Karnataka High Court
M/S Moola Investments (India) Pvt Ltd vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 April, 2010
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS "me 13m DAY OF APRIL, 2010M
BEFORE
me HONBLE MRJUSTICE B.S.PA_T_IL... '
W.P.No.11727/2006 (LA-K1553)-I' 1. '
W.P.No.1310-4/2006 (L.~.g-K1ADB1,_.':; _ " '
W.P.No.15452 [2Q'_9._7 [LAFKI_g_&__D_l§1; ._
w.p.No.21456/2tm9~{LA-K1m;;;;,'.=
W. P. No.4o38gQoo4. (LA.-KIADB}; _ V
W.P.Ng_,gfi343/2"0o4..:LA#::IAnB)
IN W.P.N0.11727/2006
BETWEEN:
M/s, Moo1a__VInVe.si1r:e;1ts {Ii'1:i_ia) "
Pvt. Ltd.jA companyi':-egi_stefed
under the C01'11paiii(fs» Act.. '
having its-regd. Office fa: Nq.39 /-9.
Lalbagh Road. Bang'a1c3're--e»2V7"
Represented by its Managing'
Directc§r," Sri Ranga.__Mo01a S / 0
"Sn M;"flhakzhavatsala;-----aged 39 years. PETITIONER
{By-VS riV Shetty, Adv.)
' '.1. Theflteite Karnataka
By its Rrincipal Secretary,
" » Ccinmerce & industries Department,
1xvI._.S.5 Building, Bangalore-1.
=2, ..'i'h€ Kamataka Industrial Area
Development Board, 14/3, {Incl
Floor, Rashtrothana Parishath Bldg.
Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore-- 1,
Rep. by its Executive Member.
3. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer
Karnataka Industrial Area
Development Board, Zonal Office
Plot I\Io.488/B, 14"' Cross, KIADB
Complex, III Block, IV Phase, Peenya
Industrial Area, Bangalore--58. *
4. Suit. Sarasarnrna,
W/ o Sri M. Narayana Roddy;
Aged about 55 years, R/at No--.,64i7Z,
30"' Main, 11*" B Main, J.P.Nag-aif,' _
Bangalore-78. _
5. Srrlt. Nandini Alva,
D/0 Late Dr. RK. Seth,
Aged about 50 years, H -
R/W No.517.;RI~W-hflxténsiori, A I
Bangaloreffiflflé 'V . RESPONDENTS
(Amended,.Videw..g;b'u£;_Qra.¢:~ §i"atea::oj;.,o9.2009)
{By Sri M.G.A.:2jana.Mnrthy;l.HCGP for R1;
Sri Klakshman Aéhan. Adv. for
Sri G. Nagarajtflu N"aid1_1,"Adv. for R2 8: R3;
Sri Udaya!-Ioila, Senior 'Counsel for
M/ -Holla 8: Hoila, Advs. for R4)
'IN w,_'§%i'No,,:§3104/2iooe------~ *
s.S;.,3.V.' Pr¢jé§é':ér1'£¥vt. Ltd-
A CornpaI1y'incorporated under
é the Companies Act 1956, having its
*1'.A"-._Registered..-Office at: 12th Floor,
S'.~N. Towers, 24¢/2, M.G. Road,
- _I3an'ga1ore--56O 001
"Represented by its General Manager. PETITIONER
" S.S. Naganand, Senior Counsel for
M] s. Sundaraswamy, Ramdas & Anand, Advs.)
AND:
1.
State of Karnataka
Department of Commerce &
Industries, M.S. Building,
Vidhana Veedhi
Commerce & industries Department; ».
M.S.Building, Bangalore 1. I
Kamataka Industrial Area p _
Development Board, 14/3, 11 Floor,
Rashtrothana Parishat Building
Nmpathunga Road, Bangalore:.1,f__
Rep. by its Chairman;
Special Land Acquisition Officer' 1
Kamataka Indus-trial Ameas '
Development:.Boaifd, Z=.:_O. 3; [_
No.488/B, 41.3313' Cgfo.ss~, 3"?' Block. fa V
4"' Stage. ?Pee1,1"ya"inciust1fia.l
BangaIore--5.§O--O.58. ' * ?
Kamataka ' ' *--
31" Floor, Khar1ija'Bi~1av'a;n"(South Wing),
N0. 49. Race lC0ui'se' Roagit.
