Karnataka High Court
Chikkavenkatappa @ Venkatappa vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its Secy on 19 November, 2012
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 19Th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 17819 OF 2005 (LA-KIADB)
CONNECTED WITH
WRIT PETITION No.7029 OF 2007 (LA-KIADB)
WRIT PETITION No.27002 of 2005 (LA-KIADB)
WRIT PETITION No.40661 OF 2004 (LA-KIADB)
WRIT PETITION No.45960 OF 2004 (LA-KIADB)
WRIT PETITION No.7030 OF 2007 (LA-KIADB)
WRIT PETITION Nos.8576 OF 2011 AND 8887-90 OF 2011
(LA-KIADB)
WRIT PETITION Nos. 8575 of 2011 AND 8883-86 OF 2011
(LA-KIADB)
WRIT PETITION Nos. 8574 of 2011 AND 8768-71 OF 2011
(LA-KIADB)
WRIT PETITION No.17815 OF 2005 (LA-KIADB)
IN W.P.No.17819 OF 2005
BETWEEN:
1. Shri. Chikkavenkatappa
@ Venkatappa,
Age: 70 years,
2
Son of Late Muniswamappa
@ Murthappa,
2. Shri. C. Prakash,
Age: 40 years,
Son of Chikkavenkatappa
@ Venkatappa,
Both are residing at No.611,
3rd Cross, Police Station Road,
Hebbal,
Bangalore - 560 024. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. G.Papi Reddy, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Commerce and
Industry, M.S.Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Karnataka Industrial
Development Board,
By its Managing Director,
2nd Floor, Rashtrathona Parishath,
No.14/3A, Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Karnataka Industrial Development
Board, 2nd Floor,
Rashtrathona Parishath,
No.14 / 3A, Nrupathunga Road,
3
Bangalore - 560 001.
4. M/s. Lake View Tourism Corporation,
Represented by its
Director Sri. Dayananda Pai,
No.10/1, Lakshminarayana Complex,
Ground Floor, Palace Road,
Bangalore - 560 052. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Jayakumar S. Pail, Senior Advocate for Shri.
H.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.4
Shri. P.M.Padmanabha, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
Shri. H.T.Narendra Prasad, Government Pleader for Respondent
No.1 )
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash or set aside the
Notification dated 25.11.2002 vide Annexure - D and D1,
Notification vide Annexure-E and Notification dated 11.5.2004
vide Annexure-F and all further proceedings and etc;
IN W.P.NO.7029 OF 2007
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Muniyappa,
Son of Late Hemanna,
Aged about 44 years,
2. Sri. Venkatappa
@ Venkataram,
Son of Late Muniyellappa,
Aged about 76 years,
4
3. Sri. Muniyappa
@ Jothe Muniyappa,
Son of Late Muniyellappa,
Aged about 69 years,
All are residing at Hebbala Grama,
Kasaba Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. N.J.Ramesh, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Commerce and
Industries, M.S.Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Karnataka Industrial
Area Development Board,
Represented by its
Chief Executive Officer and
Executive Member,
Situated at No.14/3,
II Floor, Rashtrothana Parished Bhavan,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 560 002.
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer,
Karnataka Industrial Area
Development Board,
Plot No.488/B, 14th Cross,
KIADB Complex,
5
3rd Block, 4th Phase,
Peenya Industrial Area,
II Stage, Bangalore - 560 058.
4. M/s. Lake View Tourism
Corporation,
Represented by its Director,
No.10/1, Lakshminarayana
Complex, Ground Floor,
Palace Road,
Bangalore - 560 052. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. H.T.Narendra Prasad, Government Pleader for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S.Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. H.Srinivasa
Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.4
Shri. P.V.Chandrashekar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3)
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to set aside the Notification dated
25.11.2002 issued under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Industrial
Area Development Board Act, 1966, produced at Annexure-H and
preliminary Notification dated 25.11.2002 issued under Section
28(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act,
1966 produced at Annexure-J in respect of petitioners land shown
at item No.34 at page-17 and also the final Notification dated
11.5.2004, for acquisition issued under Section 28(4) of the
Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act, 1966
produced at Annexure-O in respect of the petitioners land shown
at item No.33 in page-5 and etc;
6
IN W.P.No.27002 OF 2005
BETWEEN:
M.Shankrappa,
Son of Late Munidasappa,
Aged 55 years,
No.425, 'Shiva Krupa',
2nd Cross, S.B.Layout,
1st Main Road, Hebbal,
Bangalore - 560 024. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. M.S.Varadarajan, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Secretary to Government,
Commerce and Industries Department,
M.S.Building,
Bangalore.
