Karnataka High Court
Narasareddi S/O Pentareddi vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 29 February, 2024
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1840-DB
WA No.200121 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL NO.200121 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
NARASAREDDI
S/O PENTAREDDI
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O BELLUR VILLAGE
TQ: AND DIST: BIDAR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAVI B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by VARSHA N
RASALKAR
Location: HIGH
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
COURT OF REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
KARNATAKA
(INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT)
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AND INDUSTRIES
VIKAS SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
K.I.A.D.B. HEAD OFFICE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1840-DB
WA No.200121 of 2023
14/3, 2ND FLOOR, R.P. BUILDINGS
NRUPATUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
K.I.A.D.B. ZONAL OFFICE
KAPNOOR INDUSTRIAL AREA
HUMNABAD ROAD
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GA FOR R1;
SRI A.M. NAGARAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE RECORDS IN WRIT PETITION NO.200769/2015 ON THE
FILE OF LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE Court; AND
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER IMPUGNED DATED 09.02.2023
PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.200769/2015 AND
CONSEQUENTIALLY TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED
FOR IN THE INTEREST JUSTICE AND ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1840-DB
WA No.200121 of 2023
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Courts Act, 1961 challenging the order dated 09.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.200769/2015, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner is dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case:
The appellant herein is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.4/Po4/1, measuring 02 acres 21 guntas situated at Bellur village, Tq. & Dist. Bidar and the said land has been acquired by the respondent authorities under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short, 'the Act') by issuing Preliminary Notification under Section 28(1) of the Act which was published on 21.09.2007 and the final Notification under Section 28(4) of the Act was published on 26.03.2008. Thereafter, the consent award was passed on 10.06.2008. The said land has been acquired for the purpose of establishing of Airport but till the year 2015, the purpose -4- NC: 2024:KHC-K:1840-DB WA No.200121 of 2023 for which the land was acquired has not been served which compelled the appellant/petitioner to approach this Court by filing a writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents by issuing both preliminary and final notifications. After having considered the contentions raised by the appellant as well as the respondents, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court in this writ appeal.
3. The contentions raised by Sri Ravi B. Patil, learned counsel for the appellant are that:
(i) The Notification issued under Section 3(1) of the Act was published without mentioning the date and therefore the notification itself is invalid. Without issuing notification under Section 3(1) of the Act, the respondent authorities have no right to acquire the land by issuing Notifications under Section 28(1) and 28(4) of the Act. -5-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1840-DB WA No.200121 of 2023
(ii) As per the notification, the land was acquired for the purpose of establishment of an Airport but the respondents have not utilized the land for which purpose it was acquired and in most of the cases, the land owners have obtained permission under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 for utilizing the agricultural land into non-agricultural purpose. Therefore, it indicates that the respondent authorities have not utilized the land for the purpose for which it has been acquired. Therefore, the acquisition of the subject land itself lapsed.
(iii) Even though in the year 2008, the appellant gave consent for passing the consent award but till today the respondent authorities have not utilized the land for which purpose it has been acquired. The possession is also with the land owner.
Hence, on the above grounds, the learned counsel sought to allow the appeal.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1840-DB WA No.200121 of 2023
4. Per contra, Sri Mallikarjun C. Basareddy, the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 - State and Sri A.M. Nagral, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 - KIADB in unison contend that as per Section 3(1) of the Act, notification has been issued for the purpose of acquisition of land for industrial development and it is the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that in the copy of said notification which is produced before the Court, the date of notification is not even minimal legible. It is further contended that the Preliminary Notification issued under Section 28(1) of the Act has been issued for industrial purposes as well as the establishment of an Airport. They further contend that now industrial plots have been formed and same are allotted to some entrepreneurs for the establishment of industry.
5. In support of his contention, learned counsel Sri A.M. Nagral relied upon a decision of Apex Court in P. Narayanappa and another Vs. State of Karnataka -7- NC: 2024:KHC-K:1840-DB WA No.200121 of 2023 and Others1. He further contended that the order of the Deputy Commissioner for conversion of the land under Section 95 of the Land Revenue Act is related to Sy.No.4/4/5, the land which is not subjected to acquisition under notifications in question. He further contended that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is in respect of the conversion of land that has been challenged and same been set aside by the Court. Hence, on these grounds, sought for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the appeal papers.
7. It is not in dispute that the appellant/petitioner's land in Sy.No.4/Po4/1 has been acquired by the respondent authorities under the provisions of the Act. The Preliminary Notification has been issued under Section 28(1) of the Act on 21.09.2007. The Final Notification under Section 28(4) of the Act was 1 (2006) 7 SCC 578 -8- NC: 2024:KHC-K:1840-DB WA No.200121 of 2023 issued on 26.03.2008. Before issuing both preliminary and final notifications, the Government issued a notification under Section 3(1) of the Act declaring the lands enlisted under the said notification as industrial area for the purpose of industrial development. But the date of notification is not forthcoming from the notification. The learned Single Judge has considered that aspect of the matter and has given a clear finding that non-mentioning of the date in the Notification issued under Section 3(1) of the Act is not much of a consequence.
