- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 19164 OF 2016 (LA-UDA) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 35122 OF 2015 (LA-UDA) WRIT PETITION NO. 43472 OF 2015 (LA-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 37717 OF 2016 (LA-UDA) WRIT PETITION NO. 19717 OF 2017 (LA-UDA) WRIT PETITION NO. 19724 OF 2017 (LA-UDA) WRIT PETITION NO. 19731 OF 2017 (LA-UDA) WRIT PETITION NO. 56530 OF 2017 (LA-UDA) WRIT PETITION NO. 40560 OF 2018 (LA-UDA) WRIT PETITION NO. 40562 OF 2018 (LA-UDA) WRIT PETITION NO. 13251 OF 2021 (LA-UDA) WRIT PETITION NO. 10896 OF 2022 (LA-UDA) WRIT PETITION NO. 12467 OF 2022 (LA-UDA) WRIT PETITION NO. 21890 OF 2023 (LA-UDA) WRIT PETITION NO. 21954 OF 2023 (LA-UDA) WRIT PETITION NO. 3060 OF 2025 (LA-UDA) IN WP No. 19164/2016 BETWEEN: 1. K C VEERABHADRAPPA S/O CHENNAVEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, ADD: KATEGAGENALLI VILLAGE, MYSORE-1. R Digitally signed by ROOPA R U Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS 2. SMT K MAHADEVAMMA W/O U S SIDDLINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OC: HOUSE WIFE ADD: NO.155, 13TH CROSS ANIKETHAN ROAD, C & D BLOCK KUVEMPU NAGARA MYSORE-570023. 3. SHIVAPPA S/O LATE PUTTABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE ADD: NO.475, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 8TH CROSS, E BLOCK J P NAGAR, MYSORE-570 023. 4. U S SIDDALINGAPPA S/O SIDDALINGAYYA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE ADD:NO 155, 13TH CROSS ANIKETHAN ROAD C & D BLOCK KUVEMPU NAGARA MYSORE-570 023. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. DALWAI VENKATESH.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001. 2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MYSORE-1 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MYSORE-01. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. T P VIVEKANADA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH NOTIFICATION DATED.03.07.2009 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEX-B [IN SO FAR AS ITEM NO.1, 14, 41, 42, 47, 48, 45, 53, 80) AND ETC. IN WP NO. 35122/2015 BETWEEN: 1. SRI KRISHNA S/O LATE KONA CHIKKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT KARAGAHALLI VILLAGE JAYAPURA HOBLI MYSORE TALUK - 570 001. 2. CHANDAN S/O KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/AT KERAGAHALLI VILLAGE JAYAPURA HOBLI MYSORE TALUK - 570 001. 3. CHETHAN S/O KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS R/AT KERAGAHALLI VILLAGE JAYAPURA HOBLI MYSORE TALUK - 570 001. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS 4. MALLAPPA GOWDA S/O MADAE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 222/A SARASWATHIPURAM SWIMMING POOL ROAD GOWRISHANKAR KRUPA MYSORE CITY - 570 001. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K.G. KUMAR.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT M S BUILDING BANGALORE - 560001. 2. THE MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPEMNT AUTHORITY MYSORE - 570001 REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND OFFICER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MNYSORE - 570001. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. T P VIVEKANADA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE NOTIFICATION DATED 03.07.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT HAS LAPSED (PRODUCED AS ANNX-C). IN WP NO. 43472/2015 BETWEEN: SRI.LAKSHMAIAH - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS S/O.CHIKKABOVI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO.14, LINGABUDHIPALYA, MYSURU-570V008. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.H.G. PRASANNA KUMAR.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 101. 2. THE MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, JHANSI LAKSHMIBAI ROAD, MYSORE-570 008. 3. THE TOWN PLANNING MEMBER MUDA, JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, MYSORE-570 008. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. T P VIVEKANADA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 03.07.2009 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 17 OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ACT, 1987 AS PER ANNEXURE-B PUBLISHED IN KARNATAKA GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 30.07.2009 AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN PURSUANCE THERE ON IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. IN WP NO. 37717/2016 BETWEEN: T L SURYANARAYANA - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS S/O LATE LAXMINARASAPPA RESIDING AT #83, INDUSTRIAL SUB-URB II STAGE, 5TH CROSS, KHB COLONY, VISHWESHWARA NAGAR MYSORE-570 008. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. SAMPAT ANAND SHETTY.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER/COMMISSIONER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MYSORE-570 001. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T P VIVEKANADA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DTD3.7.2009 AS PER ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY THE R-1 DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO PROCEED WITH ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS WHICH RELATES TO THE SCHEDULE LAND IN FURTHERANCE OF THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 29.04.2016 AS PER ANNEXURE-B RELATING TO THE SCHEDULE LAND. IN WP NO. 19717/2017 BETWEEN: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS 1. SMT SANNAMMA W/O LATE THIMMA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 2. SRI JAYARAM S/O LATE THIMMA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 3. SRI LAKSHMAN S/O LATE THIMMA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 4. SRI RAMESH S/O LATE THIMMA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 5. SMT BHARATHI D/O LATE THIMMA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 6. SRI CHANDRA S/O LATE THIMMA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 7. SMT NAGAMMA D/O LATE THIMMA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT KERGALLI VILLAGE JAYAPURA HOBLI MYSURU-570 023. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K SHIVASHANKAR (NOC).,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT M S BUILDING - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JLB ROAD MYSURU-570 005 REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND OFFICER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JLB ROAD MYSURU-570 005. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.S. SUKANYA BALIGA AGA FOR R1; SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE NOTIFICATION DATED 03.07.2009 ISSUED BY THE R-2 HAS LAPSED [PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. IN WP NO. 19724/2017 BETWEEN: 1. SMT GIRIYAMMA W/O LATE PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 2. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI D/O LATE PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 3. SRI. KRISHNA S/O LATE PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 4. SMT. YASHODHA D/O LATE PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS 5. SRI. NAGARAJU S/O LATE PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 6. SRI. SURESH S/O LATE PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 7. SMT. CHANDRAKALA D/O LATE PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT KERGALLI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI MYSORE-570 023. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K SHIVASHANKAR (NOC).,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JLB ROAD, MYSORE -570 005 REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND OFFICER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JLB ROAD, MYSORE -570 005. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. T P VIVEKANADA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE NOTIFICATION DATED.03.07.2009 ISSUED BY THE R-2 HAS LAPSED VIDE ANNEX-A AND ETC. IN WP NO. 19731/2017 BETWEEN: 1. SMT JAYAMMA W/O LATE CHENNAIAH @ CHENNA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 2. SMT. CHANDRAMMA D/O LATE CHENNAIAH @ CHENNA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 3. SRI RAMASWAMI S/O LATE CHENNAIAH @ CHENNA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 4. SMT. MANJULA D/O LATE CHENNAIAH @ CHENNA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 5. SMT. BHAGYA D/O LATE CHENNAIAH @ CHENNA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 6. SRI MANJABOIE C S/O LATE CHENNAIAH @ CHENNA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT KERGALLI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU - 570 023. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K SHIVASHANKAR (NOC) .,ADVOCATE) - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JLB ROAD, MYSURU - 570 005. REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND OFFICER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JLB ROAD, MYSURU - 570 005. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. T P VIVEKANADA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE NOTIFICATION DATED.03.07.2009 ISSUED BY THE R-2 HAS LAPSED VIDE ANNEX-A. IN WP NO. 56530/2017 BETWEEN: 1. HANUMAYYA S/O LATE GIRIYANNA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS NO.94, 3RD CROSS GIRIYABHOVI PALYA, MYSURU - 570 001. 