2. Industrial Area Development
Board by its Secretary,
Peenya Industrial Estate,
Peenya, Bangalore.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer,
Karnataka Industrial Area
Development Board,
Peenya Industrial Estate,
Bangalore. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. H.T. Narendra Prasad, Government Pleader for
Respondent No.1
7
Shri. Basavaraj V.Sabarad, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and
3)
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
Notification dated 25.11.2002 vide Annexure-E and quash the
final Notification dated 11.5.2004 in No.CI 148 SCQ:2004
(Annexure-G) in so far as both the notifications relate to the
petitioner's land bearing Sy.No.82/2, S.No.83/3 and S.No.59/5
situate in Hebbal Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk.
IN W.P.No.40661 OF 2004
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Krishna Reddy,
Son of Papaiah Reddy,
Aged about 85 years,
Legal representatives of
Deceased petitioner No.1
1a)Papaiah Reddy,
Aged about 64 years,
2nd Cross, Papaiah Reddy Layout,
Mannarayana Palya,
R.T.Nagar, Bangalore - 560 032.
1b)Chandra Reddy,
Aged about 61 years,
2nd Cross, No.21,
Papaiah Reddy Layout,
Mannarayana Palya,
8
R.T.Nagar, Bangalore - 560 032.
1c)Muni Reddy,
Aged about 59 years,
No.2/9, Papaiah Reddy Lay out,
II Cross, Mannarayana Palya,
R.T.Nagar, Bangalore - 560 032.
1d)Venkatesh Reddy,
Aged about 48 years,
No.2/9, Papaiah Reddy Layout,
Mannarayana Palya,
R.T.Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 032.
[cause title amended
vide court order dated 31.10.2012]
2. Sri. Umesh,
Son of Late Abbaiah Reddy,
Aged about 35 years,
3. Sri. Ravi Kumar,
Son of Late Iyappa Reddy,
Aged about 35 years,
4. Sri. P.Venkataswamy Reddy,
Son of Late Papaiah Reddy,
Aged about 78 years,
5. Muniswamy Reddy,
Son of Papaiah Reddy,
Aged about 70 years,
All residents of
9
Papaiah Reddy Layout,
Mannarayana Palya,
R.T.Nagar Post,
Bangalore - 560 032. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. S.N.Aswathanarayana, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka
By its Principal Secretary
To the Government,
Commerce and Industries Department,
M.S.Building,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Karnataka Industrial Area
Development Board,
Represented by its
Executive Member Rashtrothana
Parishad Building,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. Bangalore Development Authority,
Represented by its Secretary,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020.
4. M/s. Lake View Tourism Corporation,
No.10/1, Lakshminarayan Complex,
Ground Floor,
Palace Road,
10
Bangalore - 560 052.
[cause title amended
vide court order dated 22.8.2009] ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. P.V.Chandrashekar, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Shri. Jayakumar S.Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. H.Srinivasa
Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.4
Shri. H.T.Narendra Prasad, Government Pleader for Respondent
No.1)
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the notification dated
11.5.2004 by first respondent vide Annexure-G in so far as it
pertains to land in Sy.No.2/11A, 2/16 of Hebbal Village, Kasaba
Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore mentioned at Sl.No.13
and 20 of the impugned Notification and grant all consequential
benefits.
IN W.P.No.45960 OF 2004
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. V.Muniraju,
Aged about 58 years,
Son of Venkataswamy,
2. Sri. Balakrishna,
Aged about 55 years,
Son of Venkataswamy,
3. Sri. V.Srinivas,
Aged about 48 years,
Son of Venkataswamy,
11
All are residing at No.415,
1st Main Road, Hebbala,
Kasaba Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk.
4. Sri. Marisonnappa,
Aged about 60 years,
Son of Late Papanna,
5. Sri. G.Gopal,
Aged about 45 years,
Son of Jayanna,
Both are residing at Hebbala,
Bangalore - 560 024. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. S. Chennaraya Reddy, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Commerce and Industries
Department,
[Industries Development]
M.S.Building,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Karnataka Industrial Area
Development Board,
Rashtrothana Buildings,
N.R.Road,
12
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented by its
Executive Member.
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, 10A, 5th Floor,
Chandra Kiran Building,
Kasturba Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
4. Bangalore Development
Authority,
Represented by its Commissioner,
Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020.
[cause title amended
vide court order dated
11.7.2008 in W.P.No.39231/04]
5. M/s. Lake View Tourism
Corporation, No.10/1,
Lakshminarayana Complex,
Ground Floor,
Palace Road,
Bangalore - 560 052.
