Advertisement
What really powers the cloud? Behind every Google search, A...
A lot of what defines a home isn’t visible at handover. I...
Private equity has played a significant role in shaping Indi...
Luxury real estate is one of the most talked-about segments ...
Airports play a much bigger role than just enabling travel -...
The Kalaburagi bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal by the urban development department and Vijayapura's deputy commissioner, emphasising that land development cannot be restricted without a formal acquisition notification. The case stemmed from two landowners, Mahaveer and Anil, who sought approval for their layout plan, which was delayed by the Vijayapura Urban Development Authority. The court noted that the proposed development scheme from 2010 had lapsed, and the state had not issued a notification to acquire the land. The bench reaffirmed that landowners have the right to develop their property unless a preliminary acquisition notification is issued.
The Kalaburagi bench of the Karnataka High Court has clarified that neither a development authority nor the state government can prevent a landowner from developing their property unless a formal notification for its acquisition has been issued. This ruling came while dismissing an appeal filed by the urban development department and the deputy commissioner of Vijayapura district. Advertisement
The case involved two landowners, Mahaveer and Anil, who had approached the Vijayapura Urban Development Authority for approval to develop a layout on their lands. When the authority failed to act on their application, they moved the High Court. Earlier this year, a single-judge bench had directed the authority to consider their application. However, the urban development department and the deputy commissioner challenged this order, arguing that the land was part of a proposed development scheme from August 2010 under the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987.
The landowners countered that the scheme had lapsed, and since no notification had been issued under Section 19 of the Act, there were no legal restrictions on transferring or developing the property. The single bench had accepted these arguments, a stance that was upheld by the division bench upon further appeal.
After reviewing the case, the division bench, comprising Justice R Devdas and Justice G Basavaraja, pointed out that while the government has the authority to acquire land through proper notification, the state cannot restrict land development in the absence of such a notification. They highlighted that 14 years had passed since the initial proposal for the scheme, and no steps had been taken to issue a preliminary notification for land acquisition.
The court underscored that the state cannot use its eminent domain powers prematurely to prevent development by landowners. It stated that only when a preliminary notification is issued for land acquisition can a development authority have the right to reject such applications. With these observations, the division bench dismissed the appeal.
This ruling reinforces the principle that government authorities must follow due legal processes when exercising eminent domain powers. By dismissing the appeal, the court has upheld the rights of landowners to develop their property unless formal acquisition steps are initiated. The decision serves as a reminder for authorities to act transparently and timely in matters involving land acquisition and development schemes, protecting both public interests and individual property rights.
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
