AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Petitioner purchased 1 acre 9 guntas out of 5 acres 28 guntas of agricultural land in Sy. No. 31/2 of Malligenahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Shimoga Taluk, under a registered sale deed dt. 2/5/2007 - Annex. E. The revenue authorities recorded the name of the petitioner in the mutation register on 24/9/2008 under M.R. No. 7/08-09. In the meanwhile, the Shimoga Urban Development Authority, for short ''SUDA'', issued a preliminary notification dt. 4/7/2007 - Annex. G and a final notification dt. 17/8/2009 - Annex. J, acquiring the land of the petitioner, amongst large tracts of land, for formation of a residential layout. Petitioner having come to know of the acquisition of the lands, made a representation dt. 26/9/2009 - Annex. R3 to the statement of objections requesting that compensation be made over to him and not to his vendors-in-title. The respondent - SUDA did not make payment to the vendors-in-title and the compensation remained with the authority. Petitioner thereafter filed W.P. 37614/09 alleging that when he intended to file objections to the notification, was sent away, whence this court by order dt. 29/9/2010 - Annex. B, permitted the petitioner to file his objections to the notification, following which the petitioner filed a representation dt. 4/11/2010 - Annex. H stating that the petitioner had entered into an agreement with the vendors-in-title, being persons belonging to the schedule caste and obtained permission of the government to purchase the immovable property fit for commercial use and convenient for him to carry on commercial activity. That representation, when considered, endorsement dt. 22/7/2011 - Annex. A was issued stating that the award in respect of the schedule property was passed and Rs. 21,59,063/- was in deposit with the civil court and yet another endorsement dt. 28/12/2010 - Annex. C informing the petitioner that if he failed to furnish the title deeds in support of his claim, the compensation would be remitted in the civil court, on a reference under Sec. 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Hence this petition to quash Annexures A & C as well as the notifications, preliminary and final, Annexures G & J, respectively. Having perused the memorandum of writ petition and the annexures thereto, as also the statement of objections of the 2nd respondent, undoubtedly petitioner''s representation dt. 26/9/2009 - Annex. R3 discloses that the petitioner sought payment of compensation for the acquired land, with a request that the said amount should not be disbursed to his vendors-in-title and reads thus:
In the light of the claim having made to compensation and not a challenge to the acquisition notifications, the relief to quash the preliminary and final notifications, Annexures G & J, respectively, does not arise.
Therefore petitioner''s claim to be compensated for having lost 1 acre 9 guntas of land in Sy. No. 31/2 due to its acquisition by the respondent - SUDA is subject to satisfying the Special Land Acquisition Officer over title by making available the title deeds for verification. Petitioner having not made over the records, SUDA was left with no other option but to issue the endorsements Annexures A & C and make a reference under Sec. 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with a deposit to the Civil Court for adjudication of title and disbursement of the compensation. Thus endorsements Annexures � ''A'' & ''C'' do not call for interference.
On 11/12/2012, the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents that the petitioner may make an application under the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (Allotment of Sites in Lieu of Compensation for the Land acquired) Rules, 2009, is recorded thus:-
During the course of the arguments, the learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that the plea of the petitioner that the petitioner should be considered as a land owner, who has voluntarily surrendered his lands and therefore, was entitled to the benefit of the scheme that was offered by the respondent - authority, is raised for the first time and that if a representation is made by the petitioner, it will be considered in accordance with law.
Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is directed to make a representation in this regard to the respondent - authority.
Hence, call after four weeks.
Sri. A.V. Gangadharappa, learned Counsel for the respondent - SUDA, submits that the respondent would be well advised to consider an application filed by the petitioner for allotment of alternate site, if not in the same layout, in any other layout formed by SUDA, in terms of the Rules. In that view of the matter, petition must necessarily fail and is accordingly rejected reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an application to the respondent - SUDA, as directed in the order dt. 11/12/2012, supra, and if such an application is filed within two months from today, SUDA is directed to consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law.