[cause title amended
as per court order
dated 21.8.2009] .... RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. H.T.Narendra Prasad, Government Pleader for
Respondent No.1
Shri. B.R.Srinivasa Gowda, Advocate for Respondent No.2
13
Shri. Jayakumar S.Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. H.Srinivasa
Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.5
Shri. Praveen Kumar Raikote, Advocate for Respondent No.3
Shri. K.Krishna, Advocate for Respondent No.4)
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the set aside the impugned
notifications dated 25.11.2002 and dated 11.5.2004 vide
Annexure-C and F respectively in so far as it relates to the lands in
Sy.No.83/3 of Hebbala Village, measuring 22 guntas, situated at
Hebbala Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk belong to
the petitioners in the first Writ Petition, Sy. No.82/4 measuring 6
guntas situated at Hebbala Village and Sy.No.2/7 measuring 4
guntas of Hebbala Amanikere Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore
North Taluk belong to the petitioners.
IN W.P.No.7030 OF 2007
BETWEEN:
Smt. Chinnamma,
Wife of Venkatappa alias
Venkataram,
Aged about 65 years,
Residing at Hebbal Grama,
Kasaba Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. N.J. Ramesh, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
14
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Commerce and
Industries, M.S.Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Karnataka Industrial Area
Development Board,
Represented by its
Chief Executive Officer and
Executive Member,
Situated at No.14/3, II Floor,
Rashtrothana Parishad Bhavan,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 560 002.
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer,
Karnataka Industrial Area
Development Board,
Plot No.488/B,
14th Cross, KIADB Complex,
3rd Block, 4th Phase,
Peenya Industrial Area,
II Stage, Bangalore - 560 058.
4. M/s. Lake View Tourism
Corporation,
Represented by its Director,
No.10/1, Lakshminarayana Complex,
Ground Floor,
Palace Road,
Bangalore - 560 052. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. P.V.Chandrashekar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2
and 3
15
Shri. Jayakumar S.Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. H.Srinivasa
Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.4
Shri. H.T.Narendra Prasad, Government Pleader for Respondent
No.1)
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash or set aside the
notifications dated 25.11.2002 issued under Section 3(1) of the
Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act, 1966
produced at Annexure-H, in respect of the petitioner's land shown
at serial No.38 and preliminary notification dated 25.11.2002
issued under Section 28(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Area
Development Board Act, 1966 produced at Annexure-J in respect
of petitioner's land shown at item No.38 at page-18 and also the
final notification dated 11.5.2004 for acquisition issued under
Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development
Board Act, 1966 produced at Annexure-N in respect of the
petitioner's land shown at item No.36 in page - 6 and etc;
IN W.P.Nos.8576/2011 AND 8887-90/2011
BETWEEN:
1. Chandrashekar,
Son of Late Venkataramanappa,
Aged about 46 years,
Resident of no.123,
Behind Government School,
4th 'A' Cross,
Asrama Road,
Bangalore - 560 024.
2. M. Bhojaraja Reddy,
Son of Muniswamy Reddy,
16
Aged about 65 years,
Residing at No.39,
2nd Cross, Rathnamma Layout,
Mannorayanapalya,
R.T.Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 032.
3. J. Syed Khaiyum,
Son of R.S.Jalal,
Aged about 33 years,
Residing at No.93,
Weaver's Street,
Hosur - 635 109,
Tamil Nadu. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. S.N.Ashwathanarayana, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
Industries and Commerce Department,
Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi,
M.S.Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Karnataka Industrial Area
Development Board,
Represented by its
Executive Member,
Rashtrothana Parishad Building,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
17
3. M/s. Lakeview Tourism Corporation,
No.10/1, Laxminarayana Complex,
Ground Floor, Palace Road,
Bangalore - 560 052,
Represented by Secretary. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. H.T. Narendra Prasad, Government Pleader for
Respondent No.1
Shri. P.M. Padmanabha, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Shri. Jayakumar S.Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. H.Srinivasa
Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.3)
*****
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to call for records leading to the
notification dated 11.05.2004 and quash the Notification dated
11.5.2004 issued by the first respondent vide Annexure-D in so far
as it pertains to land in Sy. No.59/5, 82/2, 83/3, 84/3 of Hebbal
village and Sy.No.2/17 of Hebbal Amanikere Kasaba Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore District, mentioned at Sl.No.5,
37, 42, 45 of Hebbal Village and at Sl.No.23 of Hebbal
Amanikere in the impugned Notification, by issue of a writ of
certiorari and grant all consequential benefits.
IN W.P.Nos. 8575/2011 and 8883-86/2011
BETWEEN:
1. Ravi Kumar,
Son of Late Shamaiah,
Aged about 48 years,
2. Ramu,
Son of Late Shamaiah,
Aged about 42 years,
18
Both are residing at No.10,
Eshwar Temple Road,
Near Ring Road,
Hebbal,
Bangalore - 560 024.
