Chikkamayigowda vs The Commissioner Mysore Urban Development Authority

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioners are before this Court assailing the endorsements dated 24.03.2011 at Annexures-D1 to D7.

The petitioners contend that they are the owners of the property bearing Sy. No. 41 measuring 7 acres 6 guntas of Basavanahaili Village, Mysore Taluk, which was acquired by the respondents for formation of residential layout under a final notification dated 10.12.1992. The manner in which the petitioners have acquired right to the property under a partition in R.A. No. 18/1995 where they had entered into a compromise had been referred to. Presently, the petitioners herein are claiming to be aggrieved by the endorsements dated 24.03.2011 issued by respondents No. 1 and 2. By the said endorsements, the petitioners have been intimated that their request for ''incentive site'' cannot be accepted since the acquisition process had been completed much earlier and the compensation has also been paid. The petitioners contend that they are entitled to the grant of ''incentive site'' in addition to the compensation and it is in that circumstance, they have instituted the present petitions.

The respondents have filed their objection statement. It is contended that firstly, the writ petitions are belated. It is further contended that the first petitioner herein through the Power of Attorney holder had approached this Court in W.P. No. 42002/2012 assailing an endorsement dated 22.08.2012 whereunder the grant of land on the incentive basis had been rejected. The said endorsement is later in point of time as compared to the endorsements impugned herein. The said writ petition was dismissed on 11.06.2013. Though the petitioners therein had filed an appeal in W.A. No. 4096/2013, the said appeal was withdrawn on 30.06.2014 indicating that they would file appropriate representation to the respondents. The endorsement which is presently impugned is not an endorsement issued subsequent to the said development and therefore the instant petitions filed assailing an earlier endorsement by the same parties cannot be accepted. Therefore, it is contended that the relief as sought cannot be granted.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that all the petitioners herein were not parties to the earlier petition. It is contended that petitioners No. 2 to 7 are the sisters and brothers of the first petitioner who had no knowledge about the earlier writ petition being filed and in a circumstance where the earlier petition was filed by a Power of Attorney holder, the dismissal of the said petition would have no bearing on the instant petitions. It is contended that the petitioners being the land owners having acquired their share under a partition and when such property had been acquired, they were entitled to the ''incentive site'' under the scheme and they cannot be non-suited.

Notwithstanding the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the earlier proceedings would come in the way of the petitioners. It is necessary to notice that in the earlier petition, the first petitioner herein and his sons were parties and the claim related to the very same property. Though the said writ petition was being prosecuted by the Power of Attorney Holder, the endorsement dated 22.08.2012 wherein the rejection of the request was made in respect of the very same property and the very extent was assailed. The fact that an endorsement had been issued by respondents No. 1 and 2 on 22.08.2012 i.e., subsequent to the endorsement dated 24.03.2011 impugned herein was issued will indicate that the decision taken under the endorsement dated 24.03.2011 had lost its relevance and the decision as indicated by the endorsement dated 22.08.2012 in respect of the same land had come into effect. Therefore, when the subsequent endorsement had been assailed and the petitioner therein had failed at this point, the earlier endorsement cannot be assailed by the petitioners herein.

That apart, what is also to be noticed is that the explanation offered that the other petitioners were not aware of the earlier proceedings also cannot be accepted since the present petitions have been filed only after the conclusion of the earlier proceedings and the petitioners had failed therein. Hence, I see no reason to interfere with the endorsements assailed herein.

Accordingly, the petitions being devoid of merit stand disposed of.