2. G. MADHU S/O LATE GIRIYANNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS NO.94, 3RD CROSS GIRIYABHOVI PALYA, MYSURU-570001. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS 3. DIVAKARA S/O LATE GIRIYANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS NO.94, 3RD CROSS GIRIYABHOVI PALYA, MYSURU-570 001. 4. CHINNAJAMMA S/O LATE NEELAKANTA AGED ABIYT 45 YEARS NO.94, 3RD CROSS GIRIYABHOVI PALYA, MYSURU-570001. 5. THIMMA S/O LATE RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS NO.617, HUNDI BHEEDI HINAKAL GRAMA MYSURU-570 017. 6. KRISHNA S/O LATE RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS NO.617, HUNDI BHEEDI HINAKAL GRAMA MYSURU - 5700017. 7. YASHODHA S/O LATE RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS NO.617, HUNDI BHEEDI HINAKAL GRAMA MYSURU-570 017. REPARESENTED BY THERI GPA HOLDERS GANESH.M S/O G. MADHU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, NO.22, 3RD CROSS - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS GIRIYABHAVI PALYA MYSURU - 570 011. DASHAKANTA S/O LATE RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, NO.617, NEW STREET HOSABEEDHI, HINAKAL MYSURU - 570 017. NARAYANA S/O GIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS NO.94, 3RD CROSS, GIRIYABHAVI PALYA MYSURU - 570 011. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANDESH T B.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY JHANSI LAXMIBAI ROAD, MYSURU - 570 005 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JHANSI LAXMIBAI ROAD MYSURU - 570 005. ...RESPONDENTS - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS (BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. T P VIVEKANADA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 15.07.1997 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND SUBSEQUENTLY THEY HAVE ISSUED YET ANOTHER PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 03.07.2009 VIDE ANNEXURE-E ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER'S LAND BEARING OLD SY NO.60/12, NEW SY.NO.343/1 SITUATED AT KERGALLI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK, MEASURING AN EXTENT OF 2 ACRES OF LAND AS LAPSED, ABANDONED AND NON EST AS THE RESPONDENTS HAVE NOT COMPLETED THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INCLUDING THE ISSUANCE OF FINAL NOTIFICATION EVEN AFTER LAPSE OF MORE THAN 20 YEARS AND ETC. IN WP NO. 40560/2018 BETWEEN: SRI MUNIBYRAPPA S., S/O LATE R.SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO.12, 23RD MAIN ROAD, 5TH PHASE, AYODYA RAMANAGAR, JP NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 078. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. B V VIDYULATHA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSE AND URBAN, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, MYSORE-570 005 - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, MYSORE-570 005. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. T P VIVEKANADA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 03.07.2009, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPODNENT AUTHORITY AT ANNEXURE-B TO THE WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR AS SCHEDULE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED. IN WP NO. 40562/2018 BETWEEN: 1. SRI BHARATH KUMAR S/O LATE VESU AND KANTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.42/B, GIRIYABOVI PALYA NAZARABAD MYSORE 2. SMT HEMAVATHI D/O LATE VASU AND KANTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.42/B, GIRIYABOVI PALYA NAZARABAD MYSORE. ...PETITIONERS (BY SMT. B V VIDYULATHA.,ADVOCATE) - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSE AND URBAN M S BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001. 2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, MYSORE-570 005 BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, MYSORE-570 005 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. T P VIVEKANADA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 03.07.2009 ISSUED BY R-2 VIDE ANNEX-C TO THE W.P. IN SO FAR AS SCHEDULE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC. IN WP NO. 13251/2021 BETWEEN: 1. SHIVAMMA W/O VISHAKANTA D/O LATE MANCHASHETTY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO 196 HINKAL KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK - 570 017. 2. M GEETHA W/O N RAJAN - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS D/O LATE MANCHASHETTY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.25/1, MEDAR BLOCK BAMBOO BAZAAR MYSURU - 570 020. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KUMARA K G.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE COMMISSIONER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MYSORE - 570001. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIVEKANANDA T P.,ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH PRELIMINARY NOTICE OF ACQUISITION DATED 03.07.2009 ANNEXURE-F ISSUED BY RESPONDENT / MUDA; GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION OF THE PRELIMINARY NOTICE OF ACQUISITION DATED 03.07.2009 ANNEXURE-F ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT / MUDA AND ETC. IN WP NO. 10896/2022 BETWEEN: SRI. MUNIBYARAPPA S S/O LATE R. SHYAMANNA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT NO.12 23RD MAIN J P NAGAR, 5TH PHASE AYODHYARAM NAGAR BENALURU -560 078. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR H G.,ADVOCATE) - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSE AND URBAN M S BUILDING BANGALORE -560 001. 2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD MYSORE -570 005 BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD MYSORE -570 005. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1; SMT. POONAM PATIL.,ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 03.07.2009, BEARING NO.LAQ(1) CR 98/2006-07 ISSUED BY THE R-3 AUTHORITY VIDE ANNX-A TO THE WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR AS SCHEDULE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE. DECLARE THAT THE LAND ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 03.07.2009, BEARING NO LAQ (1) CR 98/2006-07 BY THE R-3 AUTHORITY VIDE ANNX-A TO THE WRIT PETITION HAS LAPSED BY VIRTUE OF COMING IN TO FORCE OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 IN SO FAR AS SCHEDULE LAND BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS IN WP NO. 12467/2022 BETWEEN: SURESH HEGDE AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O. RAGHURAM HEGDE, R/AT NO. 204, LAKSHMI APARTMENT, NO. 6, CORNWELL ROAD, LANGFORD GARDEN BANGALORE-560 025. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. C M NAGABUSHANA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JLB ROAD, MYSORE-570 005, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JLB ROAD, MYSORE-570 005. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1; SMT. POONAM PATIL.,ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED VIDE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. LAQ(1)CR 98/2006-07 DATED. 03.07.2009 ISSUED BY THE R-2 AT ANNX-C IN RESPECT OF THE PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN CONCERNED HAS LAPSED. IN WP NO. 21890/2023 BETWEEN: SRI. ASHWATH D S/O LATE DHRUVA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT 11/B, 1ST BLOCK, 2ND PHASE MADHVUANA BADAVANE SRIRAMAPURA CHAMARAJA MOHALLA MYSORE - 560 008 KARNATAKA. ...PETITIONER (BY SMT. KUSUMA.M.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSE AND URBAN M S BUILDING BANGALORE - 560001. 2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JHNASI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD MYSORE - 570 005 BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. SPCIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD MYSORE - 570 005. ...RESPONDENTS - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS (BY SRI. SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA.,ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 03.07.2009, BEARING NO.LAQ(1) CR 98/2006-07 ISSUED BY THE R3 AUTHORITY AT ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR AS SCHEDULE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC. IN WP NO. 21954/2023 BETWEEN: SRI. ASHWATH D., S/O LATE DHRUVA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/A 11/B, IST BLOCK, 2ND PHASE MADHUVANA BADAVANE SRIRAMPURA CHAMARAJA MOHALLA MYSORE-560 008, KARNATAKA. ...PETITIONER (BY SMT. KUSUMA.M.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSE AND URBAN M S BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001. 2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD MYSORE-570 005 BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD MYSORE-570 005 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA.,ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 03/07/2009, BEARING NO. LAQ (1) CR 98/2006-07 ISSUED BY THE R3 AUTHORITY AT ANNEXURE-A TO THE WP IN SO FAR AS SCHEDULE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED. IN WP NO. 3060/2025 BETWEEN: SRI CHINNASWAMY S/O. LATE CHIKKABHOVI, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT. NO.35, MYSORE TALUK, LINGAMBUDDI PALYA, SRIRAMPURA MYSORE -560 008, KARNATAKA. ...PETITIONER (BY SMT. KUSUMA.M.