- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29583 WP No. 16073 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 16073 OF 2015 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. S. JAYANNA S/O LATE SEETHARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 2. SRI. R. SRINIVAS, S/O LATE D. RAMACHANDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.280, 5TH WEST CROSS, UTTARADIMATTADA ROAD, MYSORE. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K.R. LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-01. 2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, J.L.B. ROAD, MYSORE-570 001. 3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY J.L.B. ROAD, MYSORE-570 001. Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29583 WP No. 16073 of 2015 4. MYSORE CITY CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, NEW SAYAJI RAO ROAD, MYSORE-570 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3; SMT. M.P.GEETHADEVI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.MUN-LAC 3/70-71 DATED 07.05.2014 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have called in question an endorsement bearing No.MUN-LAC 3/70-71 dated 07.05.2014 issued by the respondent No.2 by which their request for allotment of two sites in Vijayanagar II Stage, Mysuru, was rejected. The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 to allot a site measuring 40' x 60' in Vijayanagar II Stage, Mysuru. 2. (i) The petitioners contend that they owned the land measuring 4 acres 5 guntas in Sy.No.103/2A situated at - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29583 WP No. 16073 of 2015 Mysuru. The said land was notified for acquisition on 29.11.1969 for the purpose of a burial ground for Adi- Karnataka community. Petitioners claim that an award was passed on 07.06.1971 determining compensation at a sum of Rs.1,500/- per acre. The father of petitioner No.1, father of petitioner No.2 and uncle of the petitioners were requesting the respondent No.2 for allotment of an alternate site. The respondent No.2 rejected their request vide endorsement dated 21.10.1988. Thereafter, the predecessors of the petitioners filed O.S.No.1041/1989 against the respondent Nos.2 and 4 and Sri. D. Nagaraju, to declare that the acquisition of land bearing Sy.No.103/2A is fraudulent, null and void and also sought for an alternate relief to direct the respondent No.2 to allot sites at half price. (ii) During the pendency of the said suit, the respondent No.3 at its meeting held on 27.08.1994 took a decision and authorized its Chairman to take appropriate steps to allot incentive sites in favour of father of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2 on humanitarian ground, if they are eligible. The respondent No.2 thereafter on 05.01.1998 came to the conclusion that the landlosers/predecessors of petitioners - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29583 WP No. 16073 of 2015 are entitled to allotment of incentive sites on humanitarian grounds subject to the condition that they withdrew the suit filed in O.S.No.1041/1989. Petitioners claim that the respondent No.2 on 18.05.1998 took up the matter at its general meeting and a decision was taken to allot incentive sites measuring 40' x 60' to the father of petitioner No.1, father of petitioner No.2 and uncle of petitioners. On 14.09.1998, the respondent No.2 issued a notice to the father of petitioner No.1, father of petitioner No.2 and uncle of petitioners to remit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each for allotment of a site measuring 40' x 60'. The father of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2 then withdrew the suit in O.S.No.1041/1989 on 06.10.1998. The father of petitioner No.1, father of petitioner No.2 and uncle of petitioners thereafter approached the respondent No.2 and tried to deposit the value of the site. However, the respondent No.2 accepted the consideration from the uncle of the petitioners and allotted a Site No.2972, measuring 40' x 60' in Vijayanagar II Stage on 16.06.2000 and handed over possession of the site and executed the conveyance. But in so far as the petitioners are concerned, the authority did not take any action. The petitioners claim that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29583 WP No. 16073 of 2015 they have been requesting permission to deposit the value of the site as mentioned in the notice dated 14.09.1998, mentioned supra. However, the respondent No.2 did not permit the petitioners to do so. On 03.02.2009, the request of the petitioners was rejected on the ground that the land belonging to the petitioners was not acquired for any project undertaken by the respondent No.2. (iii) The petitioners then challenged the same before this Court in W.P.Nos.15256-15257/2009. This Court in terms of an Order dated 24.01.2012 set aside the endorsement dated 03.02.2009 issued by the respondent No.2 and remitted the case back to the respondent No.2 to re-consider the case. The petitioners and the respondent No.2 thereafter filed Writ Appeal Nos.2514-2515/2012 and connected cases, which were also remitted back to the respondent No.2 for re-consideration as directed by the learned Single Judge. The petitioners claim that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while disposing of W.P.Nos.15256-15257/2009 had taken into consideration the resolution dated 18.05.1998, referred supra and the allotment made to the uncle of the petitioners (Sri. D. Nagaraju) on 16.06.2000 and held that the matter required re-consideration - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29583 WP No. 16073 of 2015 at the hands of the respondent No.2. Petitioners contend that as directed, the authority re-considered and passed the resolution dated 28.02.2014 and issued the impugned endorsement rejecting the request of the petitioners. Petitioners claim that while rejecting the request, they were not heard and they were not permitted or granted any opportunity to place on record the documents to justify their claim. Petitioners are therefore before this Court challenging the endorsement. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent No.2 having once resolved to allot incentive site to the petitioners, cannot turn around and claim that the petitioners are not entitled to a site on the ground that the land of the petitioners is not used for the purpose of the authority. He contends that as per the notification dated 29.11.1969, the land in question was acquired for the purpose of a burial ground for Adi-Karnataka community and the Special Land Acquisition Officer of the respondent No.2 was appointed to perform the duties of a Deputy Commissioner. He therefore, contends that the respondent No.2 was aware of the fact that the land was not acquired for any of the project of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29583 WP No. 16073 of 2015 respondent No.2 but was acquired for the purpose of Municipal Corporation and therefore, the respondent No.2 is bound to stand by its resolution. He contends that the petitioners were honest in trying to deposit the consideration as was done by their uncle. However, the respondent No.2 did not permit the petitioners to deposit the consideration as fixed in terms of the resolution, mentioned above. He submits that the land that was acquired for the purpose of the burial ground is not utilized for the said purpose but the State Government as well as Municipal Corporation have allowed unauthorised persons to encroach into the said lands, who have formed sites and constructed houses thereon. He therefore, contends that the allotment of sites to the petitioners was an act of gratis by the State and it was on humanitarian considerations as the land lay within the limits of Municipal Corporation of Mysuru. He therefore, submits that the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.2 is liable to be set at nought and a direction deserves to be issued to the respondent No.2 to allot site to the petitioners. 