Sri A Abdul Rehman Khan vs The Government Of Karnataka Dept Of ... on 15 June, 2011

[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri A Abdul Rehman Khan vs The Government Of Karnataka Dept Of ... on 15 June, 2011

Bench: Manjula Chellur

Mgk

IN THE HIGH COURT GE KARNATAKA AT BANGALCERE

1.

{Q

DATED THIS THE 33%' DAY 0:": JUNE, 20:; 

PRESENT

THE HON"BLE MRS' JUSTICE ;i$f}Vl§NJULZx"€:§¥f_E§L'iS:L§'R   

AND
THE HON'BLE MR. 3{;I_S"1.f);CEEH.i_BILL}R§5'P;Av--V» 

W.P. No.17S1/2009 RRAALR.'zoaswsa/2oRé9

BETWEEN

SR1 A ABEA!JL_-.REiHM§A{\}  A " '
S/O SRLK £§"A_LEE«M':KHAN}-V   RRRRR '
AGED5/i\E$Cr!_J'i"'c'€»5 'vESARS,IRRA  
PR.E.S_ET\lTLY'«1.:§3[ATNC). 112' AND 1 13
67" CRSSS, 31R NASAR IIHPHASE

    '
BAH§3;'\LO'RE'  O""Q__7'8 

;S».'-?.£ N;'3\aS;I§\AR*F;IA;'Z 
  ._':_""«S/'EQ SR1 ABD.LJ.}...«C3AFFAR KHAN
A   AGE§D_A.BOUT 45 YEARS.

 FIAZ
 AGEDABOUT 42 YEARS
 S/Q SR1 ABDUL GAFFAR KHAN

'*-._S§§ KAISER FEAZ
 ,-AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

S/O SR1 ABDUL GAFFAR KHAN



S. M/S. NANDI ECONOMIC CORRIDOR
ENTERPRISES LIMITED,
NOJL, MIDFORD HOUSE.
MIDFORD GARDEN, OFF IVLG. ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001,

BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.    L 
     *

(By SRI. SANDEEP PATIL, SPL. BA R§1,~ R SR1. BASAVARAJ v. SABARAD, ADV. POR.P;«28; RI.-3;.) M/S. KING & PARTRIDGE; FOR R34-,_ SRI. T. NARAYANA SWAMY,V"A_DMV._ FOR-R_'~05') THESE WRIT'PETIT-'_IO.NS"~~._;\..R'E._ FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 C)F5'THE'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO HOLD TH_AT'T'HE"" PROVISIONS OF SECTION 28(4),. ('5),l(6),.f(.;7)«,. (~8)AND SECTION 29 OE THE KARNATAKZX_-_~INDU$TRI_A1; AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966 _:-""(_(KA'RNATAKA_,~ ACT NO.18/1966) AS UNCON_STITVlJ"!"I'€3:N/?\L;j'~ .(QUA.sH_.2fTHE NOTIFICATIONS BEARING "N.O.. CI 01898 SPQ 98 DT. 27.10.1998 (ANNE><U=RESI~I;)-1AN.DTI...I),NO. CI 196 SPQ 98 OT. 19.12.19.980 '(ANNE>_<U..R'E"" K) AND NOTIFICATION BEARINGINO. CI'._5C«97 SPQ 2008 DT. 16.10.2008 (ANNE><:URE ~T)"TISSUED BY THE 15*" RESPONDENT

-'"~._UI\i'I3ER..._SECTIONS~--«3(1), 1(3), 28(1) AND 28(4) OF VATHHE I<ARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT (ACT).19.68'RESPECTIVELY; QUASH THE ORDER MADE 8ND.ER «SjECT'1ON 28(3) OF THE ACT PASSED BY THE 3"?)RESPONTDENT DT. 3.4.2000 (ANNEXURE N) AND THE NOTICE DT. 4.11.2008 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 28(8) OE THE ACT (ANNEXURES U AND v) ETC. RTHESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED EOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR

-TIPRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, MANJULA CHELLUR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

