9 N s4 HI H C WI K 3IJ3 3 F 3L R Dated this the 3 th dcv )f J ne, 998 Bet rc 8 Ii 40 eBL MD JU II 9. , 4 }L D3A. ti ti on No, l13 -f 1992 1. Mrs. Tah°ra t 3ejurr, w o Skri Mo , Jine r in, Occunation: Household, 0 lot No.76, Mansabdar Doloiy, Sedam 4oad, Julbarga; 2, Narasin;a ReD, /o T tama Rao, Jul arga; 3, Manik Ran, s/o Pins 3ao, Julbarga; 4, narad 430, s/o Rena Re. , ‘ulbarga ,, 1 iJos Ctit r 4cc pro ci d Powor fl S torney H Jer ri ci Knir ceed cli, s/o yd Nina r Ali, ulbar a (y I ,,c c r 18, ci , Urbar v.Jo,, ul dsJe.. cv zpn ha i tv, ulba ga, rssa b jtc oYflic3iO r; ]o o porati 1 if the 1ty if Gul Irga, aore ed y its oniii n r ,, spoil ta (Py M/c, itil incn I ,, frr ci), cvi rabtu a I, hedo or 3 —2— Writ Petition is filed praying to quash the Notification dated 15—6—1989 and Notification dated 14—1—1992 vide Annexure—B & H and etc., This petition is coming on for preliminary hearing in B’ Group this day, the Court made the following: - ORDER The petitioners claim that oetitioners 2 to 4 were the owners of Sy.Nos. 199, 120 and 121 of Badeput Village, Sedam Road, Gulbarga, measuring 10 acres 5 guntas, I acre 10 guntas and 7 acres 6 guntas respectively and that they formed a layout of 272 sites in the said lands and sold site No.76 to the first oetitioner and remaining sites to others, Thus, according to petitioners, petitioners 2 to 4, had no interest in the said lands on the date of filing the writ petitions. Only the first petitioner claims that she has an interest in regard to site No.76 measuring 1275 sq.ft. having purchased it under a registered sale deed dated 13—3—1987 (nexure—D), 2. The second respondent issued a pre1iinary Notification dated 15—6—1989 under Section 17 and after sanction of the scheme by the State Government by order dated 3-9—1991, a final declaration dated —3— 14—1—1992 under Section 19 of the Karnataka Urban Development kuthorities Act 0 1987 (for short sthe Act) 0 acquiring the said lands and. other lands for formation of a layout for the benefitof public The grievance of the petitioners is that the site holders were not issued any notice in regard to acquisition of said arids and therefore the pr v sions of Section 17(5) of the Act has been violated, The petitioners also contend that as a layout was formed by the petitioners 2 to 4 as per the Zonal Regulations and the sites were already sold 0 there was no need for developing the said lands again by the second respondent 0 by acquiring the land lands, It is also contended that the entire area had fallen within the jurisdiction of the third respondent and that the purchasers of the sites includIng the first petitioner have put up constructions in their sites and therefore, the second respondent cannot validly acquire the lands, lastly it is contend that the State iovernment had issued a notificition providing for regularisation of unauthoried constructions and therefore the constrictions in the said lands should be regularised On these grounds, the petitioners have filed this petition and sought quashing of Notifications dated 4 0,, —4— 16—6—1989 and 14—1—1992 as also the Government order dated 3—9—1991 sanctioning the scheme, The have alternatively sought a direction to the respcndents to regulri se or reconvi..y or renotify Sy.Nos 119, 120 d 121 under Section 20(7) of the Act, 3, It is evident from the petitioner averments that the claim of petitioner No.1 relates to only a small site measuring 1275 sq.ft and nothing more in the layout alleged to have been formed in SyNo,119, 120 and 121, Petitioners 2 to 4 have no subsisting interest or claim as they claim that they formed a layout and sold all the sites, The alleged purchasers are not parties and such purchasers have not sought any relief in regard to the sites said to have been purchased by them, Petitioners 2 to 4 as Kathedars were served with notices inegard to acquisition. In the circumstances, petitioners 2 to 4 are not entitled to maintain this petition. Therefore, this petition will have to be restricted only regard to the site No.76 measuring 1275 sq.ft claimed by petitioner No.1, The petition in so far asremaining extent of said survey numbers is liable to be rejected in limine, as the petitioners have no right in regard to such lands, 5 4. The first contention of first