IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF APRIL 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

W.P.NO.107510/2017 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

BASAVARAJ BHIMAPPA ILLIGER

AGE:55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE &

BUSINESS, R/O 182/6, VIDYA NAGAR,

1^ST CROSS, GOKAK,

BELAGAVI DISTRICT.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO

DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT

M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001

2.

BELAGAVI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

BELAGAVI

BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT K.VIDYAVATHI, AGA & SRI.V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR

R1; SRI.M.A.HULGAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION

DATED:

05.06.2007

PUBLISHED

IN

OFFICIAL

GAZETTE

ON

14.06.2007 ISSUED BY 2^ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A BY

ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

R

2

ORDER

The captioned writ petition is filed seeking a writ of

certiorari to quash the impugned notification dated

05.06.2007 published in Official Gazette of 14.06.2007

issued by the respondent No.2 as per Annexure-A. The

petitioner is also seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus

to issue direction to the respondents to issue NOC to

enable the petitioner to utilize the petition lands.

2.

The facts leading to the case are as under:

The petitioner claims to be the owner of agricultural

lands bearing Sy.No.173/7 measuring 39 guntas situated

at Hindalga Village. The petition lands were notified for

acquisition in favour of respondent No.2 for the purpose of

formation of residential layout. The petitioner claims to

have purchased the lands by virtue of sale deed dated

17.03.2012. The grievance of the petitioner before this

Court is that though the petition lands were proposed to be

acquired way back in 2007, however, the respondent No.2

3

has never published in the Official Gazette notifying the

lands in question for acquisition. Though preliminary

notification is of the year 2007, there is absolutely no

progress in issuance of final notification under Section 19

of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987.

The petitioner also claims that since the respondent No.2

has failed to issue final notification within the reasonable

time, the impugned notification issued under Section 17

has become unenforceable. It is also stated that the

petition lands are designated and reserved for residential

purpose in the master plan published by the respondent

No.2. The petitioner on the premise that the respondent

No.2 has virtually abandoned the scheme, submitted an

application on 12.09.2016 as per Annexure-C requesting

the respondent No.2 to issue NOC for utilizing the lands in

question for residential purpose.

3.

The petitioner is before this Court on account of

inaction on the part of the respondent No.2 in not

4

considering the representation. Therefore, the petitioner

has sought for writ of certiorari to quash the preliminary

notification issued under Section 17 as per Annexure-A

proposing to acquire the petition lands. The petitioner has

also sought for a writ of mandamus to direct the

respondents to issue NOC.

4.

On receipt of notice, the respondent No.2 has

filed statement of objections. At paragraph 3 of the

statement

of

objections,

the

respondent

No.2

has

questioned the locus standi of the present petitioner in

questioning the preliminary notification issued by the

respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 has contended that

the petitioner was not the owner of the land in question as

on the date of issuance of preliminary notification. It is

also contended that the petitioner