\ xx I QRDEE *«}»ihi The writ petitions pertain._to;iiprioprerty"'-o'riijiinAaiiiyA bearing No.6/1 of Bytaraii/Va-n_apuVro_K/'iiiage;' North taluk, which was assitj'ne'd_Citi}"Sr§%ii\ios:;f628 and 629 in the year of city survey. It elso number 304 for booi*gTs iuxtszs and 629. These wﬂt petitions provisions of Sectiorr--28.'V:";vot**§:.;the*j'.V»'*--:i{er'n'ata'l;a Industriai Areas Devel:o..pment"not:'(h'ere'i"na'ft'er referred to 'KIAD Act' for shoi'A1f""):i_4 " sought for quashing of the 4i3'CVqt.iiSitiOxii-A proceedings.

'V'--2j;.Petitiojiners claim to be in possession of the pro_p%ertv\;ifi"3E\}en now a commerciai cornpiex exists on 'gthe property in question and the proposed link road A ":if"h_atis""'~«_oot yet: Commenced. As the petitioners are not '_ .m,¢(}W' .' .. I Arespionsibie for the deiay, writ petitions have to be 3 "present uashed is the contention raised t ese matters.

3. According to the 'r3eVsVpondeVn'ts',f3none of the contentions raised';::'_t}y the3:vi"§*¥.¢t'éi3'tiQnersv'AA could be considered in view ofV_the_ tiiat':'vAA.E3a_n.gaiore--Mysore Infrastructure"ﬁoitridor prToject"'3{--h~ereiVihafter referred to as 'BMIC a.pp«roved by the highest Court ~o"ii"'"'the;"jcoi:i:i§2;'trv"*iie~;'the'*A--p'e>< Court and even the acquisi--tio'n' the said Tproject has been approved by the ._Apex'__'c..o*'urt. herefore the very petitions areV_Vhot'.*ma_intainabie is the contention of the "'«._re:::ip'on»_d.:enitAs. '"Se~~'r"ar as the specific contention that separate notice in respect of CTS i\io,3628,A 'ac_cording to the respondents; such notice untierf Section 28(2) was issued on 9.2.1999 and the 3' ''..j_=.or'd-er tinder Section 28(3) was passed on 30.3.2000, its matter of fact the predecessor--ie~titie of the petitioners did fiie objections for the 7 given to the owner of the iand or any person interested in the said ianci who repiies to show cause notice and thereafter, authority may pass such orders_.as.it de'en?is 4' Sub-Section (4) of Section zsariae empowers issuance of furthei*"~ootiﬁi:a._tio--nTin ofﬁciai"' Gazette after being Vsa.tisfied"' ia'n'<:i'~is"V§required for the purpose speeiifieoti'vinh::Vth:e:Vv:'njgfification issued under Sub--S'eCt«i.o':1 this Act and in other v'.:not:»§fi't:ation of acquisition. 28 of the KIAD Act connote's.__that' of the final notification untie'r"S.ub-aseetioiin of this Section, the iand shaii in the State Government free from aii e.n'eomVbraan__ce;s;V. Taking possession of the iand is contempiated Sub-Section (6) after the ianci vests with the ..._State Government under Sub~Section (5) of this Act, 8 Sub~Sect§pn (7) of Section 28 of the KIAD Act contemplates the procedure how ppssessl0n..VVef::'r.t_he land has to be taken if the owner interested in the land refuses pr. fails an order made under Sub~Secti;'pAn :{_A_6)l'of"1thV'e Sub--Section (8) of A28.' 0fVVAt>h:e"':~.l:<"I"ArD: Act"? contemplates handing'over-**'pplssess.lon pf--the land t0 the Board for the it has been acquired. V 'V l' V' Z refers to payment of comp;énsatlen_an'd: 'refet'ence..

