Karnataka High Court
Mr.B.Raju vs State Of Karnataka on 13 December, 2023
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:45340
WP No. 44539 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.44539 OF 2014 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. B. RAJU,
S/O BUDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
2. MR. SURESH,
S/O LATE DASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
3. MRS. PUTTAMMA,
D/O LATE DASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
4. MR. SHANKAR,
S/O LATE DASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
5. MRS. D. LAKSHMAMMA,
D/O LATE DASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
6. MR. SRINIVAS,
S/O LATE DASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
GURURAJ D 7. SMT. RAJAMMA,
W/O LATE THIMMAIAH,
Location: High
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
Court of Karnataka
8. MR. NAGAPPA,
S/O LATE MARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
9. MR. SHIVAPPA,
S/O LATE MARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
10. MR. KRISHNAPPA,
S/O LATE MARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:45340
WP No. 44539 of 2014
11. MR. JAGADEESH,
S/O LATE MARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT ROAD JAKKASANDRA,
MARALAWADI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PRAKASH M.H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
NO.14/3, RASTROTHANA PARISHATH BUILDING
WEST WING, I FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MANJUNATH V. RAYAPPA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTIFICATION DATED 25.10.2006 AND DECLARATION DATED
2.2.2010 ISSUED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANN-L AND R IN SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONERS LANDS ARE CONCERNED, DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS
TO CONSIDER THE OBJECTIONS DATED 3.2.2007, 5.2.2007 AND
3.2.2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AS PER ANN-M, N & P
RESPECTIVELY AND TO TAKE APPROPRIATE STEPS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH LAW AT THE EARLIEST AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON IA, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs:
(a) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction, to quash the Notification No:CI 431 SPQ 2006, Bangalore -3- NC: 2023:KHC:45340 WP No. 44539 of 2014 dated 25.10.2006 and Declaration No:CI 307 SPQ 2009, Bangalore dated 02.02.2010 issued by the respondent no.1 as per Annexure-L and R insofar as petitioners lands are concerned.
(b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and direct the respondents to consider the objections dated 03.02.2007, 05.02.2007 and 03.02.2007 filed by the petitioners as per Annexure-M, N and P respectively and to take appropriate steps in accordance with law at the earliest and etc.
2. Sri Prakash M.H., learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioner no.1 was owner of 4 guntas of land in Sy.no.1 of Jakkasandra Village, Maralawadi Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District. While petitioners no.2 to 6 are children of late Dasaiah S/o Thimmarayai were owners of another 4 guntas in same land. Likewise, petitioner no.7 claims to be owner of 18 guntas of land in Sy.no.1 and petitioners no.8 to 11 claims to be owners in possession of 2 acres 1 guntas in Sy.no.3/5, 1 acre 8 guntas in Sy.no.3/4 and 21 guntas in Sy.no.2 of Jakkasandra Village, Maralawadi Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District. They also claim to have constructed residential houses and residing therein. It was further submitted that said lands were sought to be acquired by respondents for formation of industrial area by issuing notification under Section 28(1) of Karnataka Industrial Areas -4- NC: 2023:KHC:45340 WP No. 44539 of 2014 Development Act, 1966 (for short 'KIAD Act') on 25.10.2006 as per Annexure-L.
3. It was submitted that petitioners filed their objections against notification on 03.02.2007, 05.02.2007 and 03.02.2007 at Annexures-M, N and P respectively stating that notified lands were fertile agricultural lands and petitioners were residing therein by constructing houses. It was further submitted that without proper consideration of petitioners' objections, respondent no.2 passed order under Section 28(3) of KIAD Act at Annexure-Q on 13.02.2009 and thereafter, notification under Section 28(4) of KIAD Act on 02.02.2010 at Annexure-R was issued.
4. It was submitted that as per Circular, issued by respondent no.1 on 03.03.2007, fertile agricultural lands and lands situated within radius of 100 meters from Gramatana limits were required to be avoided from acquisition. It was also submitted that apart from said lands, petitioners would also loose some other lands in acquisition for widening of National Highway-948 (Old no.209), effectively depriving them of their source of livelihood and hence sought for allowing writ petition. -5-
NC: 2023:KHC:45340 WP No. 44539 of 2014
5. In support of their submissions, learned counsel for petitioners relied upon following decisions:
Sl.
Citation Proposition of Law
no.
Malligamma and Ors. v/s That procedure stipulated
State of Karnataka and under Section 28 of KIAD Act
Ors., reported in 2013 (4) is mandatory and non-
KCCR 3067; confirmity would entail
quashing Final Notification
1. And
with liberty to redo said
Srinivas Reddy and Ors. process in accordance with v/s State of Karnataka and law.Ors. in W.P.no.16020/2022
D.D. on 18.11.2023 Smt.Kempamma v/s State Section 28 of KIAD Act of Karnataka and Ors., in required not only providing
2. W.P.no.34267/2014, D.D. opportunity of filing on 04.07.2023 objections but also of personal hearing.
The Special Land That Division Bench rejected Acquisition Officer v/s contention of KIAD that
3. Vankateshappa, reported in acquisition of land by KIAD 2022 (4) Kar.L.J 279 cannot be questioned on basis of Circulars.