3. M. Bhojaraja Reddy,
Son of Muniswamy Reddy,
Aged about 65 years,
Residing at No.39,
2nd Cross, Rathnamma Layout,
Mannorayanapalya,
R.T.Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 032.
4. J. Syed Kaiyum,
Son of R.S.Jalal,
Aged about 33 years,
Residing at No.93,
Weaver's Street,
Hosur - 635 109,
Tamil Nadu. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. S.N.Aswathanarayana, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
Industries and Commerce Department,
Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi,
M.S.Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.
19
2. Karnataka Industrial
Area Development Board,
Represented by its
Executive Member,
Rashtrothana Parishad Building,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. M/s. Lakeview Tourism Corporation,
No.10/1, Laxminarayana Complex,
Grond Floor, Palace Road,
Bangalore - 560 052,
By its Secretary. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. H.T.Narendra Prasad, Government Pleader for
Respondent No.1
Shri. P.M.Padmanabha, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Shri. Jayakumar S.Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. H.Srinivasa
Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.3)
These Writ Petitions are filed under articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to call for records leading to the
notification dated 11.5.2004 and quash the notification dated
11.5.2004 issued by the first respondent vide Annexure-D, in so
far as it pertains to land in Sy.No.59/5, 82/2, 83/3, 84/3 of Hebbal
Village, and Sy.No.2/17 of Hebbal Amanikere Kasaba Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore District, mentioned at Sl.No.5,
37, 42, 45 of Hebbal Village and at Sl.No.23 of Hebbal
Amanikere in the impugned notification and grant all
consequential benefits.
20
IN W.P.Nos.8574/2011 AND 8768-71/2011
BETWEEN:
1. Jagadish,
Son of Late Krishnappa,
Aged about 42 years,
2. Suresh,
Son of Late Krishnappa,
Aged about 38 years,
Both are residing at
No.10, Eshwar Temple Road,
Near Ring Road,
Hebbal,
Bangalore - 560 024.
3. Bhojaraja Reddy,
Son of Muniswamy Reddy,
Aged about 65 years,
Residing at No.39,
2nd Cross, Rathnamma Layout,
Mannorayanapalya,
R.T.Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 032.
4. J. Syed Kaiyum,
Son of R.S.Jalal,
Aged about 33 years,
Residing at No.93,
Weaver's Street,
Hosur - 635 109,
Tamil Nadu. ...PETITIONERS
21
(By Shri. S.N.Aswathanarayana, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
Industries and Commerce Department,
Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi,
M.S.Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Karnataka Industrial
Area Development Board,
Represented by its
Executive Member,
Rashtrothana Parishad Building,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. M/s. Lakeview Tourism Corporation,
No.10/1, Laxminarayana Complex,
Grond Floor, Palace Road,
Bangalore - 560 052. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. H.T.Narendra Prasad, Government Pleader for
Respondent No.1
Shri. P.M.Padmanabha, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Shri. Jayakumar S.Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. H. Srinivasa
Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.3)
These Writ Petitions are filed under articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to call for records leading to the
notification dated 11.5.2004 and quash the notification dated
11.5.2004 issued by the first respondent vide Annexure-D, in so
22
far as it pertains to land in Sy.No.59/5, 82/2, 83/3, 84/3 of Hebbal
Village, and Sy.No.2/17 of Hebbal Amanikere Kasaba Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore District, mentioned at Sl.No.
37, 42, 45 of Hebbal Village and at Sl.No.23 of Hebbal
Amanikere in the impugned notification and grant all
consequential benefits.