5. Vlrn_V%%a Vsl.rnll.a"rVDésituation, when the State of Ma;h§ara_sE7t_ra hbr"oL:.g.ht an enactment like KIAD Act, \z.alidi_t'y._;efV"rp:rG-visions of Maharashtra Act came up far ¢lorj:rderat:t:e;:%{ in the case or SHRI RAMTANU co-

7.d,oPER;xfl*tvE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED AND ""V'.AAﬁavl'.l_{5uT--E'§-{ER tvs. STATE er MAHARASHTRA AND f ..._C;THERS reperted in 1979(3) scc 323. Validity or the previsiohs of the KIAD Act was also cohVsitle.ret§:'ih the Case of SARWAN SINGH E§TATE _Q'F..'4_PU»N;lA'B' reported in (1975)1 SCC 284. mtrelatesriwiteexitgislother Lorclships held that eslta--.b_lish2m.eVrl*:, development of industries .$tateo:f_:ll4ah§arashtra do not fall either 'T{=oi>.sEntryH S2 of the Union list and the \rlfi~tihiir§jV'vF;EV'htry 24 of the State list sut_ije't;'*;:l1'tvothe%p'rovi'si:oh's'votV5Entrles 7 and 52. and development of isivﬂiwtvhin the competence of the State '-Leg«5sVl'aVtit1.re'--.Va'irlti.~~"falls within the Entry 24 of List _II_. % A' A 'A«.Th:e~~.l<__IAD Act was under challenge before this Coai*t Vas"'_w_ei~l,"as the Apex Court. In a case before this Court .th'e.lé\ct came to be challenged on the grourld that Ctrhstltution of this Act to declare any area as it vihduistriai area would result in environmental pollution. that context, this Court held that the land acquired 10 for industrial estate cannot be declared»a_:Sj~..i:li'e:gal on the mere apprehension that the set up therein are likelyéto 'cause eh'ixiironm'eh'tial"'Va pollution because the agen'ciises»set up care of such pollution unde~r,_'_diffe'rehtjeh"a.<;tment"wouid take care of problems arisilngl i_hci.ivii's.t'ri_alization. The power of the State the State as industrial the same was held to It was also held that State is independent of disposal Sec.28 (3) and once the Go've'rhmenat'-i,s"'sat'i'sfied that the land notified for '' V.'''*iacti--uC'isi.tioh is reavllg/'needed for that purpose, it cannot the ground that the objections to acq:uisit.Eoh:*.,.vliere not heard and disposed of by the State" _C'?gAi;vernment. It is because the authority acting tieder the eet is vested with the power delegated to it by the State, Once the purpose is a public purpose;

"the need to acquire the land for the satisfaction of 11 that purpose need not be quesT;t'§ori'edT_. O-;ncte"»«t_he"t'ina'£ deciaration under Sec. 28(4) corr1__ee.tjAhto vests with the Governmeht--v..0:t§'y.((operation:t)fVV"i*e'{2%k"'0'nder"' Sec. 28(5) of the Act. _ _ The cases referred ar;e':'" -

i) P. NARA'r'ANA)PETk§. A-0Tj'o,*%j'ANR. vs. STATE OE KAR'T¢A7fA)KA(«."»Af4'[)VAETRS. -- 2000 (5)

0) 2: _:_?4:,"'SQMA.§§H"E»KAR'--.(:/ATND ORSE 'vs. STATE eeee E};:.CjFiI;,KATTNATAK-AV'.AND oRS. - 1977 (7)

m)_j _ D.._V'.f-LA'i<_SH"MANA RAO ,Vs. STATE OF ( +<ARNATAkA AND ORS. -- 2001(4) 1858 3: ILR 200: KAR. 638.

1;.AV"*.*Ifhe1'.veontentionS raised by the petitioners es to u§vhé'ther.V the procedure adopted by respondents is i"rT'TTduero'gation of the provisions of the Act rendering 'A'th'e'AAentire acquieitéoe proceedéngs imrafid, has to be "Seen. From the Submissions made across the Bar 12 and the material placed on record, so far as the BMIC project; the purpose for which it was approyjer_;:l_"rhas reached finality defining the said projecttags"vs}»hvjo:l__l"§»*--.___a' public utility project, which would c_ater"to""

of commuters from Bangalore to l\:"l_'ysore'~o'i' and also other developm'enLt'a.lV_% activities'ia:lAl'7.a'l'ong: then' expressway creating,.«input,iforddlffeccrenttindustries and other utility services to the needs of the public at..larig'e.