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSE AND URBAN, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, MYSORE - 570 005 - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, MYSORE - 570 005. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA., AGA FOR R1; SRI. T.P. VIVEKANAADA., ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 03.07.2009, BEARING NO LAQ (1) CR 98/2006-07 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AUTHORITY AT ANNEXURE A TO THE WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR AS SCHEDULE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE DIRECTION, DECLARING THAT THE LAND ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 03.07.2009, BEARING NO. LAQ (1) CR 98/2006-07 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AUTHORITY AT ANNEXURE A TO THE WRIT PETITION HAS LAPSED BY VIRTUE OF COMING IN TO FORCE OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 IN SO FAR AS SCHEDULE LAND BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS ORAL ORDER These batch of writ petitions are by the owners of lands consisting of several survey numbers which were notified for acquisition by the respondent-MUDA in terms of preliminary notification dated 03.07.2009 issued under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KUDA Act') for the purpose of formation of Rabindranath Tagore Nagar II Stage Extension, Mysuru, seeking quash of the same on the ground of delay in issuing final notification/declaration and implementation of scheme. 2. Before adverting to the contentions of the petitioners and the counter of the respondents, it is appropriate to refer to the history of these petitions. Earlier certain writ petitions were filed in W.P.No.19164-19167/2016 by certain land owners seeking quash of the very same notification. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 22.04.2016 taking into consideration of the fact that there was no progress made by the respondent-MUDA after issuance of the preliminary notification and in the light of provisions of Section 27 of the KUDA Act, had opined that it would be unfair and unjust to lock up the valuable property of the petitioners without they knowing the fate of the acquisition proceedings and accordingly declared the - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS scheme having been abandoned and consequently quashed the notification. 3. Being aggrieved the respondent-MUDA and the Special Land Acquisition Officer had preferred a writ appeal in the W.A.No.1941- 1944/2016 before the Division Bench of this Court. The grounds urged therein were that the respondent-MUDA had not been provided sufficient opportunity by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court depriving it an opportunity of defending and explaining the cause for the delay in implementing the scheme, if any. The Division Bench of this Court having heard the learned counsel for the respondent- MUDA- the appellant in the said appeal, even on merits, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Being aggrieved, the respondent-MUDA carried the matter in appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.12955- 12958/2024. By order dated 28.11.2024, the Hon’ble Apex Court allowed the said appeals with the following observations made at paragraph Nos.4 to 7 thereunder which are extracted hereunder: ''4. In our considered view, the learned Single Judge was wrong in disposing of the matter in a hurried way without even serving notice on the appellants. The Division Bench, in turn, has committed an error by going into the merits of the case. While doing so, it made an observation that ten years have elapsed. Suffice it is to state that the learned Single Judge had quashed the proceedings by order dated 22.04.2016, and thereafter, the Division Bench ought not to have - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS taken into consideration the subsequent period as the appellants could not have proceeded further. 5. In such view of the matter, the impugned judgment dated 05.04.2019 as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 22.04.2016 are liable to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the learned Single Judge to take up W.P Nos. 19164- 19167/2016 on file and decide it on merits in accordance with law. Liberty is given to the learned counsel for the appellants before us to make a request for clubbing all the connected matters. We request the learned Single Judge to decide the matters expeditiously, as the writ petitions are pending from the year 2016. 7. The appellant is also granted six weeks' time to file counter affidavit from today and two weeks' time is granted to learned counsel for the respondents to file a rejoinder affidavit before the High Court. Thereafter, we request the learned Single Judge to take up the matters and make an endeavour to dispose of the same. We also make it clear that we have not expressed anything on the merits of the case." 4. It is in the light of the aforesaid directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court these batch of writ petitions are taken up for fresh consideration and disposal. Respondent-MUDA has filed statement of objections in three writ petitions namely W.P.Nos.19164/2016, 42472/2016 and 35122/2015 and has filed a memo to adopt the said statement of objections in respect of the rest of the writ petitions. - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS 5. The case of the petitioners simplicitor is that the preliminary notification had been issued on 03.07.2009 and respondent-MUDA without taking any further steps, even after lapse of seven years as on the date of filing of the writ petitions, cannot be allowed to hold on to the properties of the petitioners and cause impediments in they enjoying their properties which runs contrary to the constitutional rights conferred on the petitioners. Reliance is placed on the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in another W.P.No.26550/2014, between Sri. C. Rangegowda Vs. State of Karnataka and others, which under similar circumstances, in respect of a preliminary notification dated 04.01.2007, that had been issued by the very same respondent-MUDA in respect of acquisition of lands in respect of Swarnajayanti Nagar, taking note of the judgment of this Court in the case of H.N.Shivanna and another Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2013 (4) AKR 163 and also taking note of the Order dated 10.07.2013 of the Division Bench of this Court passed in W.A.No.30044/2013, proceeded to quash the notification on the ground of delay in implementation of the Scheme. 6. Relying upon the said order and seeking similar benefits, petitioners are before this Court. 7. In the statement of objections the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have contended as under: - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS (a). That in a meeting held on 27.02.2007, it was resolved to acquire several lands measuring 195 acres situated at Kergalli Village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk and further resolved to obtain approval of the State Government under Section 15(b) of the KUDA Act, for framing and execution of development scheme. (b). By considering the request, the respondent-State Government by Communication dated 30.01.2009 accorded approval as required under Section 15(b) of the KUDA Act. Pursuant to said approval, preliminary notification under Section 17(1) of the KUDA Act was issued wherein it proposed to acquire 195 acres of land for the purpose of formation of RT Nagar II Stage layout. (c). Writ Petition in W.P.No.19401/2012 had been filed by landlords whose land had been notified. During the hearing of the said writ petition, this Court had called upon the respondent to explain the reasons for the delay in issuance of the final notification and it was brought to the notice of this Court that non-conducting of joint measurement and issuance of JMC by the Survey Department was the reason for Authority not able to implement the project and that this Court had directed - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS the Revenue Department to consider the request of the respondent for conducting joint survey. Accordingly, Tahsildar, Mysore had conducted the survey and furnished the sketch and the report on 04.10.2012. (d). That another Writ Petition in W.P.No.43974/2012 had been filed challenging the notification dated 03.07.2009 and upon the submission made before the Court that the final scheme of the acquisition of lands would be forwarded to the State Government on or before 15.02.2013 and on behalf of the Government, it was submitted that the scheme would be considered and orders will be passed on or before 31.03.2013. Accordingly, this Court had disposed of the said writ petition. (e). That in compliance to the Orders in the W.P.No.43974/2012, the respondent had forwarded scheme for acquisition under 40:60 ratio in respect of 89 acres and 16 guntas of land for approval on 08.02.2013. The State Government after considering the scheme raised certain objections and sought certain clarification through its Communication dated 21.03.2013 and