8. As per the Preliminary Notification issued under Section 28(1) of the Act, it is very clear that the land was acquired for the purpose of establishment of industry in Chidri village, taluka and district Bidar and also for the establishment of the Airport. As per the records produced by the respondent authorities, it is very clear that now they have formed an industrial layout and have allotted plots to the entrepreneurs for the establishment of industry. The Apex Court in the case of P. Narayanappa -9- NC: 2024:KHC-K:1840-DB WA No.200121 of 2023 (supra) has considered the definition of 'industrial infrastructural facilities'. The relevant paragraphs of the said decision are at para-11 to 13, which are extracted as follows:
"11. The Preamble of the Act shows that it has been enacted to make special provisions for securing the establishment of industrial areas and generally to promote the establishment and the orderly development of the industries in such industrial areas. Section 2(7-a) defines "industrial infrastructural facilities". This provision was inserted on 19.2.1997 by an amendment made by Act No.11 of 1997. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the amending Act has some relevance and the same is being reproduced below:
"After the liberalization of economic and industrial policies in the year 1991 increased emphasis has been given for private sector investment not only in the industrial sector but also in the infrastructural sectors. As such a number of proposals, both from indigenous and foreign companies have been received for considerable investments in infrastructural areas like establishment of power projects, express highways, ports, airports, townships, industrial parks etc. These projects need considerable extent of land for implementation.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1840-DB WA No.200121 of 2023 Therefore, it is considered necessary to amend the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, to enable the Board to acquire land for providing industrial infrastructural facilities.
12. As the definition shows, anything which contributes to the development of industries in industrial areas like technology parks, townships for the purpose of establishing trade and tourism centres and any other facility as the State Government may notify, will be an industrial infrastructural facility. It, therefore, shows that the object of the Act is not only to secure establishment of industrial areas and orderly development of industries therein, but also to create facilities which contribute to the development of industries which may include technology parks, townships, trade and tourism centres, etc.
13. The provision for acquisition of land under the Act is contained in Section 28 which is somewhat different from the provisions contained in Sections 4, 5A and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The legislature in its wisdom thought it proper to make a specific provision for acquisition of the land in the Act itself rather than to take recourse to Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. A plain reading of sub-section (1) of Section 28 would show that land can be acquired for the purpose of (i) development by the Board, or (ii) for any other purpose in furtherance of the objects of the Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 28 is similar to Section 5A of the
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1840-DB WA No.200121 of 2023 Land Acquisition Act and the final notification is issued under sub-section (4) of Section 28. The necessary precondition for a valid notification under sub-section (4) of Section 28 is that the State Government should be satisfied that the land is required for the purpose specified in the notification issued under sub-section (1), viz., for the purpose of (i) development by the Board, or
(ii) for any other purpose in furtherance of the objects of the Act. Therefore, in order to judge the validity of the notification what is to be seen is whether the acquisition of land is being made for securing the establishment of industrial areas or to promote the establishment or orderly development of industries in such areas. In view of wide definition of the words "industrial infrastructural facilities" as contained in Section 2 (7a) of the Act, making of a technology park, research and development centre, townships, trade and tourism centres or making provisions for marketing and banking which would contribute to the development of industries will meet the objectives of the Act and acquisition of land for such a purpose would be perfectly valid."
(Emphasis supplied)
9. From the above, it is very clear that even assuming that the land is acquired for the purpose of establishment of Airport and if the respondents have formed an industrial layout, then it achieved the object of the Act. In fact, in the case on hand, the Preliminary Notification under Section 28(1) of the Act is crystal clear
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1840-DB WA No.200121 of 2023 that notification was issued acquiring the land for the purpose of industrial development and also for the establishment of an Airport. Therefore, under these circumstances, the notifications not suffered from any illegality, irregularity and is not contrary to the Act.
10. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant has also contended that there is a delay in passing the award and in support of this contention, the learned counsel relies on a decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.A.No.557/2021, disposed of on 23.03.2022, wherein this Court quashed the acquisition proceedings on the ground that the award is not passed even after a long time. In fact, the said judgment is not applicable to the present case as in the said judgment the fact that after issuing Preliminary Notification under Section 28(1) of the Act, the Final Notification has not been issued even after a lapse of 14 years and therefore the award has not passed therein. But in the present case, the final notification is issued within 01 year from
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1840-DB WA No.200121 of 2023 the date of issuance of Preliminary Notification i.e., on 26.03.2008. Thereafter, the appellant/petitioner has given the consent to pass the award on 10.06.2008. Therefore, there is no delay and the respondent authorities have not abandoned the acquisition proceedings.
11. It is relevant to note that the Apex Court in the case of M. Nagabhushana Vs. State of Karnataka and Others2 wherein it is held that Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act is not applicable to proceedings under the KIAD Act, 1966. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the respondents have abandoned the acquisition of land is unsustainable. Under these circumstances, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the discussions made herein above, we find that there is no error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the 2 (2011) 3 SCC 408
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1840-DB WA No.200121 of 2023 learned Single Judge. Therefore, the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed, and it is dismissed.
In view of the disposal of the main appeal, the pending application in I.A.No.3/2023 does not survive consideration. Accordingly, the same stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE BL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21 Ct;Vk