Bangalore 560. Q'D1.'=. RESPONDENTS
x1V.{m*--'-'.--h'y. HCGP for R1;
«Sri K.1akshman Achar, Adv. for
' ,.S1i.G.-Naga'1~aji:!.u Naidu, Adv. for R2 8:: R3;
M/sl Leg. Plexus'. Adv. for R4:
. '--Sr'i-.iUdaya.'Ho'ila, Senior Counsel for
1\rI_/_s. H,oi1._-ijanoua, Advs. for R14)
H " ' we.;>,N¢';"1 5452 /2007
1.pgs;,MEmTwEEN:
M'/s. Moola Investments {India}
, _' Ltd.. A Company registered
under the Companies Act and
having its regd. Office at No.39/9,
Lalbagh Road, Bangalore~--27
Represented by its Managing
Director, Sm' Range. Moola,
Aged 39 years. PET1T;9Nfi;R"tj"Vt..,
[By Sri K.Shashikiran Shetty, Adv.)
1. The State of Karnataka
By its Principal Secretary, V y ._
Commerce & industries Department, "
M.S.Builc1ings, Bangalore--56O D01".
2. The KamatakaIndust1f_ia1yAre'a _
Development Board, 14;'3,--. *_ E, }
11 Floor, Rashtrothana Par'is_h-at Vl3i,1i}¢iin'g,.i'V_'v __
Nrupathunga Road,Ba1*iga;1:i1'e--'iA,K_ ' .y
Rep. by its Ezieetttive M_eI1€;b--ei*. t
3. The Special Lafxdtikcqtliéition'Q;7fic'er"
Karnataka End'uS1€rial .{h*ea" "
Devel{jpIne:1t,V1BoafiiV;' Zonal Office
Plot N'{J.488,/B;~".1~4f??"Crosé',vv-KIADB
Complex, 111 Bl0ck.'"'IV'Phasg5.. Peenya
Industrial Area, "Bangal Q.fe:58.
4. Sri ' Narayanaptpat,
about 85 years» "
A S/O Eat'eyAChi1;;_hapi11iah,
V .R/'af,_BeIIa1fIdxur Village,
.Vai_rthz1rTHVob1i;v.*"'
Bangalore' ;r~:a:§t Taiuk. RESPONDENTS
'(By sri"M.CzA.Ai1j'ana Murthy. HCGP for R1;
Sri Basavaraj V.Sabarad, Aciv. for R2 8: R3;
n V' ,, A' Sri_.K.Suman, Adv. for R4]
w}P'§No.21456/2009
~ 1 :'B'E'It'WEEN:
u [M/s. M0013 Investments (India)
Pvt. Ltd., A Company registered
under the Companies Act and
having its regd. Office at No.39/9,
Lalbagh Road, Banga1ore-27
Represented by its Managing
Director, Sri Ranga Moola.
S/o Sri M.BhaktaVatsa1a,
Aged 39 years.
[By Sri K.Shashikiran Shetty. Adv.)
AND:
1.
The State of Karnataka
By its Principal Secretary, _ _ V -,_ ,
Commerce <3: industries'Depa:ftrhevnt," l I _
M.S.Buildings, Bangalore«~'E=6C O01.
The Karnataka lIn,§l'usti*ial Area at
DeVelopment'~»Boar_d.'_.
11 Floor, Riisht-rothana PaifiShat.Bi1i1ding,
N rupathtinga 1',3angalo'1'e__~__1 ,
Rep. its"E2g'e_cuti'§re M'e1_ri':,:wer. _
The Special Land'A:cquvis.iti.ogn~ Officer
Karnataka In dustri E11 l Area.
Development Board, Zonal Office
Plot; No,.488/B,._ 14¢ Cross, KIADB
Conipigex, III Bloc" ~31' Phase, Peenya
A industrial Area, Banga1ore--58.
" ,SrLnt.,llArri1nay:a':I1ina,
'W/to Ramai.fe.hf, Major,
No':37, ,__5'i' - Cross,
Bellandar, Bangalore ~ 560 013.
~ «Krishnappa, Major,
No.37, 5"? Cross,
Bellanciur, Bangalore - 560 013.
Chikkamuniyappa,
Major, No.37, 5*?' Cross.
Bellandur, Bangalore «-~ 560 013. RESPONDENTS
(By Sri M.G.Anjana Murthy, HCGP for R1;
Sri Basavaraj V.Sabarad, Adv. for R3 8: R4;
IN W.P.No.4cO382/2004
BETWEEN:
1.
Smt.Lakshmarnma,
Aged about 60 years,
W/ o Sri.Narayanappa,
Residing at Bellandur Village. , ..
Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East 'i'aluk__.
Sri.Jeet Lal Ramji Patel Limbani;
Aged about 62 years,
S/o late Chinnappa,
Residing at N anjundeshiifar lllilayat, " ~--.. _' » ll ' a _
Munekolalu Village, __ , .
Marathahalli Post, Varthur E.-Io'b_li,.._ ' "
BaI1ga1ore--56,O VA .
(a) Srii{H.l\/iuneireddiyl,' _ _
aged about 3v..ye'ars',i. _ _
S / 0" late. Doddaha nlurnlappa,
Residing at. B'e11a'ndur"'[il1age,
Bangalore F3a.st'V--Taink;~' "
{b.j1§3ri,'_l\/i.Venugopa--l--,--~ *
« _ aged,ab_o'ut 42 years,
V llSjo-.Sri,vl*I,Vl\/runireddy,
let} lSri.M.£u€a;jei1dra,
about 42 years,
S /.0 Sri.H.Munireddy,
Al I All residents of Bellandur Village.
V' -».\farthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk.
_ Sri.M.Anand
Aged about 50 years,
S / o Sri.H.Munireddy,
Residing at No. 105. 4?" Block,
71*' Main, J ayanagar,
Bangal0re--56O O11. ...PETITIONERS
(By Sri K.Suman, Adv.)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By its Principal Secretary, V
M.S.Bui1ding, Bangalore--560 001
2. The Karnataka Industrial Area
Development Board, No.14/3, '11 Floor, '
Rashtrothana Parzishath Bui1di.Iuig';e»
N rupathunga Road,
BangaJore--56O 001, z
Rep.by its Executive I\/Ie_ririber'_.
Karnataka Indlistzjalffmea _
Deve10pment__B0§§;rd, _ "
3. The Special Land Acquisition ' ' 1. ~
Z0na]Ve"'C)ffiCe,V :?l0t 'Nb.488/'B, _
I431 CVr0S._€; KIADB 'C0I'npl"ex__, * -
III Bloek, zVI>hase','=.f ..
Peeflya Industrial Area. '
Bangal0re?560 O58. " ...RESPONDENTS
v. (By S_1'i'3'M.:(_§§Alu1jana." Murthy. I-ICGP for R1.
es:-1 B.Si"iniva_s, Adv. For R2 3: R3)
so far as Petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are concerned,
vidfi Court 0r_d_er§_dated 26.10.2009)
_ IN w.P.Nq;4o343/2004
&3ri.P.Narayanappa,
-'Aged about 85 years,
8/ 0 late Chikkapillaiah,
Residing at Bellandur Village,
Varthur Hobli.
Bangalore East Taluk.
[a} Sri.B.C.Ankappa,
aged about 60 years,
8/ 0 late Chinnappa
. (b) S1°i.B.C.Papanr1a
aged about 56 years,
53/ o late Chinnappa
Both residing at Bellandur Village, L
Varthur Hobli, " .g
Bangalore East Taluk.
(a) Srnt.Lalithamma
aged about 57 years,
S/o Sri.B.N.Venka'ta_rama.na
aged about 462 years', _
S / o Nanj1;'ndagppa 2: ="
(b) Sri.B.N.Venkataramana l
Varthtrtr Hobli;-..
Bangalore East fl'a,1ul«:_: "
(a) Srnt.Nirrnala; _ .
V, aged about 4.6' years,
- b._W/ .Sri.qayapp'a"Reddy
Q '1'b)_'SrlV.;}ayappva*Reddy
' ._ " ._age'd«ab_ou.t"€:}3 years,
' S/o Y.a'nga"Reddy,
Botllfresiding at Bellandur Village,
' .. ydr_'Vartht1r Hobli,
" _ Bangalore East Taluk.
. V';§3ri.Venkataswamy Reddy,
Aged about 75 years,
S / 0 late Ramaiah Reddy,
Residing at Bellandur Village,
Varthur Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk.
6. SInt.Parvathamma
Aged about 60 years,
W/o late B.l'vI.Krishnappa
Residing at Bellandur Village,
Varthur Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk.
