IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO.1470 OF 2023 (LA,UDA)

BETWEEN:

MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JCB ROAD MYSORE-570 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHARATH GOWDA G.B., ADV.)

AND:

M. R. KUMARA SWAMY S/O LATE M. L. RAJU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO.1299/1 CH NO.23/1

3^RD CROSS

2^ND MAIN ROAD KRISHNAMURTHYPURAM MYSORE CITY-570 004.

...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. G.BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADV.)

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 AND SECTION 27 OF THE WRIT PROCEEDINGS RULES, 1977, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.03.2023 PASSED IN W.P.No.11964/2017 (LA-UDA) BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND ETC.

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 10.02.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

This writ appeal is filed challenging the Order dated

17.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.11964/2017 (LA-UDA).

2. We have heard Shri. Sharath Gowda G.B, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri. G. Balakrishna Shastry, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The respondent herein was the owner of land measuring 21 guntas situated in Sy.No.87/2 of Kyathamaranahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk ('subject property' for short). The appellant acquired the subject property for formation of a residential layout - Devanuru I Stage Layout, pursuant to Preliminary Notification dated 21.04.2004 and Final Notification dated 03.02.2005. A General Award was passed on 16.08.2007 and Individual Award was passed on 11.01.2008 wherein a sum of Rs.31,39,794/- was fixed as against 2 acres 22 guntas in Sy.No.87/2 that stood acquired. Upon passing of the Individual Award, the respondent did not come forward to collect the amount of Rs.31,39,794/-. As a result, the same was deposited before the City Civil Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Thereafter, the respondent challenged the acquisition in W.P.No.49847/2013 (LA-UDA) before this Court. The challenge was rejected vide Order dated 07.11.2014 but with a direction to the appellant herein, to allot a site to the respondent by taking into account the extent of land acquired, by considering this as a special case and to send a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act within a period of eight weeks. Further, the respondent herein was directed to pay the "market value" of the site that would be allotted to the appellant.

Thereafter, respondent filed C.C.C.No.1442/2015 alleging non-compliance of the Order dated 07.11.2014 passed in W.P.No.49847/2013. An Official Memorandum dated 24.11.2015 was issued by the appellant wherein a site measuring 30 x 40 ft., at the rate of Rs.800/- per sq.ft. amounting to Rs.9,60,000/- was allotted to the respondent. Further, the acquisition was completed in the year 2008 after the compensation amount was deposited with the Civil Court. In compliance with the Order dated 07.11.2014, the appellant allotted a site to the respondent and fixed the allotment rate at the rate prevalent on the date of the allotment, as per Rule 4 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority (Allotment of incentive Sites for Voluntary Surrender for Land Scheme) Rules 1991 ('Incentive Scheme Rules' for short). Rule 4 of the Incentive Scheme Rules states that an allotee shall pay the entire sital value as fixed by the Authority. The respondent herein gave a representation dated 07.12.2015 to the appellant requesting to modify the Official Memorandum dated 24.11.2015 and to fix the sital value as prevalent as on the date of the Preliminary Notification dated 21.04.2004 and to dedu