w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M/s. Vivekananda Foundation (R), Mysore, Represented by its Secretary Venkat Narayana Chekuri v/s State of Karnataka & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- S R FOUNDATION [Active] CIN = U85300TG2021NPL150167

Company & Directors' Information:- S & P FOUNDATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201TN2004PTC052428

Company & Directors' Information:- J. J. FOUNDATION [Active] CIN = U80301DL2011NPL226584

Company & Directors' Information:- B & R FOUNDATION PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U85110WB1993PTC060942

Company & Directors' Information:- B S M FOUNDATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65191TN1996PTC035440

Company & Directors' Information:- S AND S CO MYSORE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200KA2013PTC069942

Company & Directors' Information:- H S G FOUNDATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TN2008PTC068054

Company & Directors' Information:- S G H FOUNDATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TN2008PTC068056

Company & Directors' Information:- M. D. N. FOUNDATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202MH2010PTC209864

Company & Directors' Information:- H H FOUNDATION [Active] CIN = U85191UP2015NPL072454

Company & Directors' Information:- S. G. D. FOUNDATION [Active] CIN = U85320CT2018NPL008384

Company & Directors' Information:- D S FOUNDATION [Active] CIN = U85100WB2012NPL188025

Company & Directors' Information:- C L R FOUNDATION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U70109WB1987PTC042816

Company & Directors' Information:- H G C FOUNDATION PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U67120MH1981PTC025060

Company & Directors' Information:- K L F FOUNDATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70200TN2012PTC087290

Company & Directors' Information:- J L F FOUNDATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH1997PTC105439

Company & Directors' Information:- AT FOUNDATION [Active] CIN = U73100DL2017NPL312518

Company & Directors' Information:- I & S FOUNDATION [Active] CIN = U74900DL2015NPL288389

Company & Directors' Information:- NARAYANA FOUNDATION [Active] CIN = U74999GJ2016NPL094168

Company & Directors' Information:- C S FOUNDATION [Active] CIN = U91990MH2005NPL151960

Company & Directors' Information:- L I F T FOUNDATION [Active] CIN = U80900TN2011NPL081993

Company & Directors' Information:- M R FOUNDATION [Active] CIN = U93000HR2013NPL051114

    Review Petition Nos. 255 of 2018 & 56 of 2019 in W.P. Nos. 54609-610 of 2014 (ULC)

    Decided On, 22 February 2019

    At, High Court of Karnataka

    By, THE HONOURAHLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA

    For the Petitioner: S. Srinivasa Murthy, Advocate. For the Respondents: --------



Judgment Text

1. These review petitions are filed by M/s. Vivekananda Foundation (R), who is said to be the allottee of a portion of land in Sy.Nos.81 and 82 of Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk. Admittedly, the said land was the property of petitioner in WP.Nos.54609-4610/2014 (ULC).

2. The records would indicate that the writ petitioner’s family held 8 acres 29 guntas of land in the aforesaid two survey numbers which had come within the urban area of Mysuru, hence, attracted the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (‘the ULC Act’ for short). Accordingly, in a proceedings initiated by the ULC authorities, the right of the petitioner to said land was restricted to 6000 square metres and remaining land was required to be surrendered to the State.

3. The said proceedings was subject matter of several rounds of litigations. Ultimately, in WP.Nos.54609-54610/2014 (ULC) the order dated 5.2.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru District under ULC Act was subject matter on the ground that the petitioner was not given an option to retain 6000 square metres of land of his choice in the entire extent of 8 acres 29 guntas in Sy.Nos.81 and 82. It is seen that when in aforesaid writ petitions with reference to correctness or otherwise of ULC proceedings was in progress, the State Government is said to have allotted some portion of land to review petitioner - M/s. Vivekananada Foundation (R).

4. In the meanwhile, the prayer of the writ petitioner in aforesaid writ petitions was that he being the owner of entire extent of land he has to retain only 6000 square metres in the land held by him and rest he is required to surrender to the State, therefore, he had right to exercise in choosing the portion of land which he intends to retain for himself. Incidentally, it is the same land which was allotted to the review petitioner by the State. Admittedly, the said allotment was during the pendency of the proceedings initiated by the land owner/petitioner in aforesaid writ petitions challenging the action of the State in taking over the land belonging to him under ULC proceedings.

5. In this background what was decided in the said writ petitions is the right of the petitioner to retain his choice of 6000 square metres in the entire extent of 8 acres 29 guntas held by him in Sy.Nos.81 and 82, which appears to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. In fact, the right of the petitioner to retain his choice of the portion of land cannot be subject matter of challenge by anybody including the review petitioner on the ground that the said extent was already granted to it by the State when admittedly, the said grant was also subject to outcome of the lis between the writ petitioner in aforesaid writ petitions and the State under ULC proceedings.

6. Therefore, the review petitioner cannot claim better title to the property in question than the writ petitioner in aforesaid writ petitions and the review petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the order passed in aforesaid writ petitions, wherein the right of writ petitioner to choose which portion of the land belonging to him he can retain as his portion of permitted extent of 6000 square metres in the said land and which portion he can release in favour of the State, is decided. It is only after he gives up his right to the remaining portion, the same can be considered for allotment in favour of anybody including the review petitioner.

7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the present review petitions filed seeking review of the order dated 17.6.2016 passed in WP.Nos.54609-54610/2014 (ULC) does not merit consideration either on merits or on the ground that the present review petitioner was not a party to t

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

he said writ petitions and it had no opportunity to participate in said proceedings in as much as, as already stated, the review petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the right of the writ petitioner to retain the portion of land of his choice in the entire extent of Sy.Nos.81 and 82 of Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru, which belonged to his family. 8. With aforesaid observations, these review petitions are dismissed.
O R