also insisted to comply with Circular Instruction of the - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS Government dated 10.09.2012 produced at Annexure-R5. The Circular refers to rates stipulated for execution of Civil Work by the Authority to be approved by PWD and the rates for the water supply and drainage to be approved by the Urban Water Supplies and Sewage Board, Mysore and the rates for the electrical installation like transformer etc., to be approved by the CHESCOM. (f). That in the meeting held on 28.04.2014, it was decided to have a meeting with the landowners with regard to grant of 40% of the developed area in lieu of compensation as per 2009 Rules. Accordingly, a meeting notice was issued on 09.04.2018 calling upon the landowners to attend the meeting to discuss about the allotment of 40% of developed area. However the said meeting could not be convened. (g). In the scheme submitted for approval on 10.02.2013, Standard Rates of 2012-13 have been taken into consideration. Since the work could not be executed during the relevant period, the Government had objected to adopt the Standard Rates of 2012-13. Accordingly it was decided to adopt the Standard Rates of 2015-16 and the respondent prepared the modified scheme and the - 31 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS modified scheme was forwarded the Government on 08.12.2015 for approval under Section 18(3) of the KUDA Act, and publication of final notification by the State Government under Section 19(1) of the KUDA Act to facilitate the acquisition of land by the Authority. (h). In response to the Communication dated 08.12.2015 the State Government by its Communication dated 14.01.2016 had sought for certain clarification regarding estimation of the electrical work, water supply and civil work and also sought for submission of consolidated estimate as certified by the Chief Engineer, PWD. (i). The respondent-MUDA had requested the Chief Engineer, Transport and Building to certify the estimate prepared by the respondent-MUDA for the execution of the Civil Works. Similarly they had also addressed a Communication to Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board to issue certificate of scrutiny of estimate in respect of water supply and drainage work in respect of the proposed layout. (j). The Chief Engineer, Transport and Buildings, Bangalore had issued an order dated 28.10.2017 - 32 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS according approval of technical scrutiny of the estimate in the respect of civil work. (k). CHESCOM also had certified the estimation of electrical work for the proposed layout. Similarly Karnataka Water Supply And Drainage Board had also issued a communication on 08.03.2018 approving the estimation of Rs.715.00 Lakhs for the water supply and Rs.565.00 Lakhs for the underground drainage and further called upon the respondents to pay 3% of the estimated cost amounting to Rs.41.40 Lakhs towards the scrutiny charges. Upon securing the aforesaid certification and scrutiny report from the respective Competent Authorities, the respondent-Authorities have once again forwarded the aforesaid approvals, certificates and reports to the State Government enabling it to sanction the scheme under Section 18(3) of the KUDA Act and when the respondents did not receive any communication from the State Government regarding sanction of the scheme at an early date, so as to proceed with acquisition proceedings, the Commissioner of the respondent No.2 had addressed a letter to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department and also - 33 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS pointed out that challenging the preliminary notification, five writ petitions had been filed before this Court and that if the early date for further step was not taken, there is a possibility of passing of the adverse order in respect of the subject matter and accordingly requested the State Government to accord sanction for the scheme. (l). Pursuant to the said DO letter, these respondents have received a communication from the Director of Town And Country Planning on 14.02.2019, whereby certain clarification have been sought with regard to the alignment of the road and the width of the road with reference to the Master Plan. It is in this context, respondents have addressed further communication to the first respondent as well as the Director of Town Planning on 01.03.2019 offering clarification to the query raised by the Director of Town Planning. (m). That the Commissioner of the respondent-MUDA personally visited the Office of the Director of Town Planning and had discussion about the sanction of the scheme and other related technical issues and in response to the query made by the Director of Town Planning, in the course of the discussion these respondents have - 34 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS forwarded further clarification through a communication dated 26.04.2019 and further requested for sanction of the scheme. (n). The respondent No.1 addressed a Communication dated 17.06.2019 to the respondents seeking further clarification regarding existence of Halla within the proposed layout and further seeking for opinion of the Revenue Department regarding the incorporation of the Halla as per the village map and also furnished the measurement of each of the survey numbers which are notified and the measurement of kharab land as certified by Revenue Department and also to furnish the access road in respect of the land in Block Nos. 69 and 70. (o). Pursuant to the said communication, the respondents wrote to the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore on 30.09.2019 seeking opinion and guidance to clarify the queries raised by the State Government regarding incorporation of Halla shown in JMC in the proposed layout plan. (p). On 23.12.2019, these respondents have received a Communication from the Director of Town Planning - 35 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS seeking certain additional information and documents regarding revenue documents, survey sketch and opinions of the Deputy Commissioner regarding incorporation of Halla shown in the village map into the proposed layout plan. (q). Thus referring to the aforesaid documents, it is contended that the respondent-Authority have been actively following up with the State Government and that there was every possibility of State Government approving the scheme and would proceed to issue final notification in accordance with law. Thus, it is contended that delay, if any is due to the administrative reasons explained in the written statement supported by the Communication and the same cannot be the ground for quashing the acquisition. The respondents have been constantly pursuing the respective authorities for issuance of certificates, approvals and the respondents have also requested to the State Government for according approval. That if the respondent did not have an intention to complete the acquisition, they would not have undertaken the exercise of securing the documents as required spending huge amounts, dedicating the service - 36 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS of Engineering Section and Planning Section. That the individual interest will have to yield to the public interest, it is not the case of the petitioners that they are agriculturist and cultivating the land and that on account of acquisition proceedings they are left with no other avocation to lead life. (r). That upon completion of the proceedings, the petitioners would be entitled to receive 50% of the developed area, that is approximately 9,500 Sq. Ft for each acre of the land without investing any money, if the petitioners do not intend to receive the compensation in terms of developed area they would always be entitled to receive monetary compensation. Therefore, if the acquisition proceedings are not set-aside the petitioners would not be put to any hardship, inconvenience and on the other hand if the acquisition proceedings at the instance of the petitioners are set at naught, result would be general public losing opportunity in obtaining allotment of site from these respondents at the subsidized cost. In view of the above, sought for dismissal of the Writ Petitions. - 37 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS 8. Heard Sri. Dalwai Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.19164/2016, Sri. K. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.35122/2015, Sri. Sampath Anand Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.37717/2016 c/w W.P.No.35122/2015 and Sri. H.C. Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.43472/2015 and Sri. Shivashankar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. B.V. Vidyulatha, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.40560/2018 and 40562/2018 and Smt. B. Sukanya Baliga, learned AGA for respondent-State and Sri. T.P. Vivekananda, learned counsel for the respondent-MUDA. 9. Sri. Dalwai Venktesh, learned counsel for the petitioners taking this Court through the documents enclosed with the petitions as well as the documents enclosed to the statement of objections filed by the respondent-MUDA vehemently submits that no reasons/cause worth consideration are putforth by the respondent- MUDA as well as the respondent-State for the inexplicable and inordinate delay in implementing the scheme. It is submitted that the preliminary notification is of the year 2009 and the writ petitions were filed in the year 2016, thus documents if at all and the reasons for delay if any shall be considered only for the period between 2009 and 2016. Any explanation for the period thereafter would be of no consequences. This submission is made in the light of the observation - 38 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS made by the Hon'ble Apex Court while remanding the matters, specifically pointing out to the order of the Division Bench of this Court for the delay subsequent to quashing of the notification by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 10. Thus referring to Annexure-R1, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that originally the scheme was conceptualized in respect of 195 acres. That there was a preliminary notification issued on 16.06.2006 seeking to acquire about 116 acres of land, which was later given up. Thereafter, another preliminary notification dated 03.07.2009 was issued to acquire an extent of 195 acres, of which as seen in Annexure-R1 land to an extent of about 58.17 acres has been given up. It is contended that Annexure-R2 seeks permission from the Government to acquire said 195 acres of land. Contrary to the same at Annexure-R4, an extent of land shown is just about 89 acres and 16 guntas as against 195 acres, which was notified in the preliminary notification, that too, after two years of issuance of the preliminary notification and no explanation is provided at Annexure- R4 for reduction of land from 195 acres to an extent of 89 acres and 16 guntas. References is also made to the contents of Annexure-R3, which is dated 14.10.2012 wherein there is a reference to a writ petition filed in W.P.No.19401/2012, which was however withdrawn. Thus it is contended that the respondent-MUDA cannot take shelter - 39 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS of filing of the said writ petition for alleged delay, as there was neither any interim order nor any direction causing impediment in respondent-MUDA proceeding with the acquisition process. 11. Annexure-R5 dated 21.03.2013 is referred and extensively read by the learned counsel for the petitioners pointing out two aspects of the matter, namely, a purported requirement of respondent-MUDA submitting the estimation of cost in terms of Circular dated 10.09.2012; and formation or constitution of committee to supervise the cost estimation. It is submitted two and a half year thereafter certain developments had taken place in which the respondent-MUDA seemed to have called for the certification of cost from the authorities namely Public Work Department (PWD), Urban Water Supplies and Sewage Board, Mysore, and Chamundeshwari Electric Supply Corporation (CHESCOM). Thus, it is pointed out that from the year 2009 up to the year 2016, that is the year when these writ petitions were filed all that is done by respondent-MUDA is only calling for certification of cost and nothing else. 12. Referring to further documents produced at Annexures-R9 to R16 it is submitted that these are the insignificant communications which have ensued between the aforesaid three bodies namely Public Work Department, Urban Water Supplies and Sewage Board, Mysore, - 40 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS and CHESCOM which do not lend any acceptable and credible reasons to condone the delay in implementing the scheme. 13. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners also referred to the provisions of Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the KUDA Act, to point out that the steps that have been initiated by the respondent-MUDA do not meet the statutory requirements contemplated thereunder either. Thus, it is submitted in the light of aforesaid undisputed facts of the matter indicating unexplained delay, there is no justification in sustaining the preliminary notification. Hence seeks for allowing of the petitions. 14. Per contra, Sri. T.P. Vivekananda, learned counsel for the respondent-MUDA reiterating the contents of the statement of objections extracted hereinabove and also extensively referring the documents produced at Annexure-R1 to R19 enclosed along with the statement of objections submits that the respondent-MUDA has done everything possible that was at its disposal, that is, from the stage of preparing the scheme, submitting the scheme for approval, modifying the scheme, ascertaining and calling for certification of rate from the Authorities named above and obtaining certification of the said rates. He vehemently submits that it is at the discretion of the respondent-State to have accepted the said proposal and accorded the sanction to the scheme to which the respondent-MUDA - 41 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS cannot be held responsible. He also vehemently submits, if in the event of this Court accepting the case of the petitioners to quash the preliminary notification, the effort which has been put into by the respondent-MUDA, may also be kept in mind inasmuch as the reversal of which would cost hardship and difficulty in restarting the entire process afresh. 15. He also submits that in view of the passage of time the respondent-MUDA has also proposed further modification of scheme, in that portion of the land sought to be acquired would be utilised for the group housing and remaining portion of land would be developed in terms of the scheme as originally conceptualized in which 40% of developed area would be given to the land owners. He submits that such a proposal is also forwarded to the respondent- State. He submits in the interest of public, the preliminary notification which is already issued be sustained and an opportunity be given to the respondent-MUDA to pursue the matter further in a time bound manner. Thus, he submits quashing of the preliminary notification would be an exercise in futility. Hence, seeks for dismissal of these petitions. 16. Learned AGA appearing for the respondent-State on the other hand submits that they are re-looking the whole scheme which was originally conceptualized and also the proposed change, which is - 42 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS now submitted by the respondent-MUDA and same is pending for the purpose of clarifications with regard to the subsequent change in the scheme submitted and upon receipt of such clarifications they would approve the scheme as expeditiously as possible. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petitions. 17. Heard and perused the records. 18. Necessary to note that the purpose for which the Hon'ble Apex Court has remanded the matter for reconsideration is only to ensure if the justification/cause offered by the respondent-MUDA for delay in implementation of scheme is acceptable. Because the contention which has been urged before the Hon'ble Apex Court is that the respondent-MUDA was deprived of this opportunity, had it been otherwise, it would have convinced this Court to sustain the preliminary notification. This Court has already extracted the statement of objections, contents of which do not require reiteration. What emanates from the statement of objections and the records furnished by the respondent-MUDA is that though an extent of 195 acres of land was initially notified in the preliminary notification, however while seeking approval the same is reduced to 89 acres and 16 guntas, which is less than half of land notified for acquisition. No explanation whatsoever is provided for such reduction. No material is placed on record to reason that if under Section 15 of the Act, the - 43 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS respondent-MUDA had formulated the scheme for 195 acres and issued the preliminary notification, what made the respondent-MUDA to reduce the said extent to 89 acres. Concern in this regard has been raised at the meeting of respondent-MUDA itself by some of its members as seen at Annexure-R1. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, no explanation is provided thereunder. 19. The subsequent correspondence found at Annexures-R4 to R9 are only with regard to obtaining the Standard Rates and the certification of the same from the three authorities namely Public Work Department, Urban Water Supplies and Sewage Board, Mysore, and CHESCOM and nothing else. 20. Contents of statement of objections in paragraph Nos.10, 11 and 12 run contrary to these communications, in that, it is specifically contended that upon the consideration of the scheme, the respondent-State had sought clarification with regard to the Standard Rates with reference to its Circular dated 10.09.2012 and considering the passage of time, had called upon the respondent-MUDA to adopt Standard Rates of the year 2016 and not of the year 2012-13. No such efforts seems to having been made, as emanating from Annexures-R5 to R8 with regard to change of Standard Rates as sought for. Assuming even if any such change of Standard Rates - 44 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS was obtained and certified by the authorities referred to above, by very averments made at paragraph No.12 of the statement of objection, said Standard Rates cannot be made applicable now, that is in the year 2025, which is more than a decade later. Thus even if such an effort is to be considered as the reason for delay in implementing the scheme, same is of no avail. This without there being any impediment for the respondent-MUDA to have proceeded with the project. 