IN W.P.No.17815 OF 2005
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Narayanamma,
Wife of Neerabhavi Muniyappa,
Aged about 73 years,
2. Sri. H.M.Krishnappa,
Son of Late Neerabhavi Muniyappa,
Aged about 59 years,
3. Smt. Munirathnamma,
Wife of Late Byregowda,
Aged about 44 years,
4. Sri. H.M.Raghu,
Son of Late Neerabhavi Muniyappa,
Aged about 44 years,
5. Sri. M.Devaraj,
Son of Late Neerabhavi Muniyappa,
Aged about 40 years,
6. Smt. Hanumakka,
Wife of Late Neerbhavi Kempanna,
Aged about 71 years,
23
[petitioner Nos. 1 to 6
rejected vide order dated 9.7.2010]
7. Smt. K. Chandrakala,
Daughter of Late Neerbhavi Kempanna,
Aged about 39 years,
All are residents of No.645,
2nd Main Road,
Hebbal,
Bangalore - 560 024. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. Y.R.Sadashiva Reddy, Advocate for Petitioner No.7)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Commerce and Industry,
M.S.Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Karnataka Industrial
Development Board,
By its Managing Director,
2nd floor, Rashtrathona Parishath,
No.14/3A, Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Karnataka Industrial Development Board,
2nd Floor, Rashtrathona Parishath,
No.14/3A, Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
24
4. M/s. Lake View Tourism Corporation,
Represented by its Director
Sri. Dayananda Pai, No.10/1,
Lakshminarayana Complex,
Ground Floor, Palace Road,
Bangalore - 560 052. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. H.T. Narendra Prasad, Government Pleader for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Jayakumar S.Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. H. Srinivasa
Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.4
Shri. P.M. Padmanabha, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash or set aside the
notifications dated 25.11.2002 vide Annexure-D and D1,
notification vide Annexure-E and Notification dated 11.5.2004
vide Annexure-F and all further proceedings.
These petitions, having been heard and reserved on
31.10.2012 and coming on for Pronouncement of Orders this day,
the Court delivered the following:-
25
ORDER
These petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. The brief particulars of each of the petitions are mentioned, before addressing the common contentions raised in each of these petitions.
WP 7029/2007: The petitioners claim that they are the absolute owners of land bearing Survey no.75/1 of Hebbal Grama, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore, measuring 23 guntas. They claim to be jointly holding the same by inheritance under their ancestors. The petitioners are earning their livelihood by growing vegetables on the said land.
WP 7030/2007 : The petitioner is said to be the owner in possession of land measuring 7 guntas in survey no.82/3 of Hebbal Grama, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, having acquired the same in the year 1960 under a registered sale deed. 26 She is said to be carrying on agricultural operations on the said land.
WP 17819/2005 : The petitioners are said to be the owners of land bearing survey no. 74 measuring 25 guntas of Hebbal village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk.
WP 27002 /2005 : The petitioner is said to be the owner of three items of agricultural land bearing Survey no. 82/2 , 83/3 and 59/5 measuring 5½ guntas, 9½ guntas and 10¼ guntas, respectively, of Hebbal village. The petitioner claims that the same has fallen to his share at a family partition.
WP 40661/2004 : The petitioners claim as the members of a Hindu joint family and are said to be holding land bearing survey no. 2/11 A measuring 31 guntas and survey no. 2/16 A measuring 6 guntas of Hebbal Village.
27
WP 8575 & WP 8883 to 8886/2011 : The first and second petitioner claim to have acquired lands bearing Survey no. 59/5, 82/2, 83/3, 84/3 and 2/17 of Hebbal, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring 2½ guntas, 1¾ guntas, 20¼ guntas, 2¼ guntas and 3¾ guntas, respectively, at a family partition. It is stated that petitioners 1 and 2 have entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the said lands under an agreement dated 18-12-2004 .
WP 8576 & WP 8887 to 8890/2011: The first petitioner claims under one Venkataramanappa, who during his life time is said to have acquired the following lands at a family partition, bearing survey nos. 59/5, 82/2, 83/3 and 84/3 and 2/17 measuring 2½ guntas, 1¾ guntas, 2¼ guntas, 2¼ guntas and 3¾ guntas, respectively, of Hebbal Amanikere Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The first petitioner has in turn entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the same with petitioner nos.2 and 3 under a deed dated 18-12-2004.
28
WP 45960/2004 & WP 540/2005: The petitioners in the first of these petitions are said to be the owners of land measuring 22 guntas in survey number 83/3 of Hebbal, with a farm house thereon.
The petitioners in the second of these petitions are said to be the joint owners of land bearing survey no.82/4 measuring 6 guntas of Hebbal Village and survey no.2/7 measuring 4 guntas of Hebbal Amanikere village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. They claim to be rearing milk cattle on the land and eking out their livelihood.
WP 8574 & 8768 to WP 8771/2011 : Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 claim to have inherited the following items of land from one Krishnappa, who in turn, had acquired the same at a family partition, namely, lands in survey nos. 59/5, 82/2, 83/3, 84/3 of Hebbal village, measuring - 2½ guntas, 1¾ guntas, 2¼ guntas and 2¼ guntas, respectively, and land in survey no.2/17 of Hebbal Amanikere Village measuring 3¾ guntas. It is stated that 29 petitioners 1 and 2 have entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the lands with petitioners 3 and 4 under an agreement dated 18-12-2004.
WP 17815/2005 : The petitioners are said to be owners of land bearing survey no.65/7, measuring 1 acre and 14 guntas of Hebbal village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. Except petitioner no.7, all other petitioners have abandoned the proceedings.
