Vasanth Sreedhar Kulkarni & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors

2. In 1976, the Legislature of the State of Karnataka enacted the Karnataka Improvement Boards Act, 1976 to provide for constitution of Improvement Trust Boards in some cities with powers and duties for ensuring regulated development of urban areas. The Belgaum City Improvement Trust Board, which was one among several Trust Boards constituted by the State Government framed Scheme Nos. 35, 43 and 3 43A for formation of residential and commercial layouts in Kanabargi village, Belgaum. For implementation of Scheme No. 43, notification dated 6.11.1987 was issued. However, before further steps could be taken in the matter, the State Legislature enacted the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (for short, `the 1987 Act') which envisaged the establishment of Urban Development Authorities for the planned development of major and important urban areas in the State. The Belgaum Urban Development Authority (for short, `the BDA') was constituted under Section 3 of the 1987 Act. After some time, the BDA undertook the task of implementing Scheme Nos. 35, 43 and 43A of Kanabargi covering an area measuring 336 acres 6 guntas by involving revenue survey Nos. 529, 531 to 549, 553P, 556 to 562, 564 to 570, 571P, 572 to 677 at an estimated cost of Rs.25.35 crores. Notification dated 16.8.1991 was issued under Section 17(1) of the 1987 Act in respect of land comprised in survey Nos. 533/1, 534/A and 534/B owned by Vasanth Sreedhar Kulkarni, Kashibai Patil and Eshwar Gouda Burma Gouda Patil respectively for implementing Scheme No.43. By an order dated 9.6.1994, the State Government accorded sanction under Section 18(3) of the 1987 Act for formation of 4 4065 sites from the aforesaid survey numbers. The relevant portions of the English translation of that order, which has been made available by learned counsel for the State of Karnataka are extracted below:

12. In the meanwhile, some of the allottees of sites carved out by the BDA filed Writ Petition Nos. 16003-16008/1998 for quashing notification dated 24.3.1999 by asserting that the State Government did not have the jurisdiction to issue notification under Section 19(7) of the Act. They pleaded that after dismissal of the writ petitions filed by the landowners, the BDA had carried out development and allotted sites to eligible persons some of whom had paid full price and started construction. They further pleaded that with a view to frustrate the scheme, the landowners executed power of attorney in favour of Allahuddin Khan who, in turn, sold the plots on stamp papers of Rs.10/- obtaining permission from the competent authority and that the State Government had illegally denotified the acquired land by relying upon the recommendations made by the BDA which was headed by a political person. As a counter blast, Vasanth Sreedhar Kulkarni and two others filed Writ Petition Nos. 19264-19266/1999 questioning the allotment of sites by the BDA by asserting that the Commissioner had no authority to allot any site carved out of survey Nos. 533, 534A and 534B because the BDA had already passed resolution dated 16.3.1998 for deleting those survey numbers from the notifications issued under 14 Sections 17(1) and 19(1) of the 1987 Act and the State Government had issued notification under Section 19(7) of that Act.

15. The writ appeal filed by Vasanth Sreedhar Kulkarni and two others was dismissed by the Division Bench, which agreed with the learned Single Judge that the State Government did not have the power to denotify the acquired land by issuing notification under Section 19(7). Writ Appeal Nos. 1711-1716/2000 and 2450-2454/2000 filed by Mumtaz Begum and others were dismissed by another Division Bench by relying upon order dated 14.12.1999 passed in the writ appeals filed by Vasanth Sreedhar Kulkarni and two others.

(4) If no representation is received from the local authority within the time specified in sub-section (2), the concurrence of the local authority to the scheme shall be deemed to have been given.

(6) The notices shall be signed by or by the order of the Commissioner and shall be served, -

(b) complete plans and estimates of the cost of executing the scheme;

(3) After considering the proposal submitted to it to the Government may, by order, give sanction to the scheme. 24

(emphasis supplied)

(emphasis supplied)

29. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. Appellants - Vasanth Sreedhar Kulkarni and Eshwar Gouda Burma Gouda Patil shall pay cost of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the BDA for thrusting unwarranted litigation upon it. The BDA shall ensure delivery of possession of the sites to the allottees within 8 weeks from today. However, it is made clear that this judgment shall not preclude the State Government from allotting alternative sites to Mumtaz Begum and others, who are said to have purchased small parcels of land from the landowners through Allahuddin Khan.