Karnataka High Court
Sri D V Krishnamurthy vs State Of Karnataka on 25 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:48074
WP No. 52355 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 52355 OF 2018 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
SRI. D.V. KRISHNAMURTHY,
S/O SRI. B. VENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/A NO.14/2, 11TH "A" CROSS,
SAMPANGIRAMANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA.R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AND INDUSTRIES, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
Digitally signed by
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
SHARMA ANAND BENGALURU - 560 001,
CHAYA
Location: High REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
Court of Karnataka
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
4TH AND 5TH FLOORS,
KHANIJA BHAVANA,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:48074
WP No. 52355 of 2018
3. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
4TH AND 5TH FLOORS, KHANIJA BHAVANA,
RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
4TH AND 5TH FLOORS, KHANIJA BHAVANA,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. K.M. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT
THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE R-1 DATED 15.06.2002 VIDE
ANNX-A AS ABANDONED IN SO FAR AS THE PETITION
SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the Notification dated 15.06.2002 (Annexure-A) issued by the respondent-authorities sought to acquire the land belonging to -3- NC: 2024:KHC:48074 WP No. 52355 of 2018 the petitioner inter alia sought for direction to the respondents, to consider the representation made by the petitioner on 01.08.2008, regarding grant of exemption from payment of the development charges/fees, as the petitioner has not utilised the facilities of the Apparel park Stage-1, developed by the respondent-KIADB.
2. The relevant facts for adjudication of the writ petition are that, the petitioner claims to be the owner of the land in question, as per the Registered Sale Deed dated 28.04.1993 (Annexure-B) and the petitioner is a Manufacturer of Silk Fabrics. It is also stated in the petition that, the petitioner has established a Silk Export Industry in the land in question, after obtaining the conversion order dated 13.04.1994 (Annexure-C). Petitioner has also produced the certificate issued by the Competent Authority, obtaining permission to Import and Export Code (IEC) as per Annexure-D. It is further pleaded in the writ petition that, the respondent-KIADB has issued the Notification dated 15.06.2002 (Annexure-G), under Section 28(1) of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (herein, after referred to as 'KIAD Act') to form a Apparel Park. Thereafter, the respondent- -4-
NC: 2024:KHC:48074 WP No. 52355 of 2018 authorities have issued the Final Notification under Section 28(4) of KIAD Act on 18.09.2002 (Annexure-H). It is also stated in the writ petition that, this Court vide order dated 01.07.2005 in WP.No.19471/2004 (Annexure-M) quashed the Final Notification insofar the petitioner is concerned and directed the respondent-authorities to consider the objections if any, filed by the petitioner herein.
3. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, petitioner has made a representation at Annexure-N to the respondent-authorities. In the meanwhile, a correspondence has been made between the Government and the respondent- KIADB as per Annexure-T dated 08.11.2006, stating to drop the acquisition proceedings insofar as the land belonging to the petitioner is concerned. It is also pleaded by the petitioner that, a draft has been prepared to delete the land belonging to the petitioner from the acquisition proceedings as per the letter dated 28.05.2007 (Annexure-W).
4. In this regard, the petitioner herein is assailing the Notification dated 15.06.2002 (Annexure-A) issued by the respondent-Government, sought to acquire the land belonging -5- NC: 2024:KHC:48074 WP No. 52355 of 2018 to the petitioner for Industrial purpose inter alia sought for direction to the respondents to exempt the petitioner from payment of development charges on the sole ground, that the petitioner herein is not availing any benefits from the respondent-Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (for short, KIADB) to run the industry in the schedule land. With this backdrop of the matter, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.
5. I have heard Sri.Subrmanya.R, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Manjunath.K. learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri. K.M.Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4.
