIGUPPE, VIJAYANAGARA BANGALORE-560040
SRI N GURURAJ S/O LATE C V NARAHARI RAO AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/A NO.181, (21) S.B.ROAD V V PURAM, BANGALORE-560040
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LR’S
VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O SRIKANTH,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
RESIDING AT A-V, BAMINI TERRACE,
NO.15, BHIMANNA GARDEN ROAD,
ALWARPET, CHENNAI-600018
….PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.ANIL SHEKAR K.S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY UNDER SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001
ITI EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED REGD. NO.2/R 60 DT.29-08-1960 DOORAVANINAGAR BANGALORE-560016 BY ITS PRESIDENT
SRI K M MUNIRAJA REDDY S/O MUNISWAMY REDDY R/A KATHALIPALYA VILLAGE KORAMANGALA LAYOUT BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
….RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.A.C.BALARAJ, AGA FOR R1, SRI.G.L.VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R3-SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION, DENOTIFYING THE LAND IN SY.NO.20/10A MEASURING 1 ACRES 22 GUNTAS AS PER DT. 01.09.2010 PASSED BY R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Learned counsel for respondent No.2-ITI employees of Housing Co-operative Society Limited submits that the petitioners herein are the allottees of the residential sites at the hands of respondent No.2- Society. They have filed this writ petition challenging the notification dated 01.09.2010 issued by the State Government under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, de-notifying an extent of 1 acre 22 guntas in Sy.No.20/10A of Yellukunte Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. It was the apprehension of the petitioners that by virtue of the de-notification, the sites that were allotted to the petitioners may be cancelled. However, respondent No.2-Society also had challenged the order of de-notification in W.P.No.29212/2010. This Court by order dated 14.12.2010 had dismissed the writ petition. However, in an intra Court appeal filed at the hands of respondent No.2 in W.A.No.4326/2011, the Hon’ble Division Bench, by order dated 23.03.2021 held
that since possession of the land was taken, the State Government could not have invoked the provisions of Section 48(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the Division Bench has proceeded to declare that the impugned notification dated 01.09.2010 issued insofar as Sy.No.20/10A measuring 1 acre 22 guntas was illegal and accordingly, the same is quashed.
The learned counsel would therefore submit that the prayer made in the writ petition does not survive for consideration. 3. Learned counsel would also point out that respondent No.3-Sri. K.M.Muniraja Reddy is also arrayed as a party respondent in the writ petition filed at the hands of respondent No.2-Society and in the Writ Appeal the said Sri.K.M.Muniraja Reddy is respondent No.2. In view of the above, the prayer made in the writ petition does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE