1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL 2016 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.19164-19167 OF 2016 (LA-UDA) BETWEEN: 1. K.C.Veerabhadrappa, Son of Chennaveerappa, Age: 69 years, Occupation: Agriculture, Add: Kategagenalli Village, Mysore -1. 2. Smt. K. Mahadevamma, Wife of U.S.Siddalingappa, Age: 45 years, Occupation: House Wife, Add: No.155, 13th Cross, Anikethan Road, C and D Block, Kuvempu Nagara, Mysore – 570 023. 3. Shivappa, Son of Late Puttabasappa, Age: 66 years, Occupation : Agriculture, 2 Add: No.475, 2nd Main Road, 8th Cross, E Block, J.P.Nagar, Mysore – 570 023. 4. U.S.Siddalingappa, Son of Siddalingayya, Age: 50 years, Occupation: Agriculture, Add: No.155, 13th Cross, Anikethan Road, C and D Block, Kuvempu Nagara, Mysore – 570 023. …PETITIONERS (By Shri Dalwai Venkatesh, Advocate) AND: 1. The State of Karnataka, Department of Urban Development, Vikasa Soudha, Bangalore – 560 001. 2. Mysore Urban Development Authority, Mysore -1, By its Commissioner. 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mysore Urban Development Authority, Mysore – 1. …RESPONDENTS (By Shri Laxminarayana, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1; Shri T.P.Vivekananda, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 ) 3 These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash notification dated 3.7.2009 issued by the second respondent vide Annexure-B [in so far as item No.1, 14, 41, 42, 47, 48, 45, 53, 80). These Writ Petitions coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following: ORDER The Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondent no.1. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The learned Counsel for the respondent remains absent. No statement of objections are filed. However, the facts are as follows:- The petitioners claim to be the absolute owners of land bearing survey no.60/10 measuring 2 acres; Survey No.34 measuring 2 acres; survey no.60/P5 measuring 2 acres; Survey no.60 Block 61 (New P3) measuring 2 acres; survey no.60 Block 15 (New Block No.10-P-2) measuring 30 guntas; Survey no.60 Block 58 measuring 30 guntas; Survey No.60 Block 63 4 (New Blcok 3-p1) measuring 30 guntas of Keregehalli village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk. 3. It transpires that the second respondent had issued a notification for acquisition of the lands under the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act, 1987 as on 3.7.2009. Thereafter, no further steps have been taken. Therefore, the petitioners are before this court claiming that the acquisition proceedings have been abandoned. The petition would have to be allowed on the face of it. Any compulsory acquisition proceedings should proceed with expedition. Section 27 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act, 1987 prescribes that if the Scheme is not substantially implemented within five years from the date of the final notification, the Scheme would lapse. In the present case on hand, there is no doubt that the final notification itself has not been issued even as on date. If this be so, it would all the more be a reason to hold that the Scheme has been abandoned. If the time prescribed under the Act to implement the Scheme substantially is 5 years from the 5 date of the final notification and if final notification itself has not been issued even five years after the preliminary notification, in fact, seven years after the Preliminary Notification, the Scheme is certainly said to have been abandoned for the reason that the land owner cannot be kept in suspense of his land being acquired without any further steps being taken after issuance of the preliminary notification. It would be unfair and unjust to lock-up the valuable property of the petitioners without the petitioners knowing the fate of the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, it is declared that the Scheme has been abandoned. The proceedings initiated against the petitioners’ land stand quashed. 4. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondents no.2 and 3 appears and states that in a similar petition, the respondent - Mysore Development Authority has been granted time to substantiate the reasons for the delay in not having taken further steps and hence would contend that in 6 this petition, notice has been served on the respondents only two days ago and therefore, this petition should be taken up along with other petitions, where the respondents would be in a position to demonstrate the reasons for the delay. In any event, this court having taken the view already as above, the petitions stand allowed. In the event that the petition referred to and which is said to be listed at a later date is decided in favour of the respondents, it would not preclude the respondents from recalling this order by filing a review petition. Sd/- JUDGE nv