Nirmala Devi vs State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Nirmala Devi vs State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 2010

Bench: A.S.Bopanna

1.

rgv

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

DATED Tms THE 23m DAY OF NOVEMBER. 20:0
PRESENT A A

THE HONTSLE MR. J. S. KHEHAR, CHIEF'   .

AND