AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.—The petitioners are seeking the relief of declaration that the respondents have no subsisting right in respect of the land in question covered under the preliminary notification, dated 12.08.1996 (Annexure-C) and the final notification, dated 27.08.2001 (Annexure-E). Sri M.S. Prashanth appearing for Sri N.G. Kotre for the petitioners submits that the petitioners'' land measuring 4 acres 38 guntas was acquired for the purpose and benefit of the second respondent Shimoga Urban Development Authority for the formation of a housing layout. As the land-acquisition was for a public purpose, the petitioners gave up the possession of 3 acres 38 guntas without resisting the compulsory acquisition. However, the petitioners have retained the possession of the lands measuring 1 acre out of 4 acres 38 guntas. He submits that there is arecanut plantation on the said one acre. Even the second respondent Authority has also passed the resolution in its meeting held on 12.12.2001 (Annexure-F) to give up the one acre of the land from acquisition. He submits that the record of rights evidence that the possession of one acre of land in question is still with the petitioners only.
Sri A.V. Gangadharappa, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this petition. He submits that this petition is liable to be rejected on the short ground of delay and laches. This petition is filed after eleven long years of the issuance of the final notification. He submits that the Government has rejected the resolution passed by the second respondent for the withdrawal of the land from the acquisition. The Government''s decision taken on 16.11.2002 (Annexure-G) is communicated to the petitioners. However, they have not chosen to challenge the said decision in the last ten years.
Sri Gangadharappa submits that one acre of land in question is reserved for the park under the comprehensive development plan and that therefore there is no question of giving it up at all. He submits that on the land measuring 111 acres 18 guntas, housing layout is already formed using up the land in question. He submits that the sites are formed and distributed to the allottees.
He brings to my notice that the petitioners have also filed O.S. No. 3/2008 which came to be dismissed on 31.08.2012.
Sri R.B. Sathyanarayana Singh, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No. 1 submits that as the scheme is completely implemented, there is no question of giving back one acre of land to the petitioners.
The submissions of the learned advocates have received my thoughtful consideration.
I do not see any satisfactory or cogent explanation for the delay of 11 years in filing this petition. The petitioners'' have not challenged the Government Order, dated 16.11.2002 (Annexure-G) refusing to withdraw the land from acquisition.
The petitioners have withheld the material fact of the filing of O.S. No. 3/2008. In the memorandum of the writ petition, there is no whisper about the filing and dismissal of the said suit. The suit is disposed of on 31.08.2012 and this petition is filed on 24.09.2012.
The possession of the land is also taken about ten years ago. The housing layout is formed using up the land in question. At this juncture, the clock cannot be put back for an asking. This petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.