MUNITHIMMAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA
LAWS(SC)-2002-3-54
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KARNATAKA)
Decided on
March 22,2002
MUNITHIMMAIAH
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST VS. VITHAL RAO [REFERRED]FARID AHMED ABDUL SAMAD VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF CITY OF AHMEDABAD [REFERRED]
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER CITY IMPROVEMENT TRUST BOARD VS. H NARAYANAIAH [REFERRED]
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER CITY IMPROVEMENT TRUST BOARD MYSORE VS. P GOVINDAN [REFERRED]
U P AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD VS. JAINUL ISLAM [REFERRED]
MARIYAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED]
KHODAY DISTILLERIES LIMITED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
RAM JEEWAN VS. SECRETARY U P AWAS AND VIKAS PARISHAD [LAWS(ALL)-2004-3-175] [REFERRED TO]CHANDRAMMA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2003-2-71] [REFERRED TO]
MANJULA VS. CHIEF MINISTER GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2004-4-35] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2005-11-23] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2006-10-12] [REFERRED TO]
REKHA S SHIVA CHICKKU VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2011-5-14] [REFERRED TO]
BONDU RAMASWAMY VS. BANGLORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(SC)-2010-5-84] [REFERRED TO]
Rekaha S., D/o. Sri Shiva Chickku and others VS. State of Karnataka, Department of Housing and Urban Development, The Special Land Acquisition Officer Mysore Urban Development Authority and Mysore Urban Development Authority, Represented by its [LAWS(KAR)-2011-5-61] [REFERRED TO]
Chinnamma, Wife of Chikkanna VS. The Commissioner, Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA), Jhansi Lakshmibai Road, Mysore, The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA), Jhansi Lakshmibai Road, Mysore, The Sp [LAWS(KAR)-2012-11-124] [REFERRED TO]
SRI. MAHADEVASWAMY, SON OF LATE MAHANTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT LALTHADRIPURA GRAMA, VARNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT, MYSORE VS. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MUDA, MYSORE, [LAWS(KAR)-2012-11-248] [REFERRED TO]
SRI KURILINGAPPA, SRI MUNININGAPPA AND SRI BEERAPPA VS. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2012-3-233] [REFERRED TO]
K.M. CHIKKATHAYAMMA AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2016-3-75] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BHOPAL VS. PREM NARAYAN PATIDAR [LAWS(MPH)-2016-5-100] [REFERRED TO]
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB, MYSORE & ANR. VS. ANASUYA BAI (D) BY LRS. & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2017-1-67] [REFERRED TO]
S A JALALUDDIN VS. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(SC)-2003-2-90] [REFERRED TO]
K K POONACHA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(SC)-2010-9-64] [REFERRED TO]
M NAGABHUSHANA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(SC)-2011-2-7] [REFERRED TO]
GIRNAR TRADERS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2011-1-52] [REFERRED TO]
OFFSHORE HOLDINGS PVT LTD VS. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(SC)-2011-1-112] [REFERRED TO]
H A BALAJI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2011-3-3] [REFERRED TO]
H A BALAJI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2011-3-3] [REFERRED TO]
R. SHANKARAN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2014-7-35] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHAKAR HEGDE VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2014-7-43] [REFERRED TO]
MEHTAB LAIQ AHMED SHAIKH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2017-10-17] [REFERRED TO]
S HAREESH S/O LATE N SHANTHARAM VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY [LAWS(KAR)-2018-4-101] [REFERRED TO]
RAMACHANDRA REDDY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2018-2-235] [REFERRED TO]
N JAYAMMA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2018-2-239] [REFERRED TO]
JAMNALAL BAJAJ SEVA TRUST A REGISTERED TRUST HAVIN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2018-1-404] [REFERRED TO]
HASNATHA BI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT [LAWS(KAR)-2018-2-357] [REFERRED TO]
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR [LAWS(SC)-2018-8-14] [REFERRED TO]
EVERSHINE MONUMENTS (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S. GRANITE EXPORTERS) VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-2017-12-98] [REFERRED TO]
K. VENIKATESH VS. THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-2018-1-445] [REFERRED TO]
D. SHARANAPPA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-2018-1-451] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. HASNATHA BI AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-2018-2-374] [REFERRED TO]
SRI. RAMACHANDRA REDDY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-2018-2-376] [REFERRED TO]
L. RAMAREDDY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT [LAWS(KAR)-2020-12-165] [REFERRED TO]
ANANTHASWAMY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-3-85] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Raju, J. -
(1.)Special leave granted.