Smt.SarasamIna,
Aged about 53 years,
W/o Sri.M.Narayana Reddy,
Residing at No.64? 3031 main, B' B
11"' 'B' Main, J.P.Nagar. '
Banga1ore--560 O78. '
Sri.H.I\/Iunireddy, A
Aged about 714 years, 3' _
S/o late Dod_daii;a.111zrriappa," " _
Residing at"B'c.1_1a-ndfur Village, 'B '
Bangalore East' Ta1u'}::";- O3'7-,-* '
Repby. GPA'}i_Io1der,.S1n_t.Sunkamma,
Aged,Vabout'5f,1_,year_s, _ " _
D/ o M.Krish.na='¥{'eddy
. . .PE'I'I'I'IONERS
(By Sri K.s{1mtan,VA£1v.j" » 4
V' ' ~its" ;E?r'inci3§ai_ Secretary,
gM;_S,Bu.iidirig,-Bangalore--560 001.
V AND:_;' "
flie of«._Karr1ataka,
The Ka1'T1at.aka industrial Area
Development Board, No. 14/ 3, If Floor,
Rashtmizhana Parishath Buildin
» Nr'u.pathunga Road, '
B Banga1ore--560 001,
Rep.by its Executive Member.
'' "The Special Land Acquisition Officer.
Karnataka Industrial Area
Development Board,
Zonal Office, Plot 910.488/B,
11
W.P.No.40382/2004 is filed under Articles 226 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the notiii-caitions
issued by respondent No.1 dt.10.12.2001 vide A' B
& c and di:.7'.5.2004 vide AImexure--D, in solnfarfasttnesek'
notifications relate to the lands of the lpetiptionelruss ai1';vsi'tusi-ssdvsin " »
Bellandur, Devarabisanahalli and:__ Amafiii§?_1ane"~- 4Be'l-lscandur
Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore Easétsfflaluk, B:ai?ga1o°re,';asi in,
the schedule and etc.
w.P.No.40343/2oo4,i_s fi1eld"u.nde'f"Ai-ticlés"2264 & 227 of
the Constitution of lndia _ the notifications
issued by respondent No. l...d,a_t'e.d ' Annexures-A,
B & C and dt.?.5'.«;;frO4 is/idge so far as these
notifications related"to'1V';hVe<-land.spofthe petitioners all situated in
Bellanduig" "ans" Amanikhane Bellandur
village, V131-tiiur.HVob1i,f'Bailiga1o1*e' East Taluk, Bangalore, as in
the schedule, and etc. _ l' "
y,'.1_5hese petitions having been heard and reserved on
coining onmfor 'Pronouncement of Order', this day.
V' following:
ORDER
w;'i?,'i<ios.4o343/2004 and 40382/2004 are filed by the llalndoiniiiers. They are challenging the notifications issued by State under Sections 3(1), 1(3), 28(1) & 28(4) of the Liiamataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 {hereinafter d to as 'the Act', for short}. w.P.Nos.i3014/2006. 12 15452/2007. 21456/ 2009 and 11727/ 2006 are filed bydthe two companies claiming as beneficiaries of the lands in question.
2. In W.P.No.40343/2004, excep't"*as ijegardsvjadetifionerdi Nos.3(a) & 3(b), in respect of all other writ petition is dismissed by dat"ed_ on the'? submissions made by the. learned-{d3«Aoun'se1 for thepetitioners by filing a memo dated as their lands subject matter of"ao__quisition1iyvere.:d_enotifi'e'd-Vide notification dated 03.05.2008_ they did not intend to proseeute petition. . Therefore, What survives in w.P.No.40343 /20'0{1'is:'the--~ ch~a11'enge made by petitioner N0.3(a).
3. V," W.P.No'.4=.0E382/E2004, except as regards petitioner V'V,jNos.3v('a} in respect of aii other petitioners. the writ petiti'o__nX by order dated 26.10.2009 on the 0 00 _subnii'ssi0.ns rriade by the Iearned Counsei for the petitioners by memo dated 07.01.2009 stating that as their iands _' es_ubjeet" matter of acquisition were denotified vide notifications nfud-eteci 03.05.2008 & 21.06.2006 gazetted on 05.05.2008 0:
" 21.06.2008. respectiveiy, they did not intend to prosecute the it 13 writ petition. Therefore, what survives in W.P.No.4038"2/2004 is the challenge made by petitioner No.3(a] to Ski). ,,
4. Petitioner Nos.3{a) 8: 3[b} in V' that they are depending on the lands; eke.' out livelihood by growing coconut, niligiri, sapota; teaLt':.'~trees;..g besides they have also put up a' house; well and have laid down pipe lines insth'e'AlarI.d's.from Eellandur lake.
