The absence of a declaration under Section 19(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, results in the lapsing of the scheme, obligating the authority to consider layout plan applications.

JUDGMENT :

R. DEVDAS, J.

1. The State through its Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department along with Deputy Commissioner, Vijayapura, have filed this intra Court appeal assailing the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 201785/2023 dated 06.07.2023.

2. The respondents had filed the writ petition aggrieved of the fact that the Vijayapura Urban Development Authority had not acted on the application filed by the writ petitioners seeking approval of a layout plan. The writ petitioners were informed that their lands were included in a scheme proposed by the authority under Notification dated 13.08.2010 notified in the Official Gazette on 26.08.2010. The scheme was announced under Sections 17(1) & 17(3) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1987’). The Urban Development Authority, Vijayapura had proposed the scheme to form a residential layout for the benefit of the general public in terms of Sections 35 and 36 of the Act, 1987. In terms of Section 35, the authority is empowered to enter into an agreement with the owner of any land, with prior approval of the Government which would enable the authority to allot developed sites to the owner of the land in lieu of compensation determined in accordance with the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as could be found in Rule 3 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (Allotment of Sites in Lieu of Compensation for the Land Acquired) Rules, 2009.

3. Learned Single Judge, however, noticed the fact that earlier too, the Court dealt with such matters where such schemes were announced by the State and the concerned Urban Development Authority, in W.P. No. 201228/2023 dated 23.05.2023 and had declared that the scheme proposed by the State and the Authority had lapsed. Consequently, while issuing a mandamus directing the authority to consider the representation given by the respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, directions were also issued to the respondent/State to communicate the orders passed in W.P. No. 201228/2023 dated 23.05.2023 and W.P. No. 200570/2017 dated 14.06.2019 to all concerned authorities under their jurisdiction covered under 50:50 scheme for development of residential plots about the lapsing of the scheme within a period of two weeks from the date of the order.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant-State seeks to contend that the learned Single Judge has not considered the fact that this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has in several decisions directed that courts should also be very strict while considering the plea of the land owners seeking de-notification of the lands which are being acquired or while seeking to quash the notification on the ground of lapsing of the scheme or on any other ground in respect of the acquired lands for the formation of the layout. Attention of this Court is sought to be drawn to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Vinayak Housing Building Co-operative Society Limited Vs. State of Karnataka and others in Civil Appeal No. 3600/2011. It is contended that the private interest should always stand subordinate to public interest.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the State Government has floated such scheme having regard to the express provisions contained in Sections 35 & 36 of the Act, 1987 and the Rules framed thereunder, known as the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (Allotment of Sites in lieu of Compensation for the Land Acquired) Rules, 2009. It is submitted that such schemes have been formulated and notified for the benefit of the general public and to ensure that the residential sites are allotted to persons who do not have houses of their own. As an alternative, it was also submitted that mere lapsing of the scheme would n