Karnataka High Court
Sri Tanveer Ahmed vs State Of Karnataka on 6 January, 2023
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.7753 OF 2016 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
SRI. TANVEER AHMED
S/O LATE MR. ABDUL SATTAR SAB
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
PRESENTLY AT NO.19/1,
OFFICE NO. S1, 2ND FLOOR, 3RD CROSS
KARNATAKA CENTRAL COMPLEX, CSI
COMPOUND, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S. MAHESH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT)
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
2ND FLOOR, RASHTROTHANA PARISHAT,
NO.14/3A, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER - 2
KIADB, ZONAL OFFICE
BANGALORE DIVISION
NO.14/3, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
4. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA
BRABOURNE STADIUM,
NORTH STAND
VEER NARIMAN ROAD
2
MUMBAI - 400 020
REP BY ITS PRESIDENT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR M.B., HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI. B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3;
SMT. BHAVYA MOHAN., ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ACQUISITION OF
THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE PRELIMINARY
NOTIFICATION DTD: 16.03.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND FINAL
NOTIFICATION DTD: 08.12.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-C ISSUED BY
R-1 AND ETC.
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the acquisition proceedings in relation to the subject land pursuant to the Preliminary Notification dated 16.03.2011 issued by the respondents and for other reliefs.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the material on record in 3 order to point out that on 16.03.2011, the Preliminary Notification under Section 28 (1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act (for short, KIAD Act) was issued by the respondents pursuant to which final notification dated 08.12.2011 under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act was issued by the respondents for the purpose of acquiring the subject land to establish the Cricket Academy for the benefit of the Board of Cricket Control of India (BCCI). The said acquisition proceedings arising out of the aforesaid impugned preliminary notification and final notification were challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.Nos.51532-51534/2012 and connected matters. By final order dated 20.06.2013, this Court set aside the final notification and remitted the matter back to the SLAO by directing him to consider the objections of the petitioner and pass orders / report under Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act and thereafter, to proceed further in the matter. During the course of the said order, this Court also noted specific stand of the BCCI, the respondent No.4 therein to the effect that it did not require the subject land for its purpose. The said order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court 4 in W.P.Nos.51532-51534/2012 and connected matters dated 20.06.2013 was affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.5871/2013 dated 15.12.2015. Thus, the orders passed by this Court have attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the respondents.
4. Learned counsel submits that subsequently, the respondent No.3 / SLAO has conducted an enquiry under Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act after considering the objections submitted by the petitioner and came to the conclusion that the subject land was not required for the purpose of acquisition to the benefit of BCCI and recommendation dated 18.06.2016 has been sent in this regard to the State Government to issue a notification under Section 4(1) of the KIAD Act. However, the State Government has not taken any steps to issue a formal notification under Section 4(1) of the KIAD Act so far nor have they issued a Final Notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act even till this date. It is therefore contended that the impugned Preliminary Notification dated 16.03.2011 issued under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act deserves to be quashed.
5
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that the Statement of objections have been filed and the present petition may be disposed of in terms of the same and appropriate orders may be passed by this Court. The statement of objections filed on behalf of respondent No.4 reads as under:
"The respondent No.4, i.e., the Board of Control for Cricket in India ("BCCI") humbly submits as hereunder:-
1. The instant writ petition is filed by Mr.Tanveer Ahmed with a prayer inter alia (i) to quash the preliminary notification dated 16.03.2011 ("Preliminary Notification") and the final notification dated 08.12.2011 in No.CI/13/SPQ/2011 issued by Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board ("KIADB"), and (ii) for a writ of mandamus direction the respondents to exclude the property described in the writ petition from acquisition and pass necessary orders denotifying the same. The land that forms the subject-matter of the writ petition is land measuring 1 acre 17 guntas in Sy.No.75 at Emrahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District as described in the Writ Petition ("Writ Land").
2. At the outset, Respondent No.4 (BCCI) denies all averments and allegations contained in the Writ Petition concerning BCCI.6
3. BCCI is constructing the National Cricket Academy ("NCA"), a world class cricket academy with a vision to have a center of excellence to nurture talent and support the cricket ecosystem in India, on the land at Plot Nos.14, 15, 16 & 17 of Bengaluru IT Park Industrial Area in Sy.No.7 (Block No.16, 22, 23 & 24) of BK Palya Village and Sy.No.6 (Block No.76, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86 & 87) of Singahalli Village, Jala Hobli (Devanahalli Taluk) ("NCA Land"), which has been leased to the BCCI by way of a registered lease deed dated 18.05.2017 and a supplementary lease deed dated 31.08.2017 entered into between the KIADB and the BCCI.
4. It is BCCI's understanding, upon careful enquiry, that the Writ Land i.e., land measuring 1 acre 17 guntas in Sy.No.75 at Emrahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, is distinct from, does not form part of and / or overlap with the NCA Land, i.e., in Plot Nos.14, 15, 16 & 17 of Bengaluru IT Park Industrial Area in Sy.No.7 (Block No.16, 22, 23 & 24) of BK Palya Village and Sy.No.6 (Block No.76, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86 & 87) of Singahalli Village, Jala Hobli (Devanahalli Taluk). BCCI has also received a confirmation in this regard from KIADB dated 01.12.2022, in which KIADB has confirmed that there are no disputes / litigations pertaining to the lands on which the NCA is currently being constructed. A copy of the communication dated: 7
01.12.2022, received from the KIADB in this regard, is annexed hereto as Annexure-A.
5. As such, without dealing with the merits of the Petitioner's case, it is respectfully submitted that since the land that forms the subject-
matter of the present writ petition and the lands on which the NCA is being constructed are distinct and separate and BCCI is not concerned with the Writ Land, BCCI has no objection to the Writ Petition being disposed of in accordance with law. The present memo may be taken on record to meet the ends of justice."
6. Learned counsel for KIADB while admitting that the BCCI did not require the subject land and that the KIADB had sent a recommendation dated 18.06.2016 to the State Government recommending issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the KIAD Act and also that no final notification has been issued under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act submits that it is for the State Government to take a decision in this regard and as such, the question of quashing the acquisition proceedings does not arise.
7. The aforesaid undisputed facts and circumstances viz., orders passed by this Court in 8 W.P.No.51532-51534 / 2012 dated 20.06.2013 confirmed in W.A.No.5871/2013 dated 15.12.2015, the recommendation dated 18.06.2016 sent by KIADB to the State Government, the stance of the respondent No.4 - BCCI that it does not require the subject land, non-issuance of a final notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act even till today and the other material on record clearly establish that the respondents did not intend to continue with the acquisition proceedings in relation to the subject land. Under these circumstances, in the absence of notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act being issued and acquisition proceedings having not been completed even till today, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned Preliminary Notification and all acquisition proceedings pursuant thereto insofar as the subject land of the petitioner is concerned has been abandoned and lapsed and deserve to be quashed.
8. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Petition is hereby allowed.9
(ii) The impugned Preliminary
Notification dated 16.03.2011 vide
Annexure - B insofar as the subject land of the petitioner bearing Sy.No.75 measuring to an extent of 1 acre 17 guntas in Emrahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SV