6. On other hand, Sri Manjunath V. Rayappa, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent no.1 and Sri P.V. Chandrashekar, learned counsel for respondent no.2 sought to oppose writ petition. Referring to statement of objections filed, learned counsel for respondent no.2 submitted that with intention of establishing industrial area, several lands in Jakkasandra and Cheeluru villages were sought to be acquired. State Government issued declaration under Section 1(3) and Section 3(1) of KIAD Act. Subsequently, Preliminary -6- NC: 2023:KHC:45340 WP No. 44539 of 2014 Notification was published on 25.10.2006 and individual notices as well as public notices were issued to khatedars permitting them to file objections on or before 03.02.2007. Several objections were received and they were informed about date being fixed for personal hearing as 07.02.2007. Hearing was also held on 01.08.2007 and 04.08.2007, wherein, objections filed by petitioners were considered and order under Section 28(3) was passed by respondent no.2 as per Annexure-Q.
7. It was submitted that petitioners' objections were mainly that proposed lands were their only source of livelihood and that they were residing in houses constructed thereon. It was submitted that there was no specific ground about proposed lands being within 100 meters of Gramatana.
8. It was submitted that on due consideration of above and taking note of fact that petitioners' lands were required for formation of industrial area, objections were rejected and respondents proceeded to issue Final Notification.
9. It was submitted that thereafter Price Fixation Committee fixed compensation at `52 lakhs per acre in respect of lands abutting National Highway and `39 lakhs per acre in respect of other lands. Accordingly, notices under Section 29(2) -7- NC: 2023:KHC:45340 WP No. 44539 of 2014 of KIAD Act were issued to petitioners. Thereafter, on 19.07.2013 possession of lands were taken and handed over to Board on 20.12.2013. It was specifically asserted that neither at time of taking possession, nor at time of joint measurement, any constructions were noted.
10. It is further submitted that Division Bench of this Court in case of C. Somasekhar v/s State of Karnataka and Ors. in W.A.no.1432/2015, disposed of on 19.12.2019 had rejected challenge against acquisition by reference to Circular 03.03.2007 issued by State Government and held that same would act only as guideline and reliance placed on it to defeat acquisition was misplaced. It was also submitted that Circular was, in any case, issued after initiation of acquisition proceedings and did not create right in favour of land-loosers. On above grounds, learned counsel sought for dismissal of writ petition.
11. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record.
12. From above submission, it is seen that main grounds on which petitioners seek to challenge acquisition of their lands are non-compliance with mandatory procedure -8- NC: 2023:KHC:45340 WP No. 44539 of 2014 contemplated under Section 28(2) and (3) of KIAD Act and acquisition being violative of Circular issued by Government.
13. Insofar as first ground of challenge, there is no dispute about law being well settled about mandatory requirement of issuing notice to owner/khatedar of proposed lands, provide opportunity to file objections apart from personal hearing and proper consideration of their objections.
14. Admittedly, petitioners' objections against acquisition are at Annexures-M, N and P respectively. Perusal of order at Annexure-Q would indicate that petitioners' objections have been in fact extracted in order passed by SLAO, who rejected same by assigning reasons individually. Objections are rejected mainly on ground that petitioners' lands were very much required for formation of industrial area and they would be duly compensated. SLAO has observed that contrary to petitioners' claim about lands being fertile growing multiple crops, no records to prove existence of irrigation facilities etc., were produced. It was noted that agricultural activities were mainly rain-fed and few of them were Government gomala lands granted on Darkhast and suitable for being used for public purpose.
-9-
NC: 2023:KHC:45340 WP No. 44539 of 2014
15. It is also seen that SLAO has considered those lands, wherein residential houses and constructions registered under Karnataka Udyoga Mitra for self-employment for being dropped from acquisition.
16. Order at Annexure-Q would reveal that petitioners have availed opportunity of personal hearing. Therefore, challenge on ground of non-compliance with mandatory procedure under Section 28(2) and (3) of KIAD Act requires to be rejected.
17. Insofar as challenge with reference to stipulations in Circular dated 03.03.2007, it is seen that in instant case Preliminary Notification was issued on 25.10.2006 and petitioners had filed their objections on 03.02.2007 and 05.02.2007. Admittedly, Circular was issued after initiation of acquisition and filing of objections by petitioners. Even during personal hearing, none of petitioners relied on Circular. In any case, as observed by SLAO, petitioners failed to establish existence of any of aspects stipulated in Circular. Therefore, having due regard to ratio in decisions relied upon, petitioners would not be entitled to succeed on said ground.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45340 WP No. 44539 of 2014
18. Main reason for holding violation of Section 28(3) of KIAD Act in Srinivas Reddy and Ors. (supra) was due to fact that neither there was reference nor consideration of petitioners objections in order passed under Section 28(3) of KIAD Act, unlike in instant case. Likewise, violation of Section 28(3) of KIAD Act, was deduced based on fact that SLAO claimed to have heard in all hundreds of objectors, in two days which could only be held to be mechanical. No such contention is urged nor similarity in facts pointed out. In Smt.Kempamma's case (supra), there was non- considerations of objections filed by land-looser beyond period of 30 days from date of service of notice under Section 28(2) of KIAD Act, which would materially be distinguishable from present case. Indeed, ratio in Vankateshappa's case (supra), would conflict with ratio in C. Somasekhar's case (supra). But, as held above, petitioners would not be entitled to challenge acquisition by reference to Circular for reasons stated above.
19. Consequently, writ petition fails and is, accordingly dismissed.
However, said dismissal shall not come in way of petitioners filing representations/applications claiming benefit
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45340 WP No. 44539 of 2014 of grant of developed land in lieu of compensation in order to save land on which petitioners' claim to have put up construction along with contiguous area around it.
Sd/-
JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6