6. Sri.Subramanya.R, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that, though the respondent- authorities have issued the notification dated 15.06.2002 as per Annexure-A and the notification dated 18.09.2002 as per Annexure-H, to acquire the land belonging to the petitioner for the purpose of formation of the Industrial Area, however, the Final Notification dated 18.09.2002 (Annexure-H) came to be quashed by this Court, in WP.No.19471/2004 dated 01.07.2005 -6- NC: 2024:KHC:48074 WP No. 52355 of 2018 and thereafter, no steps have been taken by the respondent- authorities in furtherance of the same and therefore, the respondent-authorities have abandoned the scheme of acquisition in respect of the land belonging to the petitioner and as such, Sri.Subramanya.R, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD and Another Vs. K.H.SHIVANNA AND OTHERS in W.A.No.557/2021 and connected writ petition disposed of on 23.03.2022.
7. Further, it is contended by Sri.Subramanya.R, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, since the petitioner is not availing any benefit from the respondent- KIADB, not only insofar as the formation of the road by respondent-KIADB is concerned, even for other facilities also and therefore, it is the duty of the respondents to exempt the petitioner from payment of development charges on the sole ground that, the petitioner has not utilised the facilities of Apparel Park Stage-1, developed by the respondent-KIADB and the Industrial Unit of the petitioner is situate in facing the main -7- NC: 2024:KHC:48074 WP No. 52355 of 2018 road of Bangalore Doddaballapur State Highway. Hence, he sought for interference of this Court.
8. Per contra, Sri. K.M.Praksh, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4, referring to the statement of objections and contended that, though the Final Notification has not been issued, pursuant to the quashing of the same as per Annexure-M, however, the Industrial Unit of the petitioner is situated in the Apparel Park and therefore, the petitioner is bound to pay developing charges and other fees, if any, relating to utilisation of the facilities extended by the respondent-KIADB, insofar as the industrial area and as such, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
9. Sri. Manjunath.K, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 argued on similar lines of learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
10. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that, the petitioner is a manufacturer of Silk Fabrics and running the commercial business of the textile in the industrial area. It is also forthcoming from the writ petition that, the petitioner has -8- NC: 2024:KHC:48074 WP No. 52355 of 2018 obtained the necessary permission to import and export as per Annexure-D and have obtained the permission from the Industries and Commercial Departments to continue the business of textile in the land in question. It is also forthcoming from the writ petition that, the respondent-authorities have issued the Notification under Section 28A(1) of the KIAD Act on 15.06.2002 (Annexure-G) and thereafter, Final Notification came to be issued on 18.09.2002 under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act (Annexure-H). The industrial unit belonging to the petitioner is also sought to be acquired in the aforementioned notifications.
11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein has filed WP.No.19471/2004 and this Court vide order dated 01.07.2005 (Annexure-M), quashed the Final Notification issued under Section 28(4) of KIAD Act and directed the respondent- authorities to consider the objections filed by the petitioner herein. Having taken note of the aforementioned aspects, it is forthcoming from the letter dated 08.11.2006 (Annexure-T) wherein, the respondent-Government has expressed its willingness to drop the acquisition proceedings insofar as the land belonging to the petitioner is concerned and in this regard, -9- NC: 2024:KHC:48074 WP No. 52355 of 2018 the perusal of the letter dated 28.05.2007 (Annexure-W) makes it clear that, the respondent-Government has taken a decision to drop the acquisition proceedings insofar as the land belonging to the petitioner is concerned.
