Smt. Rathnamma vs The State on 2 November, 2015

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt. Rathnamma vs The State on 2 November, 2015

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

                        1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015

                     BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY

       WRIT PETITION NO.23158/2013 (LA-KIADB)

BETWEEN:

SMT. RATHNAMMA
W/O N. RAJANNA
'B' NARAYANAPURA
K.R. PURAM,
BANGALORE
                                  ...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. NEERAJA KARANTH, ADV.
FOR SRI. K. SHRIHARI, ADV.)

AND:

1.     THE STATE
       REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY
       DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
       1ST FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA
       BANGALORE

2.     THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
       DEVELOPMENT BOARD
       REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE MEMBER
       RASHTROTHANA BUILDING
       NRUPATUNGA ROAD
       BANGALORE

3.     THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
                            2



     K.I.A.D.B.
     NO.14/3
     ARAVINDA BHAVANA
     NRUPATUNGA ROAD
     BANGALORE.
                                     ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. K. VIDYAVATI AGA FOR R1
 SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. FOR R2 & R3.)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 4.12.2012
UNDER SEC. 28(4) OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACT, 1966 (KIADB ACT)
SO FAR AS THE SCHEDULE LANDS OWNED BY THE
PETITIONER ARE CONCERNED VIDE ANNEXURE-A
AND ETC.


    THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                      ORDER

Land measuring 2 acres 2 guntas in Sy.No.43/1 and 2 acres in Sy.No.43/2 of Jakkasandra Village, Kasaba Hobli, Malur Taluk, Kolar District, belonging to the petitioner when proposed for acquisition by the State Government in the preliminary notification dated 13.03.2012 under Section 28(1) of The Karnataka 3 Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, (hereinafter referred to as 'KIAD Act, 1966' for brevity) followed by the final notification dated 04.12.2012 under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act, 1966, has presented this petition, to quash the said notifications on the premise that :

(i) petitioner obtained permission to divert use of the said lands from agriculture to non-

agriculture residential purpose, by an order of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964;

(ii) paid the conversion fee to the State Government ;

(iii) obtained a sanction of the layout plan from the Urban Development Authority, under The Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 and paid development charges; and

(iv) formed the layout of residential sites. 4

2. According to the learned Counsel, petitioner when permitted and sanction accorded by the authorities under the relevant statutes, on the verge of disposing of the sites by way of sale, the notifications have come in her way hence calls for interference.

3. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3- KIADB submits that the notification under Section 3(1) of the KIAD Act, 1966, issued along with the preliminary notification proposing acquisition, declares the said lands as "industrial area" and that merely because petitioner has made some development subsequent to the preliminary notification, there can be no challenge to the acquisition notifications.

4. Learned Counsel hastens to add that the notification declaring the area as "industrial area" under the KIAD Act, 1966, prevails over the order of the Deputy Commissioner permitting the conversion of the 5 land from agriculture to non-agriculture residential purpose, under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, being a later Act and in the light of Section 47 of the KIAD Act, 1966.

5. It is well settled that private interest must pave way for public interest and if that is so, petitioner's private interest cannot be justification for interference with the acquisition proceedings by the KIADB, more so, for a public purpose.

6. It is needless to state that petitioner is entitled to make a representation to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, in an award enquiry in relation to the determination of the market value of the land, which undoubtedly, may also include a claim towards development which the petitioner alleges to have carried out including charges.

Petition is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE JT/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court