AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.L. Manjunath J.
The appellant is questioning the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 11222/2008, dated 20.10.2010, wherein the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Though the matter is listed for preliminary hearing, by the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
The undisputed facts in this appeal are as hereunder:
The appellant herein purchased 21 guntas of land in survey No. 87/2, at Kyatharanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk, under a registered sale deed dated 22.04.2003 with an intention to run a free hostel for poor and needy persons. According to him, he is running a religious and charitable institution and also a school for poor students.
The land was purchased by him for a consideration of Rs. 3,15,000/- from one Shankaraiah. Before purchasing the land, his vendor Shankaraiah had ascertained with the respondent-Mysore Urban Development Authority (for short ''MUDA'') that the subject matter of the property was not acquired and MUDA had issued an endorsement dated 21.09.2002, stating that survey No. 87/2, of Kyathaaranahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk, is not a subject matter of any acquisition proceedings. Based on the endorsement Annexure-A issued by MUDA, the appellant purchased the land and he is a bonafide purchaser of the land for a valuable consideration. The appellant with an intention to develop the same for the benefit of the general public had approached the Deputy Commissioner seeking to convert the land to non-agricultural purpose.
In the meanwhile, a notification came to be issued under Section- 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act 1987, initiating acquisition proceedings in respect of the land purchased by the appellant. Therefore, challenging the legality and correctness of the notification for acquiring the petitioner''s land as illegal, the writ petition came to be filed requesting the Court to quash the final notification dated 21.01.2008, as per Annexure-E to the writ petition.
The respondents contended before the learned Single Judge that the land in question without acquiring for the formation of Devanur First Stage the possession of the property was taken by the appellants long ago. Having realized the mistake of having formed the layout without acquisition of the land, a notification came to be issued and an award came to be passed. Therefore, it was contended that the writ petition has become infructuous and the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the possession of the land was taken over by the MUDA after initiation of the acquisition proceedings. Accordingly, the writ petition came to be rejected.
Challenging the legality and correctness of the same, the present appeal is filed. It is also not in dispute that MUDA has issued an endorsement as per Annexure-A to the writ petition dated 21.09.2002, wherein the Special Land Acquisition Officer, MUDA, has issued an endorsement in favour of the vendor of the land stating that three acres of the land in survey No. 87/2, of Kyathamaranahall Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk, is not under acquisition proceedings. Therefore, it is clear that the appellant has purchased the property based on Annexure-A, an endorsement issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. After purchasing the land the same is notified for acquisition on 21.01.2008, as per Annexure-E, under Section- 17(1) of the Act. In the circumstances, it is clear that the initiation of the acquisition proceedings is subsequent to the purchase of the property by the appellant.
It is not in dispute that before issuing endorsement as per Annexure-A, if the Special Land Acquisition Officer had informed the appellant or his vendor that the possession of the land had been taken over by MUDA without acquisition proceedings and MUDA would initiate acquisition proceedings and pay the compensation to the vendor/appellant, we are of the view that the appellant would not have purchased the said land. Now when the respondent has committed a mistake, it cannot be permitted to contend that the writ petition is not maintainable.
The learned Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the possession was taken over prior to the initiation of the acquisition proceedings. When the appellant has been mislead by the act of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, we are of the view that the appellant cannot be non-suited on the ground that the land was taken over by MUDA long back, prior to the initiation of the acquisition. In the circumstances, we are of the view that injustice would not be caused either to the appellant or the respondent.
The State Government by its notification dated 17.04.1998 exercising its powers under Section- 34 and 71 of the Act, in order to reduce the litigation and to encourage settlement between the land-losers and authorities; has notified that in the event the land-lords surrenders the lands without challenging the acquisition, such land-lords would be allotted sites based on the extent of the land acquired by the authorities. As per this provision of Law, the appellant is entitled for a site of 30 x 40 feet. Accordingly we direct the MUDA to allot a site measuring 30 x 40 feet within 8 weeks from today, in the same layout in favour of the appellant and the appellant is permitted to withdraw the amount in deposit if any before the Civil Court. The respondent-MUDA is also directed to send a reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for determination of the market value of the Act within 8 weeks from today without insisting for an application to be filed by the appellant. It is needless to state that the appellant shall pay the market value of 30 x 40 feet as per the allotment. Since we have passed this order as a special case considering the background, of this case the same shall not be treated as a precedent for other cases.