The Union of India and Others vs The State of Karnataka and Others

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The learned Government Advocate to accept notice for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and file memo of appearance in four weeks.

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for a declaration that the respondents have no right to claim any portion of the land bearing Sy. No. 2191 & 2193 situate in Devaraj Mohalla, Mysuru. In that light the petitioners are seeking that the notification dated 07.02.2004 and 12.07.2004 at Annexures - C and D be quashed. In consequence thereof, the petitioners are seeking the letter dated 29.06.2009 at Annexure-G indicating the possession taken by the respondent No. 6 to handover the lands to the respondent No. 4, also to be quashed.

Petitioners claim that they are the owners of the lands bearing Sy. Nos. 2191 & 2193 situate in Devaraj Mohalla, Mysuru. The lands, according to them, is abutting to Mysuru - Arasikere Railway Lane and falls within the boundaries of the land belonging to the petitioners. In that regard the petitioners had relied on the sketch at Annexure-A and Annexure-B stated to be the property card. In that light it is contended that the notifications dated 07.02.2004 and 12.07.2004 at Annexures-C and D issued under Section 3(1) of the Act No. 33/1974 without indicating the petitioners as owners of the land and incorrectly indicating the respondent No. 5 as the owner thereof, is not justified. It is the contention of the petitioners that no slum existed in the extent of 28 guntas, which has been notified under the said Act and as such the notifications are liable to be quashed. It is contended that when there was interference in the possession of the petitioners in respect of the said land, a suit was filed in OS No. 1660/2009 and when the respondent No. 5 herein has filed written statement therein and referred to the impugned notifications, the petitioners for the first time had learnt about the same and the same are assailed in these petitions.

The respondent No. 3 has filed the objections statement. They seek to sustain the action of the respondent No. 1 and 2 in notifying the lands in question under the Act 33/1974. It is their further case that in the lands in question a construction has already been put up under JnNURM scheme and also allotments have been made to the persons whose names are indicated in the list as at Annexure-R3 to the objection statement. It is therefore, contended that the prayer as made in the instant petition is not justified and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

In the light of the contentions that are put forth, prima facie, no doubt the document relied on by the petitioner would refer to the fact that the petitioners are the owners of the property bearing Sy. No. 2192 and 2193. In that light, if the impugned notifications dated 07.02.2004 and 12.07.2004 at Annexures-C and D are perused, the notifications would disclose that in the schedule thereto except for indicating the boundaries to the property and the extent, no details with regard to location of the property either with reference to survey number or municipal number, has been indicated. However, in the Column depicting the owner of the property, respondent No. 5 herein, namely, Mysuru City Corporation is shown.

If that be the position, apart from the fact as to whether the slum existed therein and therefore, notifications under Section 3 was justified or as to whether subsequently, the construction has been put up by the respondent No. 3, are the aspects which will arise only after determination of the fact as to whether 28 guntas referred to in the notifications, in fact, belongs to the petitioners herein and falls within the property claimed to be owned by the petitioners. If that be the position, without determining the said fact and also on taking note of the objections statement of the respondent No. 3 that the construction has been put up and the allotments have been made, I am of the opinion, it would not be proper to quash the notifications impugned herein.

However, the factual determination as to whether the said 28 guntas notified therein falls within the property belonging to the petitioners needs to be determined by the respondents. On such determination, if it is found that the said 28 guntas, which is the notified area belongs to the petitioners herein and if in fact, the construction as referred to in the objections statement of the respondent No. 3 is found to be located in the said area and the slum dwellers have been accommodated in the area, in any event, at this juncture, the question of evicting them or demolishing the constructions, which have been under taken by the statutory authorities would not arise. However, on such determination, if it is found that the said 28 guntas, which has been notified and construction is put by the respondent No. 3 belongs to the petitioners, in any event the petitioners would have to be compensated in accordance with law for utilization of the land is found a belonging to the petitioners. If on such determination as indicated above the land belonging to the petitioners, certainly respondents would immediately initiate further under the said Act to acquire the said property and compensate the petitioners to the said extent which has been notified.

On the other hand in the process of holding the joint survey with the petitioners and the respondents, if it is found that the said 28 guntas which has been notified is out side the area owned by the petitioners, certainly no further action in this regard would be required. To enable the said determination the respondent No. 2 shall now take steps to issue appropriate notices to the petitioners and the respondent No. 3 to 5 for the purpose of holding a joint survey in the manner as has been indicated above. Such notices shall be issued by the respondent No. 2 within four weeks from the date on which the copy of this order is furnished to the respondent No. 2. There upon the joint survey shall be conducted and determination with regard to the ownership of the 28 guntas of land which is the subject matter of the notification shall be made in the manner as indicated above and such determination shall be completed in an expeditious manner but not later than three months from the date of fixing the joint survey after issue of notice.

Needless to mention that in the said process of joint survey if the land which has been notified is found to be belong to the petitioners and if no construction is put up in that land, certainly respondents would have to exclude the same in accordance with law. On the other hand, if the construction as referred by the respondent No. 3 is found to exist in the said 28 guntas of land and if the said land is determined to be the land of the petitioners, the respondent No. 1 and 2 shall take further actions in the matter to compensate the petitioners in that regard. All actions in that regard shall be taken in an expeditious manner.

In terms of the above this writ petition stands disposed of.