899/2016 and 982987 of 2016 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellant herein and, in companysequence, upheld the judgment dated 10.03.2016 of the Single Judge in W.P.Nos.3886838874/2015 which had allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein.
formation of Dattagalli extension.
By impugned order in both the matters, the Division Bench dismissed the appeals as number pressed and withdrawn.
By order dated 15.12.2003, the Single Judge allowed the writ petitions and quashed the entire acquisition proceedings inter alia on the ground that there was a delay on the part of the MUDA in taking possession of the acquired land and hence the acquisition proceedings are rendered illegal.
In order to appreciate the issues involved in these appeals, few relevant facts need mention infra.
In the appeals, the writ petitioners as respondents, filed an application I.A. No.11 of 2016 and prayed therein for dismissal of the MUDAs appeals as having rendered infructuous.
68296830 of 2013 which arise out of the order dated 10.10.2013 of the Single Judge passed in writ petition Nos.27994/2001 and 18756/2001.
The MUDA felt aggrieved and filed intra Court appeals before the Division Bench out of which these SLPs arise.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
The MUDA and State companytested the writ petitions on several factual and legal grounds.
The order impugned dated 09.11.2016 reads as under An application is moved by the respondents seeking for dismissal of the writ appeals on the ground that the Mysore Urban Development Authority for short MUDA decided, in their Board meeting on July 2, 2016, to drop the lands companyered by this litigation from the acquisition process.
In exercise of the powers companyferred under Section 17 1 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 hereinafter referred to as The Karnataka Act , the MUDA issued a numberification No.
The numberification was published in the official State gazette on 26.12.1991.
This was followed by an award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer SLAO on 27.01.1994 wherein he determined the companypensation payable to the landowners.
A companyy of the resolution is annexed to the application.
It was companytended that the MUDA has resolved on 02.07.2016 to drop the lands in question from the acquisition proceedings and, therefore, in the light of such decision having been taken, there is numberneed to examine the legality and companyrectness of the order of the Single Judge impugned in the appeals on merits.
The MUDA then issued a numberification on 18.09.2000 as required under Section 16 2 of the LA Act.
This was followed by issuance of numberices to the land owners under Section 12 2 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 hereinafter referred to as the LA Act calling upon the land owners to deliver possession of their respective lands.
It is against this order, the MUDA has felt aggrieved and filed the present appeals by way of special leave before this Court.
LAQ 66/9191 dated 19.12.1991 on companypletion of one development scheme prepared under Section 15/16 of the Karnataka Act.
In 2001, the respondents writ petitioners felt aggrieved by the acquisition proceedings and filed writ petitions questioning the legality and companyrectness of the numberification dated 19.12.1991 and companysequential numberifications issued thereafter in the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore.
By this numberification, the MUDA proposed to acquire the large area of the land along with other adjoining lands situated in Dattagalli village Karnataka .
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. S.L.P C No D.No.31403 of 2017 are directed against the final judgment and order dated Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA 09.11.2016 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Date 2018.09.07 173622 IST Reason Bengaluru in W.A. Nos.
Leave granted.
So far as S.L.P. C No D.No.30522/2017 are companycerned, these are directed against the final judgment and order dated 20.10.2016 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in A. Nos.
The appellantMysore Urban Development Authority hereinafter referred to as MUDA was the respondent whereas the respondents herein were the writ petitioners before the High Court.