5. Petitioner Nos.3[a) to -3'(q'}-iii5w.;ié.'r~i.¢;;40.382/2004 claim that they are all a'gri:C:ultt:1_ris§ts.:'sand .d_e_pfending on the lands in question fciirfltlieirdlive}ihoo-du'by:':cultivating the same and that they have been re:=id.ingegin_:thelsaid lands in the houses built therein. 'l'hey__also VcontAen'd:kt'_hat they have improved the land by digging' borewell" installing pumpsets and are growing in ' V . V g di,AfR:r_e.nt tural produce.
6;" ._ '¥'.W,P;:§.i¢'...1sméa./2005 is filed by S.S.J.V.Projects Pvt. Ltd., V .a conipany: incorporated under the provisions of the Companies :1 engaged in the business of land development. it is '_'_prcoi1tended by the company that it intended to establish a it :j'_4l"K31owledge Park/BPO Centre and Township' in 5 acres of land it "With an investment of Rs.32.15 Crores. its proposal was it"
15
money, the acquisition proceedings could not have been dropped or withdrawn Without giving an opportunity of hearing to the beneficiary. It is also contended that it was lH1pi:'Yl:I1J:0Sl.bI€ for the State to drop the acquisition proceedingsi.:0..00IA33f'fl'§¥*ir;1y._..of,> amendment, petitioner-company intends t.o""c«ha.§le'rI_ge.y the".
notification dated 03.05.2008 iss'iied;fby was Annexure~H under Section 4 of the certain lands from acquisition. Th4e'grieVance' the petitioner is that this notification is ~--is:s.uet_l durii-=.g».,yth~e_ pendency of the present writ petition, wherein the vpryeviiousl'iieiiotification dated 21.06.2006 were challenged.
7. --~.:is'»«.fi'led by M / s.Moola Investments (India) _a g:oi'npany"incorporated under the Companies Act. io.r':pejrmit.ting arid"'tieveIoping infrastructure for information for its business. This company has challer1ged_ notification dated 03.05.2008 issued by 're_spondeot";.No.1 clenotifying/ dropping certain lands from the ac'=v.is'i'tion on similar rounds as are ur ed b the other .___"'coIh;panies. It is contended that the petitioner had applied to 0 V _ 'hthe Kamataka Udyoga Mitra for grant of land pursuant whereof State Level Single Window Agency approved allotment of 4 acres is 18 of land in Kariyarnmana Agrahara village. Varthur~'"----Iflobli, Bangalore East Taluk comprised in Sy. Nos.22 & been notified by the KIADB. On 1'?.12.2003.
acres of land in favour of petitioner--:eomp«3.ny','wasapproved l the Karnataka Udyoga Mitra State Level ifjwilngle Thereafter, petitioner paid a of to the"?
KIADB towards part payment of thefiland;V;Petitioner, however, found that ina land allotted, a graveyard was located arid 26.03.2004 to the Principal of xtiiommerce Department.
to allot toV'a:c--i:es_ & 17 of Bellandur Village, »,l\13«;t:,':_fi't§a1ore East Taluk. This was approved by"*the petitioner was intimated of the approvalllvon O6.O'4A._2fi0O4. :Thus, the petitioner--company became in Lethe'beneficiaiyffor allotment and possession of 4 acres of land in theselhtvvol'siVirve3}:;'1'iiimbers. It is in this background, petitioner- _complany v--._"cont:ends that the impugned notification dated denotifying an extent of 4 guntas in Sy. No.17 of aBe1la1'id[nr village, is illegal and violative of the principles of it ':'_4"r1at--LV1ral justice as the petitioner-company was not heard before "issuing such a notification under Section 4 of the Act denotifying 4 guntas of land, ti"
17
8. In W.P.No. 15452 / 2007, M / s.i\/Iooia Investments (India) Pvt. Ltd., has challenged another notification dated 12.09.2007 issued by respondent No.1 --~ State Government vide Ann.e:cure-P' denotifying an extent of 2 acres 19 guntas comprised lS~y.. No.18 acquired as per the provisions of the Act dated 07.05.2004 issued under Section' 28«[Z;]'l-.pan.d iii.-;biisiied'0'in 0 the gazette on 11.05.2004. The said from the notifications issued und.er*.Sectivon.s 020(1) 28(4) of the Act. The facts' s..tatedi'a1i.d_:groundsiurged are the same as are urged in suppo1't. f'Qf thef.cha.11enge made in wil'.Ne.2"12.56'/£009.72,:0'
9. Thevluoximer ' involved in this writ Petition {respondent N00'.43V'i1e.rein0]'*.hadl challenged the acquisition of land No.18 a'n"extent of 2 acres 19 guntas as per the "fi;'ia1:f_ issued on 07.05.2004 by filing During the pendency of the said writ . 'petition.aiiotification was issued denotifying an extent of 1 acre Agulntas of land in Sy. No.18 on 21.06.2006 exercising its under Section 4 of the Act. This made the petitioner to llifile W.P.No.11727/2006 challenging the said denotification. As once again by the impugned notification dated 12.09.2009 in 19 It is also stated that there is no arbitrary exercise of power in denotifying the lands.