3. The petitioners in all the above petitions are commonly aggrieved by their respective lands being declared as part of an industrial area under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'KIAD Act' for brevity), and the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB- for the benefit of M/s Lakeview Tourism Corporation, (Hereinafter referred to as ' the LTC' for 30 brevity) a private limited company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
It is stated that the promoters of LTC had approached the State Government of Karnataka, during the year 2000 claiming that the said company intended to establish a "Unicare Tourist Centre" comprising a resort, a five-star hotel, an amusement park, water park, health club, recreation facilities, convention centre, Indian arts and crafts exhibition, restaurants, shopping complexes, etc., and that it had already negotiated with land owners of Hebbal and Hebbal Ammanikere villages to purchase 33 acres of land. These lands were off the National Highway no.7. LTC had expressed that it required another 37 acres of land in the same area, in addition to the above extent of lands to establish its project. The State Government in turn is said to have placed the proposal before a State High Level Committee to examine the same. The said Committee by its order dated 28-6-2000, had recommended that the 37 acres of land required by LTC could be acquired and allotted by recourse to the KIAD Act. The State 31 Government had accepted the recommendation by its order dated 10-7-2000.
It transpires that the Committee had by a further order dated 14-8-2001, opined that the entire extent of 70 acres of land required by LTC , be acquired by the State under the provisions of the KIAD Act. It is pursuant to the same that a notification dated 25-11-2002 , was issued declaring an extent of 63 acres and 33 guntas of land under Section 3 (1) and Section 1 (3) of the KIAD Act, as Industrial Area. The lands of all the petitioners were included therein.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, had then issued a notification under Section 28 (1) of the KIAD Act, dated 25-11-2002, proposing to acquire 46 acres and 20 guntas of land in Hebbal village and an extent of 15 acres and 22 guntas of land in Hebbal Ammanikere village, in all measuring about 62.02 acres. Objections were called for from the land owners. 32 Notwithstanding the several objections filed, a notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act, dated 11-5-2004, was issued proposing to acquire 53 acres 26 guntas of land, of which, 40 acres 12 guntas was of Hebbal village and the other 13 acres and 14 guntas was of Hebbal Ammanikere village.
Incidentally, the State Government had also issued a notification under Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, (Hereinafter referred to as the 'BDA Act', for brevity), dated 3-2-2003, proposing to acquire the very lands which were the subject matter of acquisition proceedings as aforesaid, purportedly for the formation of a residential layout known as the Arkavathi Layout. A further notification under Section 19 of the BDA Act, had also been issued as on 3-2-2004. As these acquisition proceedings overlapped, the same were subject to challenge before this court in writ proceedings. This court had, by an order dated 20-5-2005 quashed the acquisition proceedings initiated under the provisions of the BDA Act. 33
When the proceedings under the KIAD Act were sought to be pursued further, the present writ petitions were filed from time to time.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, Shriyuths G.Papi Reddy, N.J.Ramesh, M.S.Varadarajan, S.N. Aswathanarayana, S. Channaraya Reddy, M.V. Vedachala, G. Papi Reddy, and Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate, appearing for the counsel for LTC and the learned Government Pleader Shri H.T. Narendra Prasad.
It is contended by the petitioners that the acquisition proceedings are initiated with the sole motive of benefitting LTC , a private company. The entire machinery of the State Government is mobilized to deprive the petitioners of their land, which is their only source of livelihood, only to confer it on the respondent company for its private profit- in the guise of serving a public purpose.
34
It is contended that having regard to the tenor of Section 28(1) of the KIADB Act, the State Government should form an opinion, in every given case , that the land sought to be acquired is required for development by the Board or for a similar purpose and only thereafter notify its intention to acquire such land. It is contended that the State Government had not at all acted independently. On the other hand, it had abdicated its statutory duty in this regard, by conferring the complete decision making process as regards the necessity and object of the acquisition of land and whether such acquisition for the benefit of LTC, would in any manner sub-serve public good, in the hands of the "State High Level Committee" - whose decision was treated as final , on all aspects - including the extent of land to be acquired for the benefit of LTC. The said Committee was not a body created under any statute and could have hardly prompted the State to invoke its power under Section 28(1) of the Act, on the basis of the decision of the High Level Committee. It is emphasized that the role attributed to the High level committee is not of an 35 advisory character, but that of a final authority on every aspect of the proposed project of LTC and particularly of the extent of land to be acquired for the purpose. It is hence contended that the State government having clearly abdicated its statutory duty in an independent application of mind there is a clear violation of Section 28 (1) of the KIADB Act.