petition is that she has not been $erved with any notice regarding the aciisition of land, as required under the Act, The notifications show that what was acquired were Sy.Nos. 119, 120 and 121 along with other certain Survey Numbers, The relief prayed is also in regard to Sy,Nos 119, 120, and 121. The sale deed dated 133—1987 (AnnexureeD) said to have been executed by the petitioners 2 to 4 in favour of first petitioner does not refer to the survey numbers 119, 120 and 121 at all, but relates to an open space bearing No.76, formed in CTS Nos 2855 and 2856 in Block No 5 of Badepur Sedam Road Extension, Gulbarga. It is significant to note that the total extent of CTS Nos 2855 and 2356 is not given. The second respondent has contended that Sy.Nos. 119, 120 and 121 were not converted to nonagricultural purpose and the alleged private layout formed by the petitioners 2 to 4 was not approved by any Authority, The petitioners have not produced any documents to show that the lands in question were converted or tht they were assigned CTS Nos 2855 and 2856, There is nothing to lihk site No, 76 in CTS 28552856 to Sy,Nos 119, 120 and 121 , , , 6 —6— acauired by the second respondent. The first petitioner has produced copies of two receipts (‘nnexure-E dated 11—111991 and Annexure—P dated 5—2—1992) said to have been issued by the third respondent, for having collected Development charges and Taxes in regard to plot No.76 (in CTS Nos 2855 and 2856) from petitioner during 1990—91 and 199l—92 The second respondent has contended that these documents were obtained by first petitioner from the third respondent by misrepresentation of facts and subsequently the third respondent had cancelled them on 28-5—1992, It is unnecessary to examine the validity of these documents in this petition. 5. As pointed out above, as the survey number has not been mentioned inthe sale deed and as the name of first petition is not entered as tne holder or person in possession or oner or khatedar of any portion of Survey nu’bers 1190 120 or 121, in the revenue records, there was no obligation onthe part of the second respondent to issue any notice to the 9 k first It is not in dispute that noti es have in fact been issued to the oersons sho as Khatedars in the Revenue Records. In the circumstances 0 the petitioners cannot contend that the acquisition is Invalid for want of notice, 0 • —7— 6. The second contention iS that there cannot be an acquisition of a developed layout for the purpose of development as a Layout. The petitioners have not demonstrated that the lands in question were converted and that a layout of sites was _4 tPJ formed,and the same was approved by the concerned Authority, It cannot therefore be contended that the land is already developed in accordance with law and therefore it cannot be further developed. The second contention is therefore, rejected, 7. The third contention relates to regularisation. If the first petitioner wants regularisation of any unauthorised construction, it is open to her to make application for reguiarisaton in accordance with law. No such eplication has been made. If the first petitioner complies with the requirements of the Karnataka Regularsation of Unauthorised Occupation in Urban Areas Acts 1991 the concerned authority will consider and dispose of such aplication. When the first petitioner has not made any such app1ication the respondents cannot be directed to consider or regulrise her occupation, First petitioner has also not demonstrated that her case is fit for regularisation. In so far as the reconveyance and denotification is —8 concerned, the petitioners have not been able to make out any ground for granting such relief, 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first petitioner may be permitted to make an application to the second respondent for allotment of site, seeking rreference on the ground that she has lost the site purchased by her due to acguisiton, The first petitioner is always at liberty to make such application in terms of the Act and relevant Rules and as and wh such an aoplication is made, I am sure 1 the second respondent will consider and dispose of such application in accordance with law. 9, There is therefort no merit in petition and it is accordingly rejected, JUDGE pjk/ujk