11. Respondent No.4 ~ landowner has fiied the;'_'state'na:e5n:; objections mainly contending that the owner contijntieldiito in. possession and enjoyment as the land; the facL1u'is.ition~wwasanot for and on behalf of the petitioner and"t_herefore;'ll'l't;hep_petitioner"; has no semblance of right to the denoltificati-on.
12. Respondent No.5 of the property from respondent l'_Io.4i is subsequently brought on re_c-ordp' the' petitioner an application, has also contested thle'llwfri.t'petit.ion.._ ' '
13. Itis thtis eieatirefit the narration of the facts made above, "that set of""wi~ett' petitions {W.P.Nos.40343/2004 81 l'4-o3'8l2/2Ci'o;{i}:,"'afe"--..fi1ed by the landowners challenging the acqluisition_ 'proceedings and the notifications issued under lSections~~ 3(2) and 1(3) of the Act. The other set of petitions {:W.xR;l\§o_s.13014/2006, 21456/2009, 15452/2007 & 17.327/2006} are filed by the private companies ciaiming to be _ "the beneficiaries of the acquisition.
%'* 21 subsisting scheme or project for the purpose of acquisition, the entire acquisition was vitiated. They have further 't'.o'nte»n'ded that the petitioners were discriminated against, several other sirnilariy placed persionshave '.den'otifie'd. b They have also contended that i1o't.ific.:atiorisg disclosed gross abuse of powerlbyrthe are issued' for the ostensible purpose of venturesfiof private realtors. It is further' _1~espondent--Land Acquisition Officerlhas faiiled' V-tlraevcontentions raised by the petitiorier report. A contention is also raised._urg'ing iearrharked for park and open space the 'lfllevelopment Plan cannot be utilized for anyilothler has held by the Apex Court in the case pofp'lV3angalore- .._1l\:/Ivedicial Trust Vs B.S.Muddappa --- 1991(4) _fiitt.1s:pal.so contended that no personal hearing is given to" and their objections have not been considered V in acc'ord:{nce"with law and hence there is violation of Section Act. it is also contended that the impugned _' aacquisition tantamounts to colorabie exercise of power and "1'eflects malafide intentions and abuse of power as the power is it " "exercised to enable private entrepreneurs to establish their industries iike conventional centre, shopping malls. multiplex ,./" ' 22 theatres, residential apartments, information technology/"parks, etc.
16. The aforesaid contentions of the petitioneis'aree:stron.§1y"~. refuted by the respondents. ~
17. On careful consideration of the'.Vrn'aterials'on*~1fecord'~.an'dp upon hearing the learned Counseijfor the parti--es;,tl;ieTp'oinjt that"
arises for consideration is, .
"whether the liable to be quashed on the ground of or infirrrzity in the procedts;g"addpted"or o'n_Cu'3eoun.t of the alleged matafidee. or colofzuble .e'x-erctse' of power?"
