I ... Is) nba SN a •0 cr0 I-. .4. I-’0•’• Ow • ct HI an •Xe 00 —‘4 i0S O0 fri. PS0 I C’) I La I’ i0It, h1 a ‘0 ‘0 I ¼’ ‘4 a on In I •. N n I 0 Pc ‘ z ‘a ‘0 ‘0 —2— I, The Se.. ate of Karnataka., by it..s SE.cretary, Ha using Urban Developnent Ienartuent, 14S.3uiidlnns, an_aiorpi 2, The Belgaum Urban. Development ki.thorit.y, by its Chairman, ieinauw : PESPOND.EHTS (Sri,M,Mahabaleswar .-••Z for R—2 Sri,KNagaraja, HCCP, for R—l) These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitutiod of India with an affi davit praying to quasJ’. annexures K and I dt,15$,77 and 7—48O No,IB,LAa,SR,6 and.HUD,88 MI.B,77 and notices annexures K, N, 0, 1?, 0, B hearing NoBn Patra,Shusav,6/9/90—91 dt,i24,9O and further annexures vide annesures K & I and etc., These Writ Petitions coming c-n for hearing this day, the Court made the following: K,bv:JL- (c.t, only) h e .•d gott\ J SJ June 3J 998, wRIT PEI’ITICNDi93 to 5396/91. rhe petitioners are the ners of certain oits of lun fi SuEvey No,7 0 9 of Angol villaoe in elgaum ralu. The said lends were proposed for acquisition unoer a prelimindry notification dated 15I—1977 issi— city ad uner Section 15(4) of the Karnataa/IPrJeneflt 3orJ ct i956 which was followed by a final noti fication dated 25—5—1979 issued under Section 18 of the Act, rhese notifications are unr cflalleng in these writ petitions. 2. rh learned counsel for the petitioners sub mitted Lnat the acisition is vitiated aS the peti tioners ere ot Served wLfl any notice pursuant to tre preliminary notification and fther suoitted tnat they were not uwar of he enquisitior proceed ings. reply to the said submission, he laernei cOunSSl the Sed esondent sucmtted that tnese petitions are liacle to cc disisssd solely on the ground of c’elaJ ar laches, Fuitner it iS suomitted tnat trio petitioner cre not rfiht in scatin t iat tney ware not aware of fie acqution proceedings, Since they WCLC served with notice isseed under tion 9 and 0 of tne cquisition Act in me year 1981 itself, In suport of this, fle secrdresoon dent ness prodaced trio copies of notice servd o the petitioners, which snows tflat the ptitioner werc erved with t notice in ch year igdI it elf, Ii that is so, tne writ titions filed ifl the year 1991 aie liable to oe aiSii5Sed on che gronnd of delay and I nes as dey are filed after 14) year L- i<- 3 The iessondent, along with th stiteent of objections filed to—day ir Court, has produced the ianazar aS per Annecire R—6 in th iazar it s seen that tne second resoondent wa not in a position to taKe possession of 3 gsntas of land fioLn she iist petitioner on LhC ground that the first petitioner, afser consructing tie ou.lding, is esiding in ne said roperty Sine the fir t petitionr nS constructed tne ouildin and iS c— Sicing tnere, it is just and pro.er to dirwt the second respondent to liot 3 gunt a of 1 ni vheie tne house jf ne first petitioner i exiSting I ncr favour oy collecting tne value of the sit as cnarged to similar sites, if compensaticr iS 7’ said to cne firt pettioner in rspc of tno Said 3 gsntas of ians itn these onservations, these writ peti tions are rjected, Sd,’ JUDGE ) _i1 / a