Karnataka High Court
B.R. Krishnappa vs State Of Karnataka on 8 January, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 31
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.34033/2019 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN
B.R. KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE RANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/AT BARAGENAHALLI VILLAGE
SOMAPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI K S UDAY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AND INDUSTRIES
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560001
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
4TH AND 5TH FLOORS
EAST WING,
KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACECOURSE ROAD
BENGALURU-560001
BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER-II
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
2
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
4TH & 5TH FLOORS
EAST WING,
KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACECOURSE ROAD
BENGALURU-560001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT KAVITHA H C, HCGP FOR R1
SRI B B PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS
INITIATED VIDE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED
29.12.2012, ISSUED BY THE R-2 AT ANNEXURE-G AND
FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 31.08.2018, AT
ANNEXURE -K ISSUED BY THE R-1 IN RESPECT OF THE
PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY IS CONCERNED AS
LAPSED AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of three guntas of land in Sy.No.3/2A situated at Baragenahalli Village, Sompura Hobli, Bangalore Rural District, which consists of a residential building in which the petitioner along with his family are residing. It is also contended that the property is situated within the 3 gramatana limits of Baragenahalli Village and there are several other houses situated around the property in question.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent-Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board ('KIADB' for short) initiated acquisition proceedings for formation of an industrial area and in that regard, a preliminary notification under Section 3(1) read with Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KIAD Act' for short) was issued on 29.12.2012 in the official Gazette.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that consequent to the issuance of the preliminary notification, the petitioner filed objections bringing to the notice of the respondents that the property of the petitioner which is sought to be acquired is a residential premises and it could not be acquired. Similarly, the petitioner has raised several other grounds objecting the acquisition.
4
4. The third respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as the 'SLAO' for short) seems to have passed a detailed order under Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act, on 30.11.2016 overruling the objections and ordered continuation of acquisition proceedings.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the overruling of the objections was based on the opinion expressed by the joint inspection conducted by a team which had expressed that in case the said land is excluded from acquisition proceedings, it would affect the project as the said Sy.No.3/2A comes within the project (ayacut) and the land in question is very much needed for the completion of the project. Consequently, the final notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act, was issued on 31.08.2018 and published in the official Gazette on 13.09.2018, including the land in question.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to a Circular dated 18.03.2013 at Annexure 'L' which is issued by the first 5 respondent-State Government with certain instructions to the second respondent-KIADB. The learned Counsel submits that it is clear from the Circular that the State Government found that the acquisitions undertaken at the behest of the KIADB have run into trouble because of certain issues. Consequently, the State Government after taking into account the aspects discussed therein, issued certain guidelines to the KIADB which is reflected as point Nos.1 to 5 in the Circular. Learned Counsel, in particular, draws the attention of this Court to point No.5, wherein it is stated that KIADB, for the formation of industrial layouts/single unit industrial complex, should take care to see that lands falling within 100 mtrs. of the boundary of gramatana should be excluded from acquisition. It is in this regard that the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the property in question being well within the limits of gramatana and in view of the Circular dated 18.03.2013, the SLAO should have accepted the objections filed by the petitioner and 6 dropped the proceedings insofar as the property in question is concerned.
7. Learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the SLAO has in fact taken into consideration these aspects, but, however, in view of the opinion of the experts that if the land in question is excluded from acquisition, it will affect the contiguity of the project and therefore, has rightly rejected the objections filed by the petitioner.
8. Heard the learned Counsels for the petitioner as well as the respondents and perused the writ papers.
9. Having heard the learned Counsels, this Court finds that the SLAO while rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner, in his order dated 30.11.2016 passed under Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act, has stated that earlier, at the request of the petitioner, the acquisition proceedings were dropped. However, on the joint inspection report held by the team has come to a conclusion that the dropping of the proceedings of acquisition with respect to the 7 property in question would affect the contiguity of the scheme since the property falls within the ayacut and therefore, the objections have been rejected. On perusing the order passed under Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act, it is found that there is no discussion with regard to the Circular dated 18.03.2013.
10. At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the respondents has brought to the notice of this Court that there was an earlier Circular dated 03.03.2007 which was almost of the same content as found in the Circular dated 18.03.2013 with minor changes. However, even if it is accepted that the Circular dated 18.03.2013 was issued subsequent to the preliminary notification issued in the case on hand, it cannot be ignored that there was a Circular dated 03.03.2007 which was holding the field. Even otherwise, as on the date when the order under Section 28(3) was passed by the SLAO, the instructions issued by the State Government should have been considered by the SLAO, since the petitioner may not have been 8 aware of the Circular, but it was definitely within the knowledge of the SLAO.
11. Having regard to the above said aspects, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed SLAO under Section 28(3) is not in consonance with the Circular issued by the State Government which should have been looked into by the SLAO before passing the order of rejection. The other aspects as to whether the property falls within the gramatana limits or within 100 mtrs. of boundary of gramatana, are all matters which require consideration at the hands of the SLAO. Since such an exercise has not been undertaken by the respondents, this Court is of the opinion that the petition is required to be allowed in part.
12. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in part by setting aside the final notification dated 31.08.2018 issued by the respondents, insofar as the property belonging to the petitioner is concerned. The respondents are at liberty to reconsider the objections and the observations made by this Court 9 in this petition and thereafter proceed from the stage of considering the objections filed by the petitioner herein.
It is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE JT/-