18. It cannotl bep"dAisputed'~«'that the provisions of the Act provided for 4diecVlarationv_ of s certain areas as industrial area :§6'§tio11. ..3(1].'H evident from the notifications issued l'L1._r1<31Ci'tf"..::VI3(..I}, 1(3) and 28(1) of the Act which are produeed atpzliripriexuresmfli, B 8: C, respectively, that an extent of '£2.24 acre.sd2;.1 guntas of land have been notified for acquisition. Il_i'etirni'1?iary notification issued under Section 28(1) of the Act, and gazetted on 10.12.2001 disclose that the said V V 'hacouisition is for the benefit of KEADB for the purpose of setting up industries and developing the same and the final notification i"
23
issued under Section 28(4) of the Act dated 07.05.2004 gazetted on 11.05.2004 is also for the same purpose. Petitioners».haVe filed their objections raising certain objections. raised are that the petitioners were agIicultu.1'_i_s:t's..ari:d lilivillb deprived of their agricultural holdingslA;Alltl:f1at..v the -ii'anCfi1s_pwVereVpp not suitable for the purpose of industrial developmentaiid was'*no't..p in the public interest, but was at._the instanceiiof slorriel private interests. They also conteiided thatlthpe lands were abutting the ring road and the market the lands were strategically located;:-. 'Ifl1ese.:'..«o'bj.ectijons are considered and overruled. .oi;p.nlialafides are made, they are not subsitantiatedi x .0 0 * it
19. It is xdvelpl establishedlitiiatsit is unnecessary to mention the V narneof the industries or the industrial purpose at the time of is:s'ue_Tof plilieiiniinary notification as per Section 28(1) of the Act. necessary to obtain change of land use before 0 0' issuing the '1iot'ification even where the lands being the subject :7b"--.rnatter of» acquisition are earmarked in the Comprehensive .ijeifelopment Plan for different purposes. it will be open for the '%%_fipetent authorities to obtain such permission in accordance 25
22. The second batch of writ petitions are filed by two companies viz., S.S.J.V.Projects Pvt. Ltd., and .S:"««.Moo1a Investments (India) Pvt. Ltd. They are aggrieved p""the~.p denotification of some of the lands" as p_er"'the':.ifnpugn.ed notifications issued under Section made by the landowners. vb V S I S
23. Learned Senior Connsel for the petitioner in W.P.Nov." Counsel Sri Shashi Kiran Shetty petitioner in w.P.Nos.11272Vjif2oc{5'. urged that the petitioners of the acquisition. They have referred to"g_'the of the Karnataka industries {Faci1it_.ation} Act,' which provide for estabiishrnent of a 'Agency/Committee under Section 6 and clothes cei"'tain_ powers as per Section 8. In exercise of its power, V by the said Window Agency has approved allotment of the :"'v4."'--~1a'ndsp_in qtiestion in favour of the petitioners, whereupon the apetitioners have paid substantial sum of money as advance and therefore, it is urged, the petitioners have iocus it " "standi to maintain the writ petition. They have also contended figtthe decision of the Committee which consists of high Ievei 26 functionaries has binding effect and the State Government could not have ignored the said recommendation andilvapfproaral of the Committee and withdrawn the lands from . They have placed reliance on the decision' in the b T
62. TOUBRO LTD. VS STATE or GUJA1i';4iT:'a1Ni) oi*I;ERs..--'{j'9.§s)4 SCC 387, to contend that any Withdrawal" fromggacquiéslitionj must" V be preceded by notice, 'to the..flbge_ne;ficiarly"' for Vcdvhorn the acquisition proceedings an opportunity to such beneficiary" should' against the proposed the judgment in the case of VS S.P.GU.RURAJA AND OTHERS',-_ (2ooajs".slc_:c5g67t:}par*-agraph 13} to contend that the decision of, l a s'tat"t:.t'o1jsl:r.""--.r.committee has binding effect. Coriter;-gtions are '"a1_lsoladt?anced by the learned Counsel for the stating that once final notification is issued, the land there is no power to delete the lands from V V' acquisition.' up gggfiothilthe learned Counsel for the petitioners have also cco-ntendéed that there is legitimate expectation on the part of the dhpetictioners pursuant to the resolution passed and the " --~'recon1mendations made and the decision taken approving the allotment and the authorities are estopped from going back on At"
27
their assurances. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Naganand drawing the attention of the Court to the previous petition filed by the petitioners in W.P.No.40670/2004 conteiidsihin paragraph 3. the owners themselves have present petitioner was the beneficiarywand i'i.