(2.)This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 2-3-2000 of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No. 2083 of 1996, wherein the relief sought in the nature of a writ of certiorari to quash the entire acquisition proceedings pertaining to Survey No. 81/6 in Agrahara Dasarahalli Village, Yeswanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, and the Award said to have been passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Development Authority, on 22-2-1995, came to be rejected on the ground that the matter is covered against the appellant by an earlier Division Bench Judgment reported in Khoday Distilleries Limited vs. State of Karnataka (ILR 1997 Kant 1419). For appreciating the points raised as well as the grievance sought to be made out, it would be necessary to advert to certain salient factual details pertaining to the matter.
(3.)The appellant claims to be the owner in possession of the land comprised in Survey No. 81/6, Agrahara Dasarahalli Village, Yeswanthapur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. Permission was said to have been obtained by the appellant on 2-8-1969 from the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, sanctioning conversion of one acre 16 guntas in the said Survey number into non-agricultural use, leaving the remaining 20 guntas as 'Kharab' land. The permission was subject to certain conditions, which, among other things, included compliance with the formalities prescribed by and obligations to the City Improvement Trust Board or need to secure the approval for the layout and building plans from the said Board and obtaining of necessary licences, etc. from the competent authority before the commencement of any construction work on the said land. The appellant also claims to have substantially commenced construction. While the matter stood thus, a preliminary Notification was said to have been published in the Official Gazette dated 25-7-1974 proposing the acquisition of the land belonging to the appellant in Survey No. 81/6 along with some other lands in Survey Nos. 81/1, 81/2, 81/3, 81/4 and 81/5 for the formation of a layout known as the "West of Chord Road-IV Stage". The appellant claims to have filed objections, among other things, stating that already a proposal dated 12-8-1974 for formation of a private layout under Section 25 of the City Improvement Trust Board Act was submitted by him and the same was pending with the CIT Board. Once again, the appellant claims that the portions of the land were sold to various purchasers and buildings were put up leaving no vacant land for formation of any site in Survey No. 81/2 and only 27 guntas of land in Survey No. 81/2 was used by the owners of the buildings in the area as Kacha Road.
(2.)This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 2-3-2000 of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No. 2083 of 1996, wherein the relief sought in the nature of a writ of certiorari to quash the entire acquisition proceedings pertaining to Survey No. 81/6 in Agrahara Dasarahalli Village, Yeswanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, and the Award said to have been passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Development Authority, on 22-2-1995, came to be rejected on the ground that the matter is covered against the appellant by an earlier Division Bench Judgment reported in Khoday Distilleries Limited vs. State of Karnataka (ILR 1997 Kant 1419). For appreciating the points raised as well as the grievance sought to be made out, it would be necessary to advert to certain salient factual details pertaining to the matter.
(3.)The appellant claims to be the owner in possession of the land comprised in Survey No. 81/6, Agrahara Dasarahalli Village, Yeswanthapur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. Permission was said to have been obtained by the appellant on 2-8-1969 from the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, sanctioning conversion of one acre 16 guntas in the said Survey number into non-agricultural use, leaving the remaining 20 guntas as 'Kharab' land. The permission was subject to certain conditions, which, among other things, included compliance with the formalities prescribed by and obligations to the City Improvement Trust Board or need to secure the approval for the layout and building plans from the said Board and obtaining of necessary licences, etc. from the competent authority before the commencement of any construction work on the said land. The appellant also claims to have substantially commenced construction. While the matter stood thus, a preliminary Notification was said to have been published in the Official Gazette dated 25-7-1974 proposing the acquisition of the land belonging to the appellant in Survey No. 81/6 along with some other lands in Survey Nos. 81/1, 81/2, 81/3, 81/4 and 81/5 for the formation of a layout known as the "West of Chord Road-IV Stage". The appellant claims to have filed objections, among other things, stating that already a proposal dated 12-8-1974 for formation of a private layout under Section 25 of the City Improvement Trust Board Act was submitted by him and the same was pending with the CIT Board. Once again, the appellant claims that the portions of the land were sold to various purchasers and buildings were put up leaving no vacant land for formation of any site in Survey No. 81/2 and only 27 guntas of land in Survey No. 81/2 was used by the owners of the buildings in the area as Kacha Road.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.