21. The other reasons with regard to alignment of road and width of the road with reference to the Master Plan and purported clarification sought regarding existence of the Storm Water Drain (Halla) is hardly of any assistance to the respondent-MUDA as shown in documents at Annexures-R14 to R19 to the statement of objections. That cannot be a reason for non-implementing the scheme, considering the extent of land which is originally sought for acquisition i.e., 195 acres, no details are forthcoming as to the total extent of land in respect of which the scheme could not be implemented in view of the so called realignment of the road, width of the road with reference to the Master Plan and existence and incorporation of Storm Water Drain (Halla) shown in JMC in the proposed layout plan. The aforesaid defence/reasons sought to be raised explaining the delay in implementation of the scheme is - 45 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS nothing but a moonshine, which cannot be accepted considering the scope, object and relevant provisions of the KUDA Act. 22. In terms of Section 3 of the KUDA Act, the 'Authority' which is respondent-MUDA consists amongst others, a Town Planner who shall be an Officer of the Department of Town Planning not below the rank of Assistant Director of the Town Planning; an Engineer who shall be an officer of Karnataka Engineering Service not below the rank of Executive Engineer; a representative of Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board; a representative of Karnataka Electricity Board (now the electricity companies like the CHESCOM) etc. The purpose of having members of this caliber and from the respective departments is only to ensure smooth functioning and expeditious implementation of the scheme. If that be so, as noted above only reasons assigned for delay in securing the approval of the scheme is essentially the delay in obtaining clearance/certification of Standard Rates from PWD, Karnataka Urban water and Drainage Board and CHESCOM and the so called alignment of a road and incorporation of Storm Water Drainage into the development plan. When the statute itself contemplates specified members/representatives from the concerned departments to be on the Board as members of the Authority, reasons sought to be made out, shifting the responsibility on the said concerned departments - 46 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS cannot be countenanced, inasmuch as the very purpose of having them as the members of the Authority is to have co-ordination between the respective departments they represent to ease out the formalities resulting in avoidable delay. 23. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners any reasons found in the statement of objections and the Annexures enclosed therewith subsequent to the year 2016 which is from Annexures at R7 to R19 are of no consequences, inasmuch as the said reasons contained thereunder have emanated subsequent to the filing of the said writ petitions. Viewed in that manner the only reason for delay of seven years is obtaining certification of Standard Rates from the three departments noted above, which cannot under the circumstances be countenanced. 24. It is now a settled law that though there is no time limit prescribed under the KUDA Act for publishing of declaration or passing of award, there is no justification in keeping the matter pending indefinitely for years together. Decision has to be taken within the reasonable time. This is in the light of compelling reasons that the compensation payable is relatable to the market value of the land prevailing on the date of preliminary notification and delay would cause injury to the land owners as the land value raises [C.Rangegowda Vs State of Karnataka and others reported in - 47 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS 2015 (4) Kar.L.J 64, C.G.Gangadhar Vs Mysuru Urban Development Authority and anr reported in 2013 (4) Kar.L.J 559]. 25. 25. When no acceptable and justifiable reasons are forthcoming for the inordinate delay in issuing the declaration and implementing the scheme, this Court has consistently quashed the preliminary notifications. In the instant case as noted above, except the reasons requiring certification of the Standard Rates and alignment of road and the Storm water drainage with that of the Master Plan and Development Plan, nothing else is offered as an acceptable reason. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent-MUDA and the respondent - State have failed to decide whether or not the proposed acquisition is required even after lapse of seven years i.e., from the date of the preliminary notification till date of filing of the writ petitions. 26. "Everything may grow and expand except the land". "A roof over the head is a basic human felt need which is an undeniable requirement for a dignified life". 27. In the light of aforesaid undeniable truth, before parting, this Court is constrained to take note of certain aspects regarding the viabilities and feasibilities of the schemes being formulated by the - 48 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS respondent authorities for acquiring vast extent of lands for the purpose of plotted developments. Though, this may fall within the domain of policy decision of the respondent authorities, but in the light of the very object and purpose of legislations like that of KUDA Act are promulgated, necessary to revisit the same in the context of present demand for the affordable housing by the citizens. 28. Though KUDA Act as seen in its preamble was brought into effect in the year 1987 specifically with an object of planned development of major and important urban areas in the State and the areas adjacent thereto, and for the matters connected therewith with all such powers as required, it appears the essential object and purpose for which it was promulgated has not been achieved yet. Shortage of availability of lands in urban areas and majority of citizens in urban areas not being able to think in terms of owning houses on individual basis has been the focal point in many of the legislations as well as in the Judgments of the Apex Court. In this regard some of the legislations were also promulgated to meet the unprecedented demand for urban housing keeping in mind the shortage of availability of land in urban areas. 29. Appropriate at this juncture to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of M/s.Shantistar Builders Vs Narayana Khimalal Totame and others reported in AIR 1990 SC - 49 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS 630 wherein the Apex Court referring to the expression "Weaker Section of the Society", had directed the Central Government to prescribe appropriate guidelines laying down the true scope of the expression in the light of their entitlement for a shelter in the urban areas. At paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12 the Apex Court has succinctly expressed the need of urban housing and its concern to the growing disparity as under: "9. Basic needs of man have traditionally been accepted to be three-food, clothing and shelter. The right to life is guaranteed in any civilized society. That would take within its sweep the right to food, the right to clothing, the right to decent environment and a reasonable accommodation to live in. The difference between the need of an animal and a human being for shelter has to be kept in view. For the animal it is the bare protection of the body; for a human being it has to be a suitable accommodation which would allow him to grow in every aspect - physical, mental and intellectual. The Constitution aims at ensuring fuller development of every child. That would be possible only if the child is in a proper home. It is not necessary that every citizen must be ensured of living in a well- built comfortable house but a reasonable home particularly for people in India can even be mud-built thatched house or a mud- built fire-proof accommodation. 10. With the increase of population and the shift of the rural masses to urban areas over the decades the ratio of poor people without houses in the urban areas has rapidly increased. This is a feature which has become more perceptible after independence. Apart from the fact that people in search of work move to urban agglomerations, availability of amenities and living conveniences also attract people to move from rural areas to cities. Industrialisation is equally responsible for concentration of population around industries. These are feature which are mainly responsible for increase in the - 50 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS homeless urban population, Millions of people today live on the pavements of different cities of India and a greater number live animal like existence in jhuggis. 