<.l_i:s IV:xQtVV> open for the landowners now to co'i1te17i,'d"that*. company cannot maintain an;<,*._v"'v.zrit petition lchailengiiig the' withdrawal of the land from acpquisition. I.4Ie'h=as_i}n\rited the attention of the Court to is the decision taken by the Facilitatiori'"contend that the petit1oner--coni<pa.,nyi3isv_ dire_ctly and is entitled to maintain; the __ Sum and substance, their contention isp4_ti;at .;5mjc_;.p'1es of natural justice have to be read ipnjtol the provisions o:fSection 4 of the Act in a situation like thisa.._plSrilN:agariand further draws the attention of the Court to the flit}-ie proceedings of the State Government _culminati:._1§ the decision to withdraw the land from ifiidi'?i§qupisition,.. to contend that the decision to drop the lands is despite the legal opinion given against it and only on the lwground that the iandowners of some of the lands had resisted it " "the acquisition and were not prepared to part with possession and therefore it had become difficult for the State Government 29 Moola Investments (India) Pvt. Ltd., and recommended KIADB to acquire 4 acres of land in Sy. No.22 of Kariyammana village, Varthnr Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, from Annexure~B, but the petitioner-sought for ofslalnd l and change of location of the projfectlli«.7'V whereupon the Karnataka Udvoga"~~_Mitra agrleedganvdfissned letter. But there is no approvalifcriithis-»change-ofulocation by the State Level Single ll fnrther contends that the notification the benefit of the petitioner--con11;3t:iny1{an1cl petitioner--company is not the benefici_ary"'of' it had no locus standi to maintain. _pe.t:ition 'l challenging the notification withdrawingtéhe land 'lfrorn,jagcduisition. It is also contended by him that the noti'filc_ation clenotifying the lands pertain to several V'7.lands_r the land in Sy. No.18 and therefore the allegat_ion's Taof _ arbitrary and rnalafide exercise of power are _baselesS. 'support of his contention that notification for H the lands cannot be challenged by a stranger when no dispute as between the Government and the ':'_4'lan~downer, he has placed reliance on the judgment in the case "of SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BOMBAY AND orrmns VS M/SGODREJ AND BOYCE --- (1988)1 SCC 50. He has also i 31 company nor is it in terms of the provisions containedkunder Part-VII of the Land Acquisition Act and petitioner--cornpany has no right to maintain the__"wr_it.:
challenging the withdrawal from acqt1isiti'on.& He placed reliance on the decision in the case of HARIJAN EMPLOYEES' Assoomrrom VS "Smart; AND OTHERS ~ (2oo1)1 sec 61VAO-.--lvtogv-_contend athat ,1viearing the beneficiary of the acquisnilon "b_ei'To:1¥e" the land is entirely different a_n'd__a between the beneficiaries and those who do not.
26. Attention of also invited to the unreported judgment of this"Court'i._ndW.P.No.37671/2004 disposed of on
-"'~i,s.oT§éoQfi: in thel"V'a--s--e'Vof VIKAS TELECOM (PVT) LTD. Vs wherein also the project of the petitioner approved by the High Levei Committee and the 'lands in villages were identified and notified by the thereafter part of such lands were sought to be which was challenged by the company claiming that it the beneficiary and that without hearing it, the notification issued withdrawing the land from acquisition was bad. This it 32 Court, in the facts and circumstances of the said case, held that the petitioner therein was not a beneficiary and .ther=e'i'ore question of hearing it did not arise. It is also * notice of the Court that the writ appeal-filpedp against i order in W.A.No..1769/2007 was disrhisdsed '~25.iif.'2(§osVV affirming the order passed by t1fie'~..1earned Holla has further contended that"th.e:'ac'q1;.isition'of land by the Government declaring 'area area at the instance of a by it is bad in law, even if tfuoi' had been cleared by the HighvyVi.eVe}"V;Sfii1;§;i;e Reliance is placed for this proposit_ioniVon. 'in the case of H.G.SHEELA VS STATE OF KARNATAi§A 'OTHERS -- 2006(3) Kar.L.J. 24.
_ Reliancjetv is also Aapvliacedi on the same proposition, on the W';AV.No.2OO2/2007 and connected cases disposed of .a_n*--"1__o. ii §'2.Qoe{.' V V *2? Having heard the learned Counsei for the parties and on careft11"~«consideration of the materials on record, the points that for consideration in these batch of Writ petitions filed by V _ "the two companies are, Ax 33
(i) Whether the petitioner--compantes can be termed as beneficiaries of the acquist'tio.ri~«_l"'--t_ culminating in the final n0tificati0n§'_:l"dcite;ct: 1- 07.05.2004 gazetted on 11.05.2_QQ~4'~..tissued under Section 28(4) entitled for an 0pportun)ityi;'_'ofii' being before the impugned .n0ti'ficcitton the tandsfrom acquisttioili werelissueal? {ii} Whether the '*«--itf'ipug_neei the State Government inu)'ithdrdu}ing=.the:l._'notificati0n is illegaliaj 'being without
28. notvin disiiiute that almost about 224 acres of filifferent villages were notified by issuing _notific'ations_lundefléections 3(1), 1(3) and 28(1) of the "Act. area""was declared as industrial area. The V'ncoisificationiissued'«under Section 28(1) only mentioned that the area' for the purpose of establishing an industrial aifea and ('for developing the same. The notification under Section~l_.28( 1) is issued way back on 10.12.2001 and gazetted on ____"tl1elfsame day. The final notification is issued under Section cc "=.2s(»ri) on 07.05.2004 and gazetted on 11.05.2004. Nowhere in these notifications, the two petitionercompanies are shown as in