At, High Court of Karnataka
By, THE HONOURAHLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA
For the Petitioner: S. Srinivasa Murthy, Advocate. For the Respondents: --------
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.