THE HOUSING COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
LAWS(KAR)-2015-6-98
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Decided on June 12,2015

The Housing Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board Appellant
VERSUS
The State of Karnataka and Ors. Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

RADHA KOM SATYANARAYAN KODIYA VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER [LAWS(KAR)-2019-2-102] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The appellants have preferred this writ appeal challenging the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dt. 29-05-2012 passed in W.P.No. 38086/2002, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and quashed the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the L.A. Act, 1894' for short) mainly on the ground that the scheme which is pre-requisite for going ahead with the acquisition of land under Sec. 33(2) of the Karnataka Housing Board Act (hereinafter referred to as 'KHB Act' for short) with the provisions of the L.A. Act, 1894, is neither framed nor finalized by the Karnataka Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as 'Board' for short); much less it is sanctioned by the State Government before going ahead with the project as required under the provisions of Secs. 20 and 21 of the KHB Act and on various other grounds.
(2.)The second respondent herein who is the petitioner in the writ petition has filed an application under Section 151 of CPC praying to dismiss the writ appeal, holding it 'does not survive for consideration' in view of the scheme being lapsed.
(3.)In the application, it is contended that the appellants have intended to acquire a total extent of 106 acres of land by virtue of a notification dt. 25-03-91 for public purpose. An extent of 36 acres 19 1/2 guntas of land, including 31 guntas of kharab, was denotified by the Government under Sec. 48(1) of the L.A. Act, 1894, in favour of Sri. Dharmasthala Manjunatheswara Educational Society (Ujire) in Dakshina Kannada district, from the acquisition proceedings by notification dt. 14-06-10 as evident from Annexure - R.1 to the application. Although the appellants claim to be in possession of 16 acres 23 guntas of land, but the records maintained by them further reveal that, out of 16 acres 23 guntas they are actually in possession of 6 acres 35 guntas, in as much as, the rest of 10 acres is in the occupation of third parties who have already developed the land by constructing buildings.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.