1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2015 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 41525/2014 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. M. SHAMANNA S/O LATE DODDAMUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS NO.712, 11TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN MES ROAD, MUTHYALAMMANAGAR GOKULA EXTENSION BANGALORE 560 054. PETITIONER (By Sri. AMARESH A ANGADI, ADV.,) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE 560 001. 2. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT K.G ROAD, BANGALORE 560009. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER III FLOOR, V V TOWER DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE 560 001 2 4. M/S NTI EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OP SOCIETY LIMITED (NAME HAS BEEN CHANGED TO NATIONAL TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF HOSUING CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., ) G-5, PALACE ORCHARDS APARTMENTS NO.51, 9TH MAIN , 6TH CROSS RMV EXTENSION BANGALORE 560 090, BY ITS SECRETARY. RESPONDENTS (By Sri. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION I.E. U/S 4(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, PUBLISHED IN KARNATAKA GAZETTE DT.4.1.1985 ISSUED BY THE R- 2 VIDE ANNX-C AND DECLARATION U/S 6(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT PUBLISHED IN KARNATAKA GAZETTE DT.25.9.1986 ISSUED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNX-D IN RELATED TO PETITIONER SCHEDULE LAND BEARING SY.NO.70/7, MEASURING TO THE EXTENT OF 0.14 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT KODIGEHALLI, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TQ.,. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: 3 ORDER
The challenge in this petition filed on 27.08.2014 is over the preliminary notification dated 04.01.1985 under [SECTION] of the [ACT], Annexure-C and declaration dated 25.09.1986 under [SECTION] of the said Act, insofar as it relates to land measuring 0.14 guntas in [CASE NUMBER] of Kodigehalli, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk.
2. The Apex Court in [PRECEDENT], following its earlier decisions in the case of [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT]; and [PRECEDENT]; observed thus:
"6. The High Court was moved in these matters by writ petitions long after Section (2005)6 SCC 493 (1975)4 SCC 285 (1996)1 SCC 250 (1996)11 SCC 501 4(1) notification and [SECTION] declarations were made. On that ground alone the writ petitions should not have been entertained.
Additionally, the respondents clearly accepted that references in terms of [SECTION] were pending. The High Court has not even indicated any reason as to why the writ petitions were being entertained when the references in terms of [SECTION] were pending. On that score also the High Court's judgment becomes unsustainable."
3. The aforesaid judgment applies on all its fours to the facts of this case. Petition is accordingly rejected.
JUDGE kcm