IN BC HI6h COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated thi the 18th day of June 1998 Befo’e 1HE HON’BLE MRJUSTICE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH W,P,No: 28867/97 between: Anjaneya, 5/0 Linge Gowda, major, v/at: lalagavadi Kiragavadal Hobli, Malavalli taluk, Mandya Di trict Fetitioner; (By Sri Puruhotnama Rao) And: 1. tate of Karnataka, by Secretary to the Govt. Dept. of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Karnataka uovt. Secreta’ nat Bangalore—1 2. Zilia Panchayat, Mandya, rep, by its (hief Executgive Officer. 3. Chowdamma, w/o Bore Gowda, major, n/at: Talagavadi Malavaiii taluk MandYa fist. 4 Dugganahalli Gram Parchaya Dugganahalli, Kiragaval Hobli Malavalli taiuk, Manda 01st. rep. by its Secretary. , Respondent; ( Sri.K.Nagaraja HCGP for Ri and P2 Cri Shivappa for R R4 being served) Writ Petition is filed under Arts.226 and 227 ot te Constitution praylng to quash the Hakku patra dated 2$-11-’86 issued in respect of y,No 87 (Annexure”C, on the file f Talagavadi gram panchayat as it stood then and the order dat€d 26’-59? passed in case No.MKAiGP/Appeai C4/CR/8/ 9596 (Annexure’’E). Thi pEtition coming on for preliminary hearing in B group this day the Court made the following: - _______ -- —2— WP28867/97 0 R D E R 18-61998 The petitioner claims to be the owner f the nd measurino 3 quotas in survey No273/7 of Talagavadi. village, ilalavalli taluk, Mandya Diet 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said land has been converted under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act to use the said land for non agricultural purpose. Earlier the land in survey No273/7 was declared to be required for a public purpose in a notification issued under Sec.6(l) of the LA.Act, but the State Government before taking poscession has withdrawn the acquisition proceedings by issuing a notification under Sec48(I) of the LA. Act, 3. The land in question was purchased by the petitioner from the husband of the 3rd respondent $wrrwtwn.f the acquisition proceedings having been withorawn, the petitioner continues to be the ow r of the said property. If tat is so, the said land is not available for formation of sites and for dis tribution of the sites under the Ahroy scheme. But the Administrator cf the Gram Pnchayat allotted site No 87 in favour of the 3rd respondent treating the sard land has been acquired by the State Government. 4 As stated above, the land in question has not been acquired by the State, Therefore, the said site is not available for allotment in favour ot the 3rd respondent. Hence, the allotment of the said site made by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the 3rd respondent is illegal. S. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. The Hakku patra dated 2811—1986 (Annexure-C) and the order dated 265—I997 (Annexure’E) on the file of the Chief Executive Officer are quashed, sd,c JUDGE