11. The Planning Commission took note of this situation and was struck by the fact that there was no corresponding rise in accommodation with the growth of population and the shift of the rural people to the cities. The growing realisation of this disparity led to the passing of the Act and acquisition of vacant sites for purposes of housing. Considerable attention has been given in recent years to increasing accommodation though whatever has been done is not at all adequate. The quick growth of urban population overshadows all attempts of increasing accommodation. Sections 20 and 21 of the Act vest power in the State Governments to exempt vacant sites from vesting under the Act for purposes of being taken over if housing schemes are undertaken by owners of vacant urban lands. Section 21 specifically emphasises upon weaker sections of the people. That term finds place in Article 46 of the Constitution and Section 21 uses the same language. 'Weaker sections' have, however, not been defined either in the Constitution or in the Act itself. An attempt was made in the Constituent Assembly to provide a definition but was given up. Attempts have thereafter been made from time to time to provide such definition but on account of controversies which arise once the exercise is undertaken, there has been no success. A suggestion for introducing economic criterion for explaining the term was made in the approach to the Seventh Five Year Plan (1985-1990) brought out by the Planning Commission and approved by the National Development Council and the Union Government. A lot of controversy was raised in Parliament and the attempt, was dropped. In the absence of a definition perhaps a proper guideline could be indicated but no serious attention has been devoted to this aspect. 12. Members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes have ordinarily been accepted as belonging to the weaker section. Attempt to bring in the test of economic means has often been tried but no guideline has been evolved. Undoubtedly, apart from the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, there would be - 51 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS millions of other citizens who would also belong to the weaker sections. The Constitution maker intended all citizens of India belonging to the weaker sections to be benefited when Article 46 was incorporated in the Constitution. Parliament in adopting the same language in Section 21 of the Act also intended people of all weaker sections to have the advantage. It is, therefore, appropriate that the Central Government should come forward with an appropriate guideline to indicate who would be included within weaker sections of the society. 13. In recent years on account of erosion of the value of the rupee, rampant prevalence of black money and dearth of urban land, the value of such land has gone up sky-high. It has become impossible for any member of the weaker sections to have residential accommodation anywhere and much less in urban areas. Since a reasonable residence is an indispensable necessity for fulfilling the Constitutional goal in the matter of development of man and should be taken as included in 'life' in Article 21, greater social control is called for and exemptions granted under Sections 20 and 21 should have to be appropriately monitored to have the fullest benefit of the beneficial legislation. We, therefore, commend to the Central Government to prescribe appropriate guidelines laying down the true scope of the term 'weaker sections of the society' so that everyone charged with administering the statute would find it convenient to implement the same." 30. KUDA Act itself enables the Authority constituted under Section 3 to frame and sanction of schemes under Sections 15 and 18 for building and construction of houses. The term "Building", "Development" and "to erect" as defined under Section 2(d), 2(j) and 2(r) respectively of the KUDA Act would make it clear that they include any structure or erection intended to be used for residential, industrial, commercial and other purposes. In the light of the hard - 52 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS reality of there being acute shortage of land in the urban areas and elsewhere and there being unimaginable demand for housing, more particularly by the weaker section of society who are not able to afford a decent shelter, it is beyond comprehension as to why the authorities are not formulating the schemes for constructions of multi-storied residential buildings in the proportion of requirement. It was of course pointed out at bar that earlier attempts to formulate the housing schemes were not successful therefore the authority resorted to plotted developments. One of the reasons was also the quality of constructions carried out by the respondent -authorities. This may be about a few decades ago. Present urban landscape at any part of the country as could be seen by anyone would speak for itself, wherein the concept of multistoried residential apartment complex to meet the demand is the imperative and indispensable option. Respondent-State which is constitutionally obligated to ensure housing infrastructure, amongst other, basic human needs cannot be oblivious of this reality. 31. Acquisitions of land invariably marred by litigations. They take several years for clearance. Besides, they come with huge costs. It is high time the respondent -State and the concerned authorities under the KUDA Act especially the authorities like respondent -MUDA as in the instant case came out with projects - 53 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS consisting of housing schemes which would probably meet the requirement of providing affordable housing to many aspirants than the plotted development, which is as already noted above well within the power and authority of the respondent-MUDA as provided under the KUDA Act itself, warranting no other additional statutory impetus. 32. When this Court had called upon learned counsel for the respondent-MUDA regarding its proposal for housing scheme, a memo dated 24.02.2025 along with a copy of communication dated 30.01.2024 addressed by the Commissioner, respondent -MUDA to the Secretary Government of Karnataka, Urban Development is filed by the learned counsel for respondent-MUDA providing details of the housing scheme, which was proposed by it on earlier occasion. Contents of the said communication indeed encapsulate the imminent requirement of such schemes and impediments, challenges in their implementation which requires to be addressed by respondent authorities. The said communication is extracted hereunder for immediate reference: ೖಸೂರು ನಗ ಾವೃ ಾಾರ, ೖಸೂರು ಸಂೆ:ೖನಾ//ಗುಂಪ ಮೆ/.ನಗರ/2023-24 ¢£ÁAPÀ 30.01.2024 ರವ !ೆ, ಸಾ"ರದ ಾಯ"ದ%"ಗಳ' ನಗ ಾವೃ ಇ)ಾೆ ೊಠ+ ಸಂೆ-434, 3ೇ ಮಹ+ ಾಸ.ೌಧ, - 54 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS 1ಾ.ಅಂ3ೇಡ56 ೕ. 3ೆಂಗಳ7ರು 8ಾನ ೆ ಷಯ : ೖಸೂರು ನಗ ಾವೃ ಾಾರಂದ ಅವೃಪ+:ರುವ ಧ ಬ1ಾವ<ೆಗಳ=> ಬಹುಮಹ+ ಕಟAಡ ಗುಂಪವಸB Cೕಜೆ!ೆ ಸಾ"ರದ ಆಡFGಾತIಕ ಅನುJೕದೆ ೋ ಪ.ಾKವೆ ಸ=>ಸುBKರುವ ಬ!ೆL. ಉ)ೆ>ೕಖ: 1. ಸಾ"ರದ ಆOೇಶ ಸಂೆ ನಅಇ 111 ೖಅಾ 2012, 3ೆಂಗಳ7ರು ¢£ÁAPÀ:06.02.2013. 2. ಸಾ"ರದ ಪತ ಸಂೆ ನಅಇ 234 ೖಅಾ 2023(ಇ) ¢£ÁAPÀ:06.02.2013. «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ಸಂಬಂ:ದಂGೆ. ೖಸೂರು ನಗ ಾವೃ ಾಾರಂದ ಅವೃಪ+ಸ)ಾದ dAiÀÄನಗರ, ದಟAಗFQ Rಾಗೂ .ಾತಗFQ ಬ1ಾವ<ೆಗಳ=> ಗುಂಪವಸB Cೕಜೆ!ಾS ಬ1ಾವ<ೆ ನPÉëಯ=> ಾTU ಸ)ಾSರುವ ಒಟುA 29-00 ಎಕ ೆ ಭೂYಯ=> ಬಹುಮಹ+ ಕಟAಡ ಗುಂಪವಸB 'CೕಜೆಯನುZ ರೂ.452.00 ೋ[ \ೆಚ^ದ=> ಅನು_ಾ`ನ!ೊFಸಲು ಾಾರವ bಣ"T:Oೆ. ಈ ಸಂಬಂಧ Cೕಜೆ ವರ\ಾದ Cೕಜಾ ವರ (+..ಆ6)ಯನುZ ತeಾ :, ಾಾರಂದ ಸದ +..ಆ6 ಅನುJೕದೆ ಪ1ೆದುೊಳQ)ಾSರುತKOೆ. ೖಸೂರು ನಗ ಾವೃ ಾಾರಂದ :21.12.2012ರ=> ವಸB ಸಮುಚ^ಯ ಮೆಗಳನುZ bY"ಸಲು ಸ=>ಸ)ಾSದU ಪ.ಾKವೆ!ೆ ಸಾ"ರವ :06.02.2013 ರಂದು ರೂ.209,84 ೋ[ಗಳ Cೕಜೆಯ ಪ.ಾKವೆ!ೆ ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡಂGೆ ಷರತುKಗಳನುZ : ಆಡFGಾತIಕ . ಅನುJೕದೆ bೕ+ರುತKOೆ. 1. ಾಾರಂದ Cೕಜೆಯ ಒಟುA \ೆಚ^ದ ೈg hೇ.15ರಷುA Cೕಜಾ \ೆಚ^g5ಂತ Rೆಚು^ ಹಣವನುZ ಾಾರ ಹೂ+ೆ 8ಾಡುವಂBಲ>. 2. ಾಾರವ Cೕಜೆ!ೆ ಖiಾ"ಗುವ Cೕಜಾ \ೆಚ^ವನುZ ಹಂjೆOಾರ ಂದ ಕಂತುಗಳ ರೂಪದ=> ಪ1ೆಯತಕ5ದುU Rಾಗೂ ಈ ಷಯದ=> ಾರದಶ"ಕGೆ ಮತುK ಉತkಷA ಕಟAಡ b8ಾ"ಣ 8ಾಡಲು ಕಮ ೈ!ೊಳQ3ೇಕು. 3. Cೕಜೆ!ೆ ಅಗತರುವ ಅನುOಾನಾ5S eಾವOೆ ೕBಯ=> .ಾಲ ಪ1ೆಯುವಂBಲ>. - 55 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS 4. ಮೆಗಳ ಹಂjೆ!ೆ ಸಂಬಂ:ದಂGೆ ಾಾರದ=> ಸlಷA bಯ8ಾವFಗಳ' ಇಲ>Oೆ ಇರುವದ ಂದ ಾಾರವ Jದಲು ಮೆ ಹಂjೆ bಯ8ಾವFಗಳನುZ ರೂ: ಅನುJೕದೆ ಪ1ೆಯತಕ5ದುU. 5. ಹಂjೆ bಯಮಗF!ೆ ಸಾ"ರದ ಅನುJೕದೆ ಪ1ೆದ ನಂತರ\ೇ Cೕಜೆ ಅನು_ಾ`ನವನುZ ಾರಂಸತಕ5ದುU ಎಂಬ ಷರತುKಗmೆ7ಂ!ೆ ಆn"ಕ ಇ)ಾೆಯ ಸಹಮBಯನoಯ ಗುಂಪವಸB Cೕಜೆ!ೆ ಆಡFGಾತIಕ ಅನುJೕದೆ bೕ+ರುತKOೆ. ಾಾರಂದ ಈ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಹಂjೆ bಯಮಗಳನುZ ರೂ: ಸಾ"ರದ ಅನುJೕದೆ!ೆ ಸ=>ಸ)ಾSದುU, ಆದ ೆ ಸಾ"ರಂದ ಇದುವ ೆಗೂ ಹಂjೆ bಯಮಗF!ೆ ಅನುJೕದೆ Oೊ ೆಯದ ಾರಣ, ಆಡFGಾತIಕ ಅನುJೕದೆ ಪ1ೆರುವ ಸದ ಗುಂಪವಸB CೕಜೆಯನುZ ಅನು_ಾ`ನ!ೊFಸಲು .ಾಧ\ಾSರುವಲ>. ಈ pಂOೆ ಆಡFGಾತIಕ ಅನುJೕದೆ bೕಡ)ಾSರುವ Cೕಜೆ ಸು8ಾರು 8 ವಷ"ಗಳ ಹmೆಯOಾದ CೕಜೆeಾSರುವದ ಂದ ಸದ CೕಜೆಯೆZ ಯqಾವGಾKS ಈSನ ಪಸುKತ ಸಂದಭ"zÀÝ=> ಅನು_ಾ`ನ!ೊFಸಲು .ಾಧ\ಾಗುವಲ>\ಾದU ಂದ ಾಾರವ RೊಸOಾS ಬಹುಮಹ+ ಕಟAಡದ ಗುಂಪವಸB CೕಜೆಯನುZ ಅನು_ಾ`ನ!ೊFಸುವ ಉOೆUೕಶಂದ ಈ ಸಂಬಂಧ RೊಸOಾS +..ಆ6 ಅನುZ :ದಪ+ಸುವ ಕು ತು :20.03.2021ರಂದು ಾಾರದ ಸrೆಯ ಷಯ ಸಂೆ-3ರ=> ಗುಂಪ ವಸB Cೕಜೆ ಮೆ bY"ಸುವ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಸsತ\ಾS ಚj":, ೖಸೂರು ನಗರದ=> ಪಸುKತ 3ೇ+ೆ ಇರುವಂGೆ ಒಂದು Rಾಗೂ ಎರಡು ೊಠ+ ಇರುವ ಮೆಗಳನುZ bY"ಸುವ ಪ.ಾKವೆ!ೆ Rಾಗೂ ಮೆ ಹಂjೆ!ೆ ಸಂಬಂ:ದಂGೆ bಯ8ಾವFಗF!ೆ ಅನುJೕದೆ Rಾಗೂ 3ೇ+ೆ ಸYೕtೆ ೈ!ೊಳ'Qವ ಪ.ಾKವೆ!ೆ ಾಾರಂದ ಅನುJದೆ ಪ1ೆಯ)ಾSರುತKOೆ. ಅದರಂGೆ ಗುಂಪ ವಸB ಮೆ b8ಾ"ಣೆ5 Cೕಜಾ ವರ ತeಾ ಸಲು ಅಗತರುವ ಸ8ಾ)ೋಚಕರನುZ ೇY:ೊಳQಲು ಅನುJೕದೆ ಪ1ೆಯ)ಾTತು. ಅದರಂGೆ ACS DESIGN CONSULTING PVT LIMITED ರವರನುZ ಗಂಪವಸB Cೕಜೆ ಅನು_ಾ`ನೆ5 ಅಗತರುವ +..ಆ6 ನುZ ತeಾ ಸಲು uೆಂಡ6 ಪgv ಮೂಲಕ ೇY:ೊಳQ)ಾSರುತKOೆ. ಾಾರಂದ ರjಸಲl[Aರುವ ಬ1ಾವ<ೆಗmಾದ ಜಯನಗರ 4ೇ ಹಂತ, 2ೇ ಘಟA Rಾಗೂ ದಟAಗFQ ಬ1ಾವ<ೆ \ಾKಯ ಾಮಕೃಷxನಗರ ಎ & 3ಾ>y, - 56 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS 1ಾ..ಆ6.ಅಂ3ೇಡ56 .ಾತಗFQ '' ವಲಯ ಬ1ಾವ<ೆಯ=> ಬಹುಮಹ+ ಕಟAಡಗಳ ಗುಂಪ ಮೆ bY"ಸಲು ಉOೆUೕ%ಸ)ಾSರುತKOೆ. ಾಾರದ ಮೂಲ {ೈಯ .ಾವ"ಜbಕ !ೆ b\ೇಶನ ಅಥ\ಾ ಮೆ bY": ಹಂjೆ 8ಾಡುವOಾSರುತKOೆ. ಭೂ.ಾoೕನ ಾvU 2013 iಾ=K!ೆ ಬಂದ ನಂತರ ಾಾರಂದ RೊಸOಾS ಬ1ಾವ<ೆ ರಚೆ!ೆ ಭೂ.ಾoೕನ ಪgv ನ1ೆಸುವದು ಕಷA.ಾಧದ ಸಂಗB, ಏೆಂದ ೆ ಪಸುKತ iಾ=Kಯ=>ರುವ ಭೂ.ಾoೕನ ಾvUಯಂGೆ ಭೂ 8ಾ=ೕಕ !ೆ bೕಡ3ೇಾದ ಭೂ ಪ Rಾರ Rಾಗೂ ಬ1ಾವ<ೆ b8ಾ"ಣೆ5 ತಗಲುವ ಒಟುA \ೆಚ^ .ೇ ಬ1ಾವ<ೆ ರಚೆ 8ಾ+ದ=>, ೈ!ೆಟುಕುವ ದರದ=> b\ೇಶನ ಹಂjೆ 8ಾಡಲು .ಾಧ\ಾಗುವಲ>. ಈ pನZ)ೆಯ=> ಾಾರವ ಈ!ಾಗ)ೇ bY":ರುವ ಬ1ಾವ<ೆಗಳ=> ಗುಂಪವಸB Cೕಜೆ!ೆ ಾTU :ರುವ ಭೂYಯ=> ಬಹುಮಹ+ ಕಟAಡ ಗುಂಪವಸB ಮೆಯನುZ ಅನು_ಾ`ನ!ೊF:ದU=> ೖಸೂರು ನಗರದ ಾಗ ೕಕ ಂದ ಈ pಂOೆ ಾಾರಂದ b\ೇಶನ ೋ ಸ=>ೆeಾSರುವ ಸು8ಾರು 80000ಕೂ5 Rೆಚು^ ಅ~"ಗಳ' Rಾಗೂ ಮೆ ೋ 3ೇ+ೆ ಸYೕtೆಯ=> ಸ=>ೆeಾSರುವ 26000 ಅ~"ಗಳನುZ ಗಮನದ=>ಟAೊಂಡು ಾಾರವ ಬಹುಮಹ+ ಕಟAಡಗಳ ಗುಂಪ ವಸB Cೕಜೆಯ ಮೂಲಕ ಮೆಗಳನುZ bY": ಾಾರದ ಮೂಲ {ೈಯದಂGೆ ಮೆ ಹಂjೆ 8ಾಡಲು ಾCೕ"ನುIಖ\ಾSರುತKOೆ. ೕಲ5ಂಡ ಅಂಶಗಳ pೆZ)ೆಯ=> ಈ ಕ•ೇ ಪತ ಾಂಕ: 30.07.2022 Rಾಗೂ 10.10.2022 ರ ಪತದ=> ಜಯನಗರ 4ೇ ಹಂತ 2ೇ ಘಟA Rಾಗೂ ದಟAಗFQ ಬ1ಾವ<ೆ ಾಮಕೃಷx ನಗರ ಎ ಮತುK 3ಾ>y ನ=> ಗುಂಪ ಮೆ b8ಾ"ಣ ಸಂಬಂಧ +..ಆ6 ಅನುZ ಸಾ"ರೆ5 ಸ=>ಸ)ಾSತುK. ಉ)ೆ>ೕಖ 5 ರ ಸಾ"ರದ ಪತದ=> ಜಯನಗರ 4ೇ ಹಂತ 2ೇ ಘಟA ಬ1ಾವ<ೆಯ=> ಗುಂಪ ಮೆ b8ಾ"ಣೆ5 ಪ.ಾK:ರುವ ಪ.ಾKವೆಯ ಕು ತಂGೆ ಸದ ಬಹುಮಹ+ ಕಟAಡ ಗುಂಪ ವಸB CೕಜೆಯನುZ ಾಸS-.ಾವ"ಜbಕ ಜಂ[ ಸಹrಾSತoದ=> ಅನು_ಾ`ನ!ೊFಸುವ ಬ!ೆL ಪ %ೕ=: ಾಾರದ ಆn"ಕ ಪ :€B, ವಲಯ beಾಮವFಗಳ', FAR ಗಳನುZ ಪ %ೕ=:ೊಂಡು ಉತKಮ\ಾದ ಾಸವನುZ ರj:ೊಂಡು. Cೕಜೆಯ ಕು ತು ಪ.ಾKವೆಯನುZ ಸಾ"ರೆ5 ಸ=>ಸುವಂGೆ ಸೂjಸ)ಾSರುತKOೆ. ಾಂಕ: 06.11.2023 ರಂದು 8ಾನ ನಗ ಾವೃ ಸjವರ ಅಧ•Gೆ Rಾಗೂ 8ಾನ ಸ8ಾಜ ಕ)ಾಣ ಇ)ಾೆ ಸjವರು Rಾಗೂ Rಾಗೂ ೖಸೂರು ~)ಾ> ಉಸುK\ಾ ಸjವರ ಉಪ:€Bಯ=> ನ1ೆದ ಸrೆಯ=> ಬಹುಮಹ+ ಕಟAಡ ಗುಂಪ - 57 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS ವಸB CೕಜೆಯನುZ ಾಾರಂದ)ೇ ೈ!ೊಳQಲು ಸೂj: ಪ.ಾKವೆಯನುZ ಸ=>ಸಲು ಸೂjಸ)ಾSರುತKOೆ. ಉ)ೆ>ೕಖ (2) ರ ಸಾ"ರದ ಪತ ಾಂಕ: 05.08.2023 ರ=> ಸೂj:ರುವಂGೆ FAR ಅನುZ ಪ %ೕ=: ಜಯನಗರ 4ೇ ಹಂತ 2ೇ ಘಟA ಬ1ಾವ<ೆಯ=> ಬಹುಮಹ+ ಕಟAಡ ಗುಂಪ ವಸB CೕಜೆಯನುZ ೈ!ೊಳQಲು ಪ ಷkತ ಪ.ಾKವೆಯನುZ :ದಪ+:ದುU ವರ ೆಳಕಂಡಂBKರುತKOೆ. PÀæ. ¸ÀA §qÁªÀuÉ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼À ªÀiÁzÀj PÀlÖqÀzÀ ¨ÁèPï£À «ªÀgÀ ªÀĺÀrAiÀÄ ¸ÀASÉåUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ «¹ÛÃtð ZÀ.«ÄÃ. ¤«Äð¸À ¯ÁUÀĪÀ MlÄÖ ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼À ¸ÀASÉå 60.96 120 62.73 60 2 BHK 2¨ÁèPï£À PÀlÖqÀ ¨ÉøïªÉÄAmï+ ¹Ö¯ïà+ 10 ªÀĺÀr 56.87 60 MlÄÖ 240 1 «dAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ 4£Éà ºÀAvÀ 2£Éà WÀlÖ 2 BHK 1 ¨ÁèPï£À PÀlÖqÀ ¨ÉøïªÉÄAmï+ ¹Ö¯ïà + 12 ªÀĺÀr 74.48 96 MlÄÖ GzÉÝòvÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼À ¸ÀASÉå (240+96) 336 336 «dAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ 4£Éà ºÀAvÀzÀ §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è 18312.04 ZÀ.«ÄÃ. «¹ÛÃtðzÀ ¥ÀæzÉñÀzÀ°è ¤«Äð¸À®Ä GzÉÝò¹gÀĪÀ §ºÀĪÀĺÀr ªÀ¸Àw PÀlÖqÀªÀÅ F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. PÀæ. ¸ÀA lªÀgï ªÀĺÀr UÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ «¹ÛÃtð ¥Àæw ªÀĺÀrAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼À ¸ÀASÉå ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼À ¸ÀASÉå 1 1 12 74.48 ZÀ.«ÄÃ. 8 96 2 2 10 60.96 ZÀ.«ÄÃ. 6 60 62.73 ZÀ.«ÄÃ. 3 30 56.87 ZÀ.«ÄÃ. 3 30 3 3 20 60.96 ZÀ.«ÄÃ. 6 60 62.73 ZÀ.«ÄÃ. 3 30 56.87 ZÀ.«ÄÃ. 3 30 MlÄÖ 336 - 58 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS ಒಟುA 408 ಮೆಗಳನುZ ಜಯನಗರ ಬ1ಾವ<ೆಯ=> bY"ಸಲು ಉOೆUೕ%ಸ)ಾSOೆ. ಸದ ಬ1ಾವ<ೆಯ=> ಗುಂಪ ವಸB Cೕಜೆ!ೆ ಾTU ಸ)ಾದ ಭೂYಯು 13 Yೕ ‚ೋ+ ರ.ೆK!ೆ RೊಂೊಂಡಂBದುU, ವಲಯ bಯ8ಾವFಗಳನoಯ 1.75 FAR ಉಪCೕSಸಬಹುOಾSದುU. ಸದ Cೕಜೆಯ ಒಟುA FAR 1.747 ಆSರುವದ ಂದ bಯ8ಾವFಗಳ+ಯ=> ಅವೃ ನtೆ ಅನುJೕದೆ!ೆ ಅವಾಶರುವಂGೆ ಅನುJೕದೆ ೋರ)ಾSOೆ. ಸದ ಬಹುಮಹ+ ಕಟAಡ ಗುಂಪವಸB ಮೆ Cೕಜೆಯ ವರ\ಾದ Cೕಜಾ ವರಯ=>ರುವ (+..ಆ6) ಮುಖ ಅಂಶಗಳ ವರಗಳ' ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡಂBರುತK\ೆ. Vijayanagar Sl. No. Description Type 1 (2 Block) Type 2 (1 Block) Recreation centre 1 Configuration 2 BHK (B+S+10) 2 BHK (B+S+12) G+1 2 Extent of Plot in Acres 4 acres 21 guntas 3 Carpet Area of Unit(Sqft) Type 1- 655.92 Type 2-653.45, Type 3-611.92 801 4 Total No. Units 240 96 1 5 Area of Construction (Sq. ft) Building 248471 124064 7409.44 Basement 128464 Total Area of Construction (Sq.ft) 508408 Vijayanagar Sl. No. Description Type 1(2 Block Type 2(1 Block) Recreation centre 6 Costing in Cr Building 78.43 35.98 3.22 Infrastructure 6.69 2.68 0.00 - 59 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS Probable TP @ 5% 4.26 1.93 0.16 GST @ 18% 16.09% 7.31 0.61 Structural design, DPR, PMC Charges, Third party charges @ 3.25% 3.43 1.56 0.13 Statutory Charges Fee @ 1.75% 1.85 0.84 0.07 Recreation centre Furnishing - - 0.30 7 Total (SI. NO. 7) 110.74 50.29 4.49 Total Sum (SI. NO. 7) 165.51 Construction cost/Sq.ft (Excluding land, Establishment, water & Electrical Fee) 3256 8 Electrical fee 1.38 0.61 9 Water supply fee 0.18 0.07 10 Land 3.60 1.92 11 Establishment @ 5% 5.54 2.51 12 Total (Sl. No. 8 to 11) 10.70 5.12 13 Total 7 & 12 121.4 55.40 4.49 14 Total Sum 7 & 12 181.23 15 Cost (on Sl. No.14) /Sqft (Including land, Establishment, water & Electrical Fee) 3,567 16 Cost/Unit in lacs (Including land, Establishment, water & Electrical Fee) 51.54 60.05 - 60 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS ೕಲ5ಂಡಂGೆ ಒಟುA 336 ಮೆಗಳ ಬಹುಮಹ+ ಕಟAಡವನುZ %ಯ6ಾƒ uೆಾZಲ~„ (Shear wall Technology) ಅಳವ+:ೊಂಡು bY"ಸಲು ಉOೆUೕ%:Oೆ. ಸದ CೕಜೆಯನುZ ಆಡFGಾತIಕ ಅನುJೕದೆ Oೊ ೆತ ಎರಡು ವಷ"Oೊಳ!ಾS ಅನು_ಾ`ನ!ೊFಸಲು ಉOೆUೕ%ಸ)ಾSOೆ. ೖಸೂರು ನಗ ಾವೃ ಾಾರಂದ ೈ!ೆBKೊಳQಲು ಉOೆUೕ%:ರುವ Cೕಜೆಯ=> ಮೆಹಂjೆಯನುZ ಆn"ಕ ದುಬ"ಲ ವಗ"ದವ !ೆ ಬಹಳ ಸlOಾ"ತIಕ ದರದ=> bೕಡಲು ಉOೆUೕ%ಸ)ಾSOೆ. ಏೆಂದ ೆ ಾಾರಂದ ೈ!ೆBKೊಳQಲು ಉOೆUೕ%:ರುವ ಪOೇಶದ \ಾKಯ ಸುತKಮುತK ಾಸS ಲ…6 ಗFಂದ ಪಸುKತ ಒಂದು ೊಠ+ ಮೆ (1 .Rೆ†.ೆ) 8ೌಲವ ಸ ಾಸ 25-30 ಲ•ಗmಾSರುತKOೆ. ಅOೇ ೕB ಎರಡು ೊಠ+ ಮೆಯ (2 .Rೆ†.ೆ) ಾಸS ಲ…6ಗFಂದ 8ಾ ಾಟ 8ಾಡ)ಾಗುBKರುವ 8ೌಲವ ಸು8ಾರು 50-55, ಲ•ಗF!ೆ 8ಾ ಾಟ 8ಾಡ)ಾಗುBKದುU, ಈ ಎ)ಾ> ಅಂಶಗಳನುZ ತುಲೆ 8ಾ+Oಾಗ ಾಾರಂದ bY"ಸಲು ಉOೆUೕ%:ರುವ ದರವ ಸl{ಾ"ತIಕ\ಾSOೆ ಎಂಬುದನುZ ಪ ಗ‡ಸಬಹುOಾSOೆ. CೕಜೆಯನುZ ಅನು_ಾ`ನ!ೊFಸಲು ಅಗತರುವ ರೂ.181.33 ೋಟಗಳ ೈg ಾಾರದ=> b\ೇಶನಗಳ )ೇ\ಾ Tಂದ ಸು8ಾರು ರೂ.200 ೋ[ ಹಣವನುZ b%^ತ ˆೇವ‡ ರೂಪದ=> 3ಾಂyನ=> ˆೇವ‡ಕ ಸ)ಾSದುU. ಇನುZFದಂGೆ ಮೆ ಹಂjೆಯ ಕಂತು ರೂಪದ=> ಹಂತ ಹಂತ\ಾS ಸದ CೕಜೆಯನುZ ಅನು_ಾ`ನ!ೊFಸಲು ಅಗತರುವ ಸಂಪನೂIಲವನುZ ಕೂ‰ೕಕ ಸಲು ಉOೆUೕ%ಸ)ಾSOೆ. ೕ=ನ ಎ)ಾ> ಅಂಶಗಳನುZ ಪ %ೕ=:, ಾಾರಂದ ಬಹುಮಹ+ ಕಟAಡ ಗುಂಪವಸB CೕಜೆಯನುZ ೈ!ೆBKೊಳQಲು ಉOೆUೕ%ಸ)ಾSರುವ ಒಟುA \ೆಚ^ ರೂ.181.33 ೋ[ಗmಾಗ=ದುU, ಸದ Cೕಜೆಯ=> Jದಲ ಹಂತದ=> 1 ಟವ6 ನಂGೆ Cೕಜೆಯ ಅನು_ಾ`ನ ಾರಂ: ಹಂತ ಹಂತ\ಾS CೕಜೆಯನುZ ಪ <ಾಮಾ eಾS ಅನು_ಾ`ನ!ೊFಸಲು ಉOೆUೕ%ಸ)ಾSರುವ ಸದ Cೕಜೆ!ೆ ಾಾರವ ಈ!ಾಗ)ೇ :13.08.2021 ರಂದು ಷಯ ಸಂೆ 2(8)ರ=> ರೂ.452.00 ೋ[ಗಳ JತKೆ5 ಅನುJೕದೆ bೕ+ ಸಾ"ರೆ5 ಪ.ಾKವೆ ಸ=>ಸಲು ಸ\ಾ"ನುಮತಂದ bಣ"T:ದುU, ಉ)ೆ>ೕಖ (5)ರ ಸಾ"ರದ bOೇ"ಶನದಂGೆ ಕಮವp: ಪಸುKತ ಒಟುA \ೆಚ^ ರೂ.181.33 ೋ[ಗಳ ಪ.ಾKವೆ!ೆ ಾಾರದ ಸrೆ!ೆ ಘಟೊತKರ ಅನುJೕದೆ!ೆ ಮಂ+: ಅನುJೕದೆ - 61 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS ಪ1ೆಯ)ಾಗುವದು. ಸದ ಪ.ಾKವೆಯನುZ ಪ ಗ‡: ಆಡFGಾತIಕ ಅನುJೕದೆ bೕಡುವಂGೆ ನಂB:Oೆ." 33. Reading of the aforesaid communication apart from providing the glimpse of statistics regarding demand and supply ratio in the urban areas, which is required to be met by the respondent authorities, also gives a sense of assurance that the respondent- MUDA and the respondent-State is indeed making efforts in taking steps in the right direction. However, what is required is willingness to implement the said proposals expeditiously, in a transparent and time bound manner. The aforesaid proposal being putforth by the respondent-MUDA read in the light of the provision of the Act, leaves no doubt that the respondent-MUDA as well as respondent-State may have to adopt and formulate the schemes more in the nature of multistoried housing schemes than they investing more in acquiring vast extent of lands for the plotted development. This is for the obvious reason that multistoried housing schemes will provide more opportunities of accommodating more number of aspirants and better utilization of limited land resource than the plotted development scheme can, which is evident even from the details of very proposal putforth by the respondent-MUDA itself. This Court hopes the imminent urgency of this requirement would be taken note of by the respondent authorities and all stake holders and the same would be materialized and achieved not just in the case of respondent-MUDA - 62 - NC: 2025:KHC:8161 WP No. 19164 of 2016 C/W WP No. 35122 of 2015 WP No. 43472 of 2015 AND 13 OTHERS but other parts of urban and semi urban areas of the State especially keeping in mind the unaffordable weaker section of the society who are in dire need of a roof over their head as expressed by the Apex Court in the case of M/s.Shantistar Builders (Supra). 34. Reserving liberty to the respondent-MUDA to reformulate the scheme and to proceed with acquisition afresh, if so advised, petitions are allowed. Impugned preliminary notification dated 03.07.2009 issued by the respondent-MUDA is hereby quashed. 35. Copy of this order be sent to Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka and Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Government of Karnataka, Vikas Soudha, Bengaluru. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25