h THE IGri COURT OF KRNTAKA T EANCALORE before TdE hiC LE .JJSTiA. dAI T ii iRIT PTITICN c.D57/h3 Petjeen: Kemaranaiai, 4 yelrb, c/ø,1 te z(rishn,pd, r/s.Snecuruvinjha11i Yeshjanthaoura hoj ii, North Taluic. •• PETITIONER y Sri.S.Channarava Ready, Adv. Arid: I, The State of K rnataka rep. y its Secretary Revenue Dethartrnent, 1:.S .Pujldjng, San1ore—S6OOO1. 2. The Eanqa1ore )eveioprent ruthority, re. by its 0 0nissio’icr, Kumara Airk rJest, b3na3iote_56002J, 3. The A-st.Corpjssjon€r, Rearant Section, Kumara Park ‘iest, ba1ore562Q. RESPO’’i)ENTS C by Sri. .i.Ihrahir, G..) T 1 jp irit ?etition is fiId under rticIe 226 & 2/ f t C 0 ’t1tUt 0 ri rayi to 4 iash vide Ann,K dt,2i—2)8 nd - t thE saoe & direct tre respondents to onid€r he r uest of the oetition r to regularise tie construction i accordance with law. This 1 rit etitiori coning on for orelininary hearino thIs da7, the Court ne th followina:— Heard the learned comsel for the oetitioner, 2. The oetitioner has souoht quashinq of order dited 21-2—1998 4hereby the competent authority/Assistant Cojssjoner (land Acquisition) after considering the matter on merits, rejected oetitiDners apoiiction i’tc çL 4 forAunautoorised construction on the land in questions The competent authority has mentioned that as ocr the reoort of the Land Acquisition Officer of the anga1ore Development Authority that toe land bearinq No.3/I of Saneguruvanahaily had been acquired for extension of iest of Chord Road III 3 taae as per award dated 3—2—1978. The authority has taken the view that notice had been issued to the petitioner to attend the enquiry on 29—1—1998 and the same s served on him. He attended the enquiry. )ocuments ‘ave been examined and in view of Section 4(viii) of the Reqularisation of Unauthorised Constructions ct, 1991, tere is no iiaLi for reguarisa tion of unauthorised construction on the land acquired by any authority or local authority. Jirn ti ese observations, the authority had —3— rejected the application. Petitioner contended that the order dated 21-2—1998 is illegal as the unauthorised constructions were covered 1y Section 3. êiihis case was not covered by Section 4(viii) of the Act No.29 of 1991. Section 3 of the Act No.29 of 1991 reads s under:— ççtion 3: REGULARI5TION:— Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, hut sub ject to such rules as may be prescribed, any unauthorised construction made in any urban area, except those specified in Section 4, made prior to the 31st day of March, 1990, by any person, on land, — Ci) belonging to the State Government; or (ii) hjCh is a revenue site owned by him: or (iii) belonging to him which is prooesed to be acquired in connection gith any develop— ment scheme of an Authority, in relation to wich a noti fication under the anqalore Levelooment Authority Act, 1976, or under Section 17 of the Karnataka Urban Develop ment Authorities Act, 1987, or under Section 15 of the IC4rnataka Imorovement Boards Act, 1976, is puk’lished and which has not yet vested in favour of tiny Authority for which the acquisition is orcpased May, on the aonlication of such nerson made within sixty days of the cornmen cement of this Act, be regularised in accordancc 1 rtith the provisions of this Act.” A reading of this Section nerse reveals that it provides for regularisation of constrtctions made in urban areas,except those soecified in Section 4,orovided the unauthorised construction in question had been made prior to 31st March, 1990 on the land belonging to the St te Government or which is a revenue site owned by the person concerned or in cases where tt.e lAnd though belonged to the owner of the building, but it is orop,sed to te ac’iuired under any scheme or Act referred to in section and under notifi cation nublished ani which has not yet vested in f ivour of the authority for which icqui ition is oronosed. In the oresent cisc, for aonlica— tion of this section, the nerson claiming the benefit should have asserted very clearly that .‘ 4 Lt’ /a.u 4 Jt4 . .5. —5— the constructions were made on or before 31st arch l9O and not litcr. In the present cases petitioner has not stated any date. It is not his case that It was a construction made prior to 31st March 1990. There is only a vague allegation that he had made the construction long back, This petition has been filed in 1998. It could be sL that they might have been raised during 1992 or 1994 after coming into force of the Act, Petitioner has not taken any specific case. So petitioner has fi1ed necessary to make out the firstingredient of provisicn of Section 3. The second necessary ingredient is either the land should be belonging to the Government or to the owner or belonaing to the owner but that has been proposed to be acquired. In this oresent case, as per the renort of the Land Acquisition Officer of the Eangalore Development Authority, it had been acquired some time in February 1g78.and vested in local authority. It means it is not a case of site being owned by the aoplicant or petitioner. It is not also said to be a case that the land was nroposed to be acquired. Really it had already been acqiired in 1978. £U — , * 6 . So it c’ntinued to remain vested in tI local authority ie, the Dangalore Deve1qment Authority. 3. Thug, considered in my orinion, the petitIoners contention pidoing reliance on Section 3 is without merits, A5 *a4rs Section 4(viii) ig concern, Section 3 ha 5 excluded the unauthorised constructions hich are covered by Section 4(viil) or these covered by Section 4 shall not be regulariged. Section 3 wfll tt apply to those which may be said to be covered by SectIon 4 of the Act, Section 4 gavs/ “fo 1 lowing uneutrised congtructior shall not be regu1arIsed namely unauthorised constructions made on the la belonoing to or vested in cry lca1 autherity. In the present case, the lard is one vested in the local autherity. Therefore, the unautherised construction that ha 5 been made cannot be regula— rised in view of provisions of section 4(viii>. The order ha 5 been passed on 21—2—1998 and that ha become final. Learned counsel for the petitioner conte that this orler iirugned dated 21—2-1998 passed in case No.BDA(LA) 721/1997—98 (AnnexureK) may be auashed. in view of the notice Annexure L’ dated 232.1998 to ihich my attention has been Invited by the learned counsel on the basis of which the learned counsel contended that the autherity issued a notice to the petitioner to prove his JIwNciIL iU’ 7_ rigt on Sy.No. 3/1, to hich petitioner filed his reply. Cnce the authority ha considered and passed the order rejectir the application o1cing that reul’risation cannot be done in vie of ection 4(viii) of thet 9 autheriey ceased to have jurisdiction to entertaIn any fresh appli cation and to pass any order issuirç notice unless it could be shewn that there is any specific provision autherising review, No such provision ha been shewn the learned counsel for the oetitioner. No benefit can be acauired by the petitioner on the basis of t1.g notice dated 23—2—1998. The writ petitIon, as such beir witut merits, is hereby dismissed. C, ! Bg/- 02 0498