8,_vi.:§e. the land measuring 31 guintas'ln.VVSy';':l\l:oi.6/"IQ."'or'ig'lnally belonged to one Mr. Abdul Gaffahr Asmathunnisa Begum as peer'-§'the_lAV'sale"deedmdvated 23.7.1965. It was assigned Vlggwwlitiz.theirnuniclpai number 304 subsequent to the reg_'istration.:, Between 1966 and 1980 on three "r..,occaslon'isi an extent of 21 guntas was converted to 3'"_n'on{"agrlcultural industrial purpose and even the City ...\I.rnprovement Trust Board approved the private lay» 13 out for locating small scale industries way back in 1967. A small scale industry was established"

petitioners and running the same buildings ancillary to industry and the sl*io'p~s.i'_were'*also it put up in and around the"esaidtr.:ind»iistry contention of the petitione'rs_:.""~...V_

9. It is not it'h"a:4t__t_h'eiproperty of the petitioners later on _g--ot_jincvi.i1ded"*._i'n":--.l:3apujingar area assigning jji62§:"rneasuring 1,834.5 square nje"te'rs'«:.;a__nd square meters. Mr. Abduit Gaffavrtv'i'l<.h"a.n"'v.l:.:d'ied 1 on 19.6.1991. On 27.10.1913-8dt.heV' question were notified under Set.ft;i.on_gAV'3{%_1) 'an'd..._fl_.(3) of the KIAD Act mentioning the €:o'ri:10'ta:_tion number as 304 situated at .B'*,<trara;(aV'n.a:oura as against CTS I\los.628 and 629. Subseqéiently, another notification came to be "'*V',1pu_i3fi'.ished on 19.12.1998 under Section 28(1) of the .!ét:t.

.2 Admittedly, notice dated 9.2.1999 under \\:. " W 14 Section 28(2) of the Act was issued in the name of Abdul Gaffar Khan indicating the details of prooe'rty._Vas CTS l\lo.629, Bytarayanapura and measu§'re'n%seVn::t_ji. 15,074.85 square meters wit_hMs_oeci_fi'c"v'oo:L1n'da*rVies; V which came to be served on one Abdul Gaffar Khan. ObjelCt'i"ans "l'iled'-it by the present 1" pe.tition;e~r on'Te'~of..vt§he legal representatives of Khan and 3.4.2000 a ofthe Act came to be passed; pe.tit'io:ners, notice in respect of other No.629 was not given and no encgtiiryr"ca:ne.°to'be;.held and therefore acquisition .is_P@iCeeEdiAngjs._._are xrlitiated. According to Respondent Special Land Acquisition Officer and the""'*Boa:rd;"hall the procedures as contemplated under were followed in resoect of all the tands in Rqulestionc From the material placed on record, it is 'noticed that as per the notifications under section 3(1) 15 and 1(3), ail CTS numbers right from 626 to 629 and Corporation No.30-4 are mentioned. Then notvifi'%:ia'tion under section 28(1) dated 19.12.1998 name of Abdul Gaffar Khan as and 629. Admittedly, the :'p4eti:ft'ie..r'iers_.'did khatha changed to their"4.9a~»mesA'V59i.:9€§..lJ\é~1Tt~v...t.o-V3 thee." death of Abdul Gaflfar "=The.re'for.e even the notices came to be in of Abdul Gaffar Khan. Petit§i.o«nerf-s of the grand-

sons of iii*.as--'served with notice under"Sectii.oh'_V However, this notice indicates: as CTS No.629, but thefcotal urnsea's'u'ren1ent is mentioned as 15,074.85 sqtuare"i:'meters. boundaries for this CTS Number .i_s'-l'aiso'vdi~.entioned. The boundaries mentioned for CTS Nd';"629:'u'n"der Section 28(1) of the Act are repeated as 'tiei,i.'ndvaries fer the above said 15.87485 square Adgnietiers in CTS NCL629. Anne><ure~i'~'l is the objections "dated 17.4.1999 by Abdul Gaffar Khan. In Annexure Nina' 16 M, after mentioning the survey number 6/1),, within bracket CTS i\ios.628 and 629 are aiso mentiVoVri..ed._V_by the petitioners. This Anne><:ur'e--iVi is the_.Té{'e'roi§<1--.t:ct;ip3?' furnished by the petitioners th_emseive's;"V'----'i:'_';tiE:i~i;\;eveo.r,"

the respondents have categoriCaiiy:'_"'deVnied "not 28(2) notice to the petitiovn"ers.