It is contended that the State High Level Clearance Committee was conferred any statutory power only under the Karnataka Industries (Facilitation) Act, 2002, (Hereinafter referred to as the 'KIF Act', for brevity), which came into force with effect from 22-12-2003 . Hence the said Committee was not competent to recommend the acquisition of any land which has in fact been acquired under an expropriatory legislation such as the KIAD Act.
It is contended that the entire acquisition proceedings having been engineered by LTC is evident from the glaring and admitted circumstances. The initiative to acquire land for forming 36 an industrial area is certainly that of the State, as contemplated under the provisions of the KIAD Act. In the instant case however, it is LTC which has taken the initiative from inception. It is LTC which has prompted the State government to proceed with the acquisition proceedings of the pre-determined extent sought by it for its project. It is LTC which has identified the location of the lands. But the proceedings itself having been initiated without reference to the actual beneficiary , when the entire exercise was to meet the specific requirement of LTC, being glossed over in the acquisition proceedings - as the Scheme of the KIADB Act does not envisage such pre-meditated acquisition for the benefit and at the instance of a private party. In the result, it is contended, that the process and procedure of acquisition contemplated under the Act is subverted and the State government has reduced itself to the status of an agent to acquire land for the benefit of LTC.
37
It is contended that the owner or occupier of the land which is proposed to be acquired is provided with a right under Sub- section (2) of Section 28 of the KIADB Act, to object to the proposed acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Act. The same is to be considered and decided under Sub-section (3). This process partakes a quasi-judicial character. This right of the petitioners to an impartial consideration of objections is completely eliminated as the decision to acquire the land of the petitioners is pre-meditated and certain.
It is pointed out that in terms of the Comprehensive Development Plan under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, (Hereinafter referred to as the 'KTCP Act', for brevity), the lands sought to be acquired fall within a zone earmarked as Park Zone . As any development as proposed by the beneficiary, LTC , is impermissible in that Zone, the acquisition proceedings are a futility. The state government has remained oblivious to this glaring circumstance. It is apparent that this 38 aspect of the matter has not been addressed at any level in either initiating the acquisition nor even thereafter.
It is vehemently contended by the petitioners that the real object of LTC is to acquire real property through the medium of the State at a fraction of the cost and to ultimately deal with the property as real estate. In this regard it is pointed out that admittedly the company had negotiated with many land owners to purchase their lands, which were to be utilized for the project along with other lands to be acquired - it is asserted that when the promoters of LTC were ready and willing to pay in excess of Rs. 1.50 crore per acre of land to such land owners in private transactions - were only too happy to have similar lands of the other land owners , including the petitioners , being acquired at a nominal rate of Rs.15 lakh per acre. It is alleged that the promoters intended to have the said lands which were subject matter of private agreements - denotified , to be dealt with as real 39 estate, which explains the phenomenal amounts of initial investments made.
The learned counsel for the petitioners rely on a large number of decisions in support of the above contentions and seek that the acquisition proceedings be set at naught.
5. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners have not addressed all the facts and circumstances in seeking to project a dim view of the actions of the State government and the alleged mala fides of the private respondent. It is sought to be pointed out that the State government had called a Global Investors Meet in June 2000, requesting entrepreneurs to invest substantial amounts for industrial development in the State. It is claimed that LTC had proposed to set up a Tourism related project, with an initial investment of Rs. 250 crore. There was no illegality or irregularity in LTC also having proposed that the land requirement 40 was about 70 acres and the same also having been identified by the said LTC, with a further proposal that the same be acquired for the purpose. The state government which was not bound by such a proposal, had subjected the same to scrutiny by a State Level High Power Committee headed by several Ministers and comprising of other heads of Departments, which ultimately approved the project. It was incidental that the project envisaged the need for acquisition of about 70 acres of land - which was in turn approved by the Committee. This exercise, which was carried out in a transparent manner, is not an illegal departure from the known process of the state government identifying an area and declaring it as an industrial area and after completing the acquisition proceedings in respect of the same and forming an industrial area to allot the same to prospective entrepreneurs to set up their industries as envisaged under the provisions of the KIADB Act. The prior identification of an entrepreneur and its project and the exact land required for its project cannot be characterized as a sell out in favour of a private party by the State 41 Government. As claimed above, the State government had found the proposal of LTC to be feasible and had thus accepted the proposal of the High Level Committee to acquire land as required by LTC and therefore had called upon the said company to deposit Rs.1.08 crore, which was substantially complied with. It is also contended that the High Level committee constituted by the State Government was in exercise of power under Article 162 of the constitution of India , and therefore is statutory in nature . Further the constitution of the Committee was in order to hasten the process of clearance of projects and to minimize bureaucratic delays .