4. (i) The petition is opposed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 who have filed an elaborate statement of objections inter alia contending that the resolution relied upon - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29583 WP No. 16073 of 2015 by the petitioners dated 18.05.1998 was rescinded as it was passed on a mistaken notion that the land belonging to the petitioners was used for the benefit of the predecessor of respondent No.2 (City Improvement Trust Board). It is contended that the earlier endorsement dated 03.03.1988 and notice dated 14.09.1998 were issued due to a mistake of fact and without noticing the fact that the land in question was not acquired by the erstwhile Mysore City Improvement Board. It is contended that the State Government had issued a notification dated 23.08.1967 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act proposing to acquire land in Sy.Nos.103/1 and 103/2A, 103/2B and 104 for public purposes and a final notification was thereafter issued on 29.09.1969. The State Government had appointed the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mysore City Improvement Board to perform the duties of a Deputy Commissioner under clause (c) of Section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act and to take an order for acquisition of the lands under Section 7 of the Land Acquisition Act. (ii) It is contended that all communications and correspondences were done by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in his capacity as Deputy Commissioner appointed under - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29583 WP No. 16073 of 2015 Section 3(c) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is claimed that the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 21.01.1971 stating that the land in question is used for the purpose of a burial ground for Harijan on the basis of a resolution of the City Municipal Council dated 31.05.1966. It is also claimed that the Land Acquisition Officer of City Improvement Trust Board ('CITB' for short) addressed a letter to the Commissioner, City Municipal Council stating that an extent of 4 acres 5 guntas in Sy.No.103/2A and 3 acres 15 guntas in Sy.No.103/2B is acquired on behalf of the City Municipal Council, Mysuru and possession is taken by the Special Revenue Inspector and that steps may be taken to take over possession of the land from the Special Revenue Inspector. It is contended that during the course of discharge of his duties, the Special Land Acquisition Officer inadvertently issued letter heads and acknowledgment of CITB and also used printed forms of the CITB for issuing notice under Sections 9, 10 and 12 of the Land Acquisition Act and also issued further correspondences by using the stationary of CITB, Mysuru. This resulted in a wrong assumption that the land was acquired for the purpose of the CITB, Mysuru. It is contended that this mistake went unnotified and was later - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29583 WP No. 16073 of 2015 corrected on 03.03.1998 by issuing an endorsement stating that though the land is acquired for public purpose but the petitioners are not entitled for allotment of the site. With these and other contentions, it is contended that the resolution passed earlier proposing to allot sites to the petitioners and their uncle was under a mistake of fact and that the same was rectified by resolution dated 27.04.2007. It is therefore, contended that the petitioners are not entitled for allotment of any site and hence, this petition is misconceived. 5. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 reiterated the above contentions and submitted that in respect of the acquisition in the year 1969, the petitioners have sought for allotment of a site though there is no provision in law for allotment of such a site. He contends that the reliance placed on the resolution passed by the respondent No.2 has no legs to stand as the same was passed under a mistaken notion and the same is now remedied by rescinding the resolution. Hence, he contends that the petitioners are not entitled to allotment of any site as claimed. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29583 WP No. 16073 of 2015 6. I have considered submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 7. A perusal of the notification dated 29.11.1969, by which the land in Sy.No.103/2A of Mysore was acquired, makes it more than evident that the land was acquired not for the purposes of the erstwhile CITB, but for the purpose of a burial ground for Harijan. It is also true that as per the notification, the Special Land Acquisition Officer of the erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board, Mysore was appointed as an officer to conduct the duties under Section 3(c) of the Land Acquisition Act. The respondent No.2 appears to have passed a resolution on 18.05.1988 to allot an incentive site measuring 40' x 60' to the father of petitioner No.1, father of petitioner No.2 and uncle of the petitioners. It is also true that the uncle of the petitioners managed to obtain a site as per the said resolution. The respondent No.2 woke up from slumber and realized that the land in question belonging to the petitioners was never utilized for the purposes of the authority. The petitioners have not been able to establish any statutory provisions either in the City Improvement Trust Board Act, 1945 or under the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29583 WP No. 16073 of 2015 Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, entitling them for an incentive site. The State Government had formulated the incentive scheme and gave it statutory flavour with effect from the year 1987. Therefore, the petitioners cannot compel the respondents to allot an alternate site as this would open flood gates and those who have lost land for public purposes, would start making demands for allotment of alternative incentive sites. 8. If the petitioners' land that was earlier acquired for the purposes of a burial ground has been utilized by unauthorised persons who have formed sites, it is open for the petitioners to move the appropriate authorities for clearing the said land or by making appropriate representations seeking suitable compensation from the State Government. However, the petitioners cannot compel the respondent No.2 to allot an incentive site to them based on the resolution dated 18.05.1998 which was withdrawn by the respondent No.2. In that view of the matter, no interference is warranted with the endorsement impugned in this petition. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29583 WP No. 16073 of 2015 9. Consequently the petition is dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioners to work out their remedy in so far as the land belonging to them that was acquired for the purpose of a burial ground in the manner stated above. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9