statement at Anneiture':i!'=t:"_:in't;iitetes'*-thait these Detitioners were awaire'__'ot' Section 3(1) and iéirxetiftiifiatv:'t_nex:acquisition is in respect 'Corporation NO.304.

Anne:v<iVL'irVe§;~i'\i::Q:vf,(.'v. 28 (3) refers to considvveret*ioVn' filed by Mr. Abdui Gaffar!<Ahan". V.ii'_ho.iigh' one CTS i\io.629 is mentioned, irnueasoremenitii is to the entire CTS number i:'E;"G74,8S square meters. It is not the case ovtithse petitioners that in the said 15,07-4585 sooereviimeters, their {and in CTS i\ios.628 and 629 is Ainotiiieovered, However, by the time finai notiﬁcation wtame to be passed, the iands so far as CTS i\io.628, it 1?

is referred to as LA. 16/628 with municipai number 304 measuring 2,810.30 square meters Abdul Gaffar Khan is concerned.

indicated the actual measurement 2,810.30 square meters. The1'_'_'rirdtlFlea'tidnix Section 28(4) dated Wa.s fore' LA/City Sy.l\los.16/62.8 an4d""i5_;;'6'2»9- hm./6.258 is for 2,810.30 square ndeters'w..§ar:ld__:2'V:1.,6/'6*29 refers to 1,834.50 sqi.sa'r.e'V1-meif_ers'belo,n'§ljng_'__tij several persons including Suhseq-;l:eli1t'l'y;.:_"noi:§t:es under section 28(6) of the KIAD"Apt.ddat.edA'._4.i_":.2008 were issued not only in .. respect ori;A; Cﬁy Sy No.16/628, but abo 15/529 respective owners to hand over ;jcs'sess_io"n7._ai:9" the land referred to at Annexures---U and ".v{%'ecording to the petitioners, because of V"'V'.Adie_cfrepar:ey in the notification with regard to CTS 0'"-...._nr§urnber and also the measurement, there was They{have»aeo*_ 18 vagueness of the details keeping the petitioners under a dilemma whether their entire land is acquired tirsaot. Based upon the measurement in the sale deeti*,«'..'i§i<i.§3iii'}_:a'~. particulars in the Municipal Corboration_--su~bs~ecitient w. assignment of municipal number w'i'tb7 CTSr..n'urnt§e_r;~:.:;§t weuld not be difficult to"fV.i<"r:.bw lwhfiat. thee"

measurement of the...lancl,.««--«ﬂ""L':.In«~.._the' under section 28(6), clear boundaries is mentioned. question of identifying' been acquired and not be a difficult task.

So far'A'as"the' special enactment, all the;'nvotificati.ons.'produced before the Court indicate Tre_sponvcl'ent authorities have followed and .h'aye"'is'svued_'vi'the necessary intimation or notice as centesinA;al'a'ted in the name of the khatedar whose "ria--i.'_neNfeene either in the revenue records or the AA"§\*ltiriicipal Corporation records. If the legal if representatives of Abdul Gaffer Khan did not get their 19 names mutated in respect offitihel'iavn'ds-:'in:_':G,t;eSt'iVon« ft th d th r M. bcl l 2 i<h§.,'»i:

gxgecteg ogatheo part <3£itl.'Li_je rg5sv_;3'a't1;ndesi?i'tf"s;VA: to $13 enquiry even into the detai'l's"V«i§il:ethe'r'~t'hev':kh:atedar is alive or not he¢e.lV_i.V.'Vvi"tipon the legal representatives to vAAtf<}D.'..i;he proposal mentioned in t"ii;epI'net=i_ficga't.i~en'~oit'--tl*ié§...t§otice. It is the duty of or subsequent purchVasei*--.tVo:get*§their.Vgn--anie's'entered once the original khatedar"or' For the reasons best known t'c,_the if they have not done so, theyf:'Ca.nnot"'pQVint finger at the respondents or find ,t'a.ult v\}itli.4tli.em for not issuing notice in the name of ther:ont:erned~--_persons.