It is contended that the High Level Committee constituted by the State Government and which recommended the approval of the project of LTC consisted of four ministers and several heads of departments of the State Government who had taken a conscious decision and that there was no application of mind in the decision making process is a baseless allegation. 42
It is emphasized that the State government has duly verified the proposal as approved by the State level committee at various levels, including that of a Sub-committee of the State cabinet. It is also asserted that to characterize the proposal as a private deal involving real property and that there is only private interest involved and that no public purpose is served, etc., is an unfair allegation in the face of the huge investment of finances by LTC and the potential for creation of atleast 2000 jobs.
It is contended that as regards the objection that the land in question falls within the Park Zone and hence cannot be utilized for any industrial purpose, is not relevant, as the classification under the CDP, is not significant, if once the land is declared and notified as an industrial area under the provisions of the KIADB Act. Section 47 of the Act overrides anything to the contrary contained in the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act.
It is also refuted that the project lacks any public purpose. The purpose of acquisition is for establishing a tourism related 43 project sanctioned by the state government. Any such project would invite tourists from other parts of the world and would augment the revenue of the state.
It is contended that the total extent of land acquired is 55 acres and 13 guntas, whereas the entire extent of land of all the petitioners included does not exceed 2 acres and 35 guntas. The other land owners have not opposed the acquisition proceedings and therefore the same requires to be kept in view.
On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances and the material available on record, the rival contentions may be broadly met by the following conclusions:
In so far as the departure from the usual circumstances of an entrepreneur having approached the State Government with a proposal of establishing a " Unicare Tourist Centre " is as a result of the participation of LTC at the Global Investors Meet held by the State Government in the year 2000. And LTC having offered to invest substantial amounts of money in the project. The 44 decisions thereafter by the State government to refer the project proposal to the State High Level Committee and to acquire land by recourse to the provisions of the KIADB Act, is entirely of the State government. The promoters of LTC at the relevant point of time being partners of a firm or directors of private limited companies is not at all relevant. It is on record that the promoters have deposited substantial amounts of money (Rs.10 crore ) towards the cost of land acquisition to establish their bona fides.
The contention that the State Government had abdicated its statutory power to the State High Level Committee in having sought its approval not only as regards the viability of the project proposal of LTC but also of the extent of land required and the decision to acquire land by recourse to the KIADB Act, does not give rise to any such presumption. There is material on record to demonstrate that the State Government has acted independently in arriving at its decisions - which may have been consistent with the opinion expressed by the committee. This need not be viewed 45 with any suspicion - having regard to its composition and the role assigned to the Committee by the State Government.
That in so far as the acquisition proceedings initiated under the provisions of the BDA Act, which overlapped with the acquisition proceedings initiated under the provisions of the KIAD Act, is concerned, the same having been challenged by LTC in writ proceedings before this court in WP 46785/2004, the same was allowed by an order dated 23-10-2010 . The said order was affirmed by a Division Bench of this court, in appeal, holding that the property stood vested in the State even prior to the proceedings initiated under the BDA Act.
The contention that the lands in question are within the Park Zone as classified under the Comprehensive Development Plan and hence were not available for development is concerned, is incorrect. The setting up of a tourism related project was in consonance with the then zoning regulations. Notwithstanding that the lands are declared as an industrial area- the industry contemplated was not in the nature of a manufacturing industry 46 and there was no intended change of user which was counter to the permissible activity. In any event, having regard to the law as laid down by the apex court in the case of Bhagath Singh v. State of UP (1999) 2 SCC 384, it is not necessary that the land proposed for acquisition by the government for public purpose should be for the same purpose or use mentioned in the Master plan or Zonal Plan for the area.
The allegations as to the respondent company or its promoters indulging in profiteering, by seeking to deal with the lands in question as real estate and that they are not likely to utilize any portion of the same for the project, is apparent speculation. In the usual course of things, the land would be transferred only by way of a lease in the first instance. The State Government is in a position to ensure that the land shall not be transferred unless the project is fully implemented within a time frame, failing which the allotted land shall stand forfeited to the State.47
6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners have cited a large number of decisions seeking to draw sustenance from various observations made in those decisions- the same are not in the context bearing any relevance to the facts and circumstances of the present case and therefore, are not referred to or addressed.
Incidentally, the contention of the petitioners that certain lands, which were notified for acquisition were denotified and hence would render the acquisition bad in law, is also not tenable. The respondent company has challenged the de-notification in a pending writ petition, in WP 22888 /2010, before this court.
In the result, the petitions are without merit and are hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv*