L.N. Govindaswamy vs The City Improvement Trust Board, Mysore

Chandrakantharaj Urs, J.-I.A. III made by four applicants seeking to implead themselves as additional respondents coming up for orders, the main matter itself is taken up for hearing by consent of the learned counsel for the parties and disposed of by the following order:

The petitioner L.N. Govindaswamy claims to be the owner of the land measuring 14 acres 22 guntas in Sy. No. S3 of Nachanahalli village Mysore Taluk. He claims ownership by inheritance. He has asserted that the Index of Lands, Record of Rights as well as the pahani stand in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner has produced extracts of Record of Rights at Annexure B. He has further urged that on 25-11-1982 and 3-10-1983 mahazar was prepared evidencing possession of the petitioner of the land in question. He has further asserted that the land bearing Sy. No. 93 along with other lands came to be acquired by the City Improvement Trust Board. Mysore (since succeeded by the Mysore Urban Development Authority). The petitioner has further asserted that the aforementioned Trust Board had taken possession from him of the land in question and had not paid any amount towards compensation despite repeated representations to the department to pay compensation for the lands acquired by the Respondent. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent-Trust Board, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to determine and pay the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 93 measuring 14 acres 22 guntas in Nachanahalli Palya to the petitioner and direct the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for giving land measuring 1500 sq. meters for having voluntarily given up possession as was done in respect of other adjoining property owners whose lands had also been acquired.

Respondent Trust Board has entered appearance and filed statement of objections. In the statement of objections to I.A. I filed by the petitioner, the respondent Trust Board has specifically stated that S.No. 93 is a dried up tank bed belonging to the Government and the same has not been acquired from any body as the question of acquisition of Government tank-bed did not arise. The respondent has further stated that no notice was issued under the provisions of the Mysore City Improvement Trust Board Act to acquire the land belonging to the petitioner much less Sy.No. 93 of Nachanahalli. It is further stated that the Assistant Commissioner, Mysore Sub-Division, Mysore, has requested the respondent not to make any payment towards compensation in respect of S. No. 93 until further communication is received in that behalf.

In I.A. III, the applicants claim to be the heirs of the former owner of S. No. 23/1, and 23/2 in respect of which notification dated 23rd August 1974 had been issued proposing to acquire the said land by the respondent-Trust Board. It is their case that the petitioner is not entitled to compensation in respect of the land over which he has no title.

The petitioner himself has not produced any documents to support his assertion that the land owned by him has been acquired. It is his claim that the total extent of S. No. 93 was 31 acres and 11 guntas and that he is the owner of 14 acres 22 guntas. No Notification for acquisition as such is produced before this Court. If it has been acquired and no compensation is paid to him as asserted by him. he must put his claim before the Land Acquisition Officer under the provision of the City of Mysore Improvement Trust Board Act read with the Land Acquisition Act. If such a claim is made, the authority is bound to act in accordance with law and pay compensation on being satis- fied that he is the owner. If the claim conflicts with the claims of the applicants in I.A. III, the matter will have to be referred to be agitated in a Civil Court in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

In this state of affairs, it is not possible to construe that any duty is cast up on the respondent-Trust Board to pay any compensation.

Subject to the above observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed without expressing any opinion as to the rival contentions urged by the parties including applicants in I.A. III.

Writ petition dismissed.