the case of HT. Sonnashekara Reddy in zr\z,_i>. i\50.29221/97 by Judgment of this Court dated the Framework Agreement entered into .....between the State of Karnataka and the project awe I 20 proponent to execute and implement infrastructure corridor project styled as BMIC project was4bel:d..Vas legal, valid and a project conceived in This judgment of the Division Bench was"c'lta'_i;leVr1'gVed ii"

SLP No.1-423/99 and the same to favour of the resp'o.nvgd-entsA"" .__on._i"'-.22':6;'3;i1'999.'L' Subsequently, challenge to~"C'hé_f~éi:q_uisition--~aiso came to be questioned, Single Judge opined that only in respect of the for the actual formatiohniv of the acquisition is i i be challenged in WA.

invalid) 'V ''This__ to"

i\lo.7';Z/2AO0%i" wherein' the entire land acquisition for wasaheld as valid. In J,C. Madhuswamy A"'.vs-i§.__VSta4te~v.,n_ofV.i':;'i<arnataka and other connected matters c disp'ose--d. on 3.5.2005 in we l\lo.45386/2004, it in favour of the lend acquisition even with reference to issue of excess land. Ultimately, the '4"'VV.Hi'--'i'«'pe>< Court upheld the Judgment of the Division 21 Bench. Therefore so far as the project acquisition of the land for th_e....said e;5rojé¢:a.iii'reét'thas"

reached finality.

12. Then with regard""tdT."itaking'--.of"'oossessVion of the property in ques':ti~o_n, the petitioners the notice under sectiorn-i.'2'z'3('6;)='Vwa§'~:.A§:e.tied again in the name of A.b«diii'--. Garrar}Khanoetror'oi~both L.A. City Sy.Nos.16/H628 51iai'nVd_16/'€_529_'ony 4-.'1--1':2008. However, the [;)€t§iiiC€}Ei€*i{fS'..' it; was served on them only on i _ * 2'A8(_6) reads as under:

"E\.§Ji~.ere any .... land is vested in the State €§_o«\1erh~~ment under sub~section (5), the ~AV~i':Governmeht may, by notice in vx{vri'tin'gA,i order any person who may be in "possession of the iand to surrender er deliver possessieh thereof to the State A Government or any person duty authorised 22 by it in this behalf within thirty daysg_AoVt..'the.['*-- service of the notice."

13. A reading of this.section:'d._efinite'iy'A"in'ciic=ates'--.. 30 days time is given to th'evait:.otvner at the V' land, the possessio-:i;~..V_Aof;=ikiiiiti'e'h soug'ht-*by the authorities so as to ii'or.:e'n.able owner or the occupier tohandioverifpossesgsiionito the concerned authorities,.--» occupier fails to surrengderv V. property acquired;

then the._ gcogn-e.ern.ed through their officials are enitiitied possession of the propertyf. 'Ac:co"rdi'ng..' to the authorities, physical . .""'poVs's'esi:%i*on~.oi' themproperty was taken over by the respondent on 19.12.2008 and even ma.haza~:<'i/has drawn in this regard. At the time of "-..grant'iog1~ injunction by this Court restraining the 4/"_AA;-e_3'p'ondents, their officiais, agents or anyone ciaiming under them from interfering with the peacefui 23 possession and enjoyment of the property, the learned Single Judge based on the primalifacie material on record opined that the by the officials of the KIADB is nota tri:i'e"'r'e.c'_o.rd*,: "

document was written at the ozfficeiriot"'refie'cti'ii%§;---itiiie. factual position. In otherVL"vv_ords; t_he_llear'n_e"dJtidge"it opined that the notices °:';?-e.ctioé'n"v28.(:§(5) were served on to be drawn on to the provisions the Act. So far as consicljieiriilnggd/1pf,Vi;h§3:'f1A4'4' case, balance of conven'i'enCeV of hardship, the learned Judge.s,yithuxtheV'available materials disposed of iViisc.W of«._.injunction. The date of actual service of "'n_oti_cel"'a:"n.ci '.ligvhen mahazar was drawn are factual ma't'rixi'~--nee'ds to be considered to know when exactly ll"'i4"'x:,,i:éossesvslien of the property was taken by the officiais ' the concerned authority.