12. In this regard, the respondent-KIADB has arrived a decision as per the letter dated 14.12.2007 (Annexure-Y), seeking development and other necessary charges from the petitioner- industrial unit. In this regard, this Court vide order dated 28.10.2024, directed the respondent-KIADB to file a reply whether the petitioner-industrial unit is eking out the benefits from the respondent-KIADB. The Executive Engineer-3, Zonal Office, KIADB, Bangalore vide letter dated 19.11.2024 addressed to the Special Land Acquisition Officer to KIADB, Bangalore, wherein it is clearly stated that, the petitioner is running the Industry of Embroidery Looms Machinery in the schedule land and the petitioner is not availing the benefits accrued insofar as the other units running industries in Apparel Park Stage-1 and further makes it clear that, the industrial unit belonging to the petitioner situate in Bangalore-Doddaballapura State Highway.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:48074 WP No. 52355 of 2018
13. In this regard, the petitioner has also produced the photographs and other documents which would establish the fact that, the petitioner is running the Embroidery Looms Machinery Industry in the schedule property. In the backdrop of this aspects, it is relevant to cite the declaration of law made by this Court in H.K.Shivanna (Supra), wherein this Court at paragraph Nos.5 to 7 held as follows:
"5. However, a division bench of this court in 'H.N. SHIVANNA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER', W.A.NOS.3189- 3201/2010 DATED 28.11.2012, held that issuance of successive declarations are permissible and by placing reliance on decision of Supreme Court in Ram Chand and others supra, held that 2 years time would be a reasonable time for issuance of declaration under Section 28(4) of the Act. However it is pertinent to note that the division bench in SHIVANNA's case also held that provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot be read into the Act and though no time limit is prescribed under the Act, the acquisition is to be completed within a reasonable time, say within 2 years, and still what is the reasonable time has to be decided in the facts of particular case. The Supreme Court in 'M.NAGABHUSHANA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA', (2011) 3 SCC 408, negatived the contention that since, the award was not passed within a period of 2 years from the date of declaration under Section 28(4) of the Act, the acquisition would not stand vitiated in view of the fact that Section 11(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are not applicable to proceedings under the Act. Therefore, different time frames prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act and consequences of default thereof including lapsing of acquisition proceedings cannot be read into the Act.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:48074 WP No. 52355 of 2018
6. The right to hold the property is a constitutional right which is guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and no citizen can be deprived of his property without following the due process of law. It is well settled legal proposition that where a statute does not provide for time limit for doing an Act, such an Act has to be done within a reasonable time, and what would be reasonable time has to be decided in the facts and circumstances of the Act. [See: 'MEHER RUSI DALAL V UNION OF INDIA', (2004) 7 SCC 362, 'P.K. SREEKANTAN V P. SREEKUMARAN NAIR', (2006) 13 SCC 574 AND 'K.B NAGUR V UNION OF INDIA', (2012) 4 SCC 483]. Therefore, in the facts of the case, we have to ascertain whether the Notification under Section 28(1) of the Act stands vitiated in law on account of the delay caused in issuing the final notification under Section 28(4) of the Act within reasonable time, in the light of submission made by learned senior counsel for respondent no. 2.
7. In the instant case, the preliminary notification was issued on 07.08.2006. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellants did not file objections before the learned Single Judge to explain the delay caused in land acquisition proceeding. In the absence of any explanation on behalf of the appellant, the learned Single judge has rightly held that there was an inordinate delay in completion of the proceedings and even after a lapse of 14 years, neither final notification has been issued nor any steps were taken to complete the land acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the learned Single judge in the facts of the case and in the absence of any explanation on behalf of the appellant about the delay in concluding the land acquisition proceeding has rightly held that the notification dated 07.08.2006 issued under Section 28(1) of the Act insofar as it pertains to the land of Respondents 1 to 3 stood lapsed on account of efflux of time and has rightly quashed the same. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any ground to differ with the view taken by learned Single Judge.
In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed."
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:48074 WP No. 52355 of 2018
14. It is also pertinent to mention here that, though the respondent-KIADB has sought for payment of the development charges and such other fees from the petitioner-industrial unit, however, taking into consideration the internal correspondence between the Executive Engineer to the SLAO-KIADB, Bangalore dated 19.11.2024, the industrial unit belonging to the petitioner lies adjacent to the State Highway as mentioned above and the petitioner is not utilising the service of the KIADB, which has been extended to the other units in the Apparel Park-2 and therefore, I am of the view that, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is justified in arguing that, the claim made by the respondent-KIADB to pay the development charges and such other fees as required from the petitioner herein be exempted. In that view of the matter, I pass the following:
ORDER
1. Writ petition is allowed.
2. Notification dated 15.06.2002(Annexure-A) issued by the respondent-authorities, under Section 28(1)
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:48074 WP No. 52355 of 2018 of the KIAD Act is hereby quashed, insofar as the land belonging to the petitioner is concerned.
3. Writ of mandamus is issued to the respondent-
KIADB, to exempt payment of development charges/fees as the petitioner is not utilising the facilities of the Apparel Park Stage-1, developed by the respondent-KIADB.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 70 CT: BHK