24

14. On perusal of the originai records, it is seen that the original mahazar is aiso placed onrr:ec_ord unlike the situation when the learned inspected the records at _the__ Temporary Injunction. Tho:i4gi[1'_'i ~{he'~.n'oticeV Section 28(5) of the K1AplAct%is ciatgedlggi.2i19i2ooa, meld postal acknowledgrnetnt fo-r**xs'erv"i*ce ol""ti'iisi-"notice is dated 1 1.12.2008. gdrawn taking possession indicates clear 'prescribed for taking posse'iss'iVohi..:.:¢.f indicates violation of the under sub-section (6) and; ss.pb»se'ct.ion'.'{7j'V'ofz'Section~28 of the KIAD Act. A notice accommodating or facilitating the ow.i_i%er'vo€.,__th'Ve"".land to vacate and hand over vacant po's"'ses--sAi.on":of the property is not given. On the other isand the rnahazar says on 19,12.2QO8 possession of thiewiproperty was taken over by the officials of the Vwrespondent. The learned Single Judge opined that it is 25 only a paper possession indicated in the mahazar and factually possession was not taken. Under7l._ti*:ose circumstances, the learned Jude granted.?_:Teni'p~ota.2fjr Injunction against the responidents ;:o'ncerjvn'edV'_'fronn'*. interfering with the peac;'efui{_'_'i~'ipolssessioinif-I....gan_d enjoyment of the property'/'l.._:"'~~..V_% 15- Fmm 'the' the acquisition has become final reasoned above, followed the " of the land under./Ath-e notification under section 28(4) of"thevncttlilirTh'e_"~~'i'procedure contemplated under 2.8(6)u""is...._n.ot followed. However Temporary ln force against the respondents. As ahjeady service of notice for acquisition of lands, enqu"i:f3f3' contemplated under Section 28(3) before V."V'...Vliot:i.f'icat%on under section 28(4) is followed, None of .....the grounds urged challenging the acquisition of land 26 under sections 28(1) anti 28(4) are vaiid, Therefore, the stage tram where the aU€hOri§i.e$*~.:€;QVUid act upon is from the stage of 28(6) of

16. Though the material iay---out approvai was taken4_ foré'Cp'r:--vertiVh--§gV:21: g'i;;:n"tas'~~t' of the iand into small scaive~~.T{hdgstr'ia.i':area;V;tiIi now, the petitioners have a.nyt'rnateri'aiindicating what industrythey reaiiy they have by taking run the said industry from: The vague details mentioned_Viiin VtheVArpe't.ition that apart from having a srti_a}!i _sCa__le iAn'du.stry, there are several shops and eQrnm'erCé..a'i._areas wouid indicate the petitioners have net'Vma.det'€--;.;se of the conversion order to make smaii scaie"i.r%eustriai area as intended by Mr. Abduai Gaffar While fixing the compensation, the autherities ....<:pncerned have to keep in mind the nature of use of 27 the land, whether agricultural or norragricultural and existence of structures and even if no structdcre's.r_or constructions available, whether the has potentiality to have _suc_h stru'cté1reSr'_'_;ar':du"

constructions having regard properties in questioh--_,_vL:""-«withihh 'then: "".._;ﬁ"u'r1i'clpal"' Corporation.

Accordingly, disposed of hokﬁngthafrheﬁﬁocedprefoﬁacddﬁdknloflandsxwas correcVt.ly.vtol!o:WlVe;d concerned up to the under section 28 (4) of the Act. authorities are at liberty to from thev--.stage of section 28 (6) of the Act. Sﬁfe §§§§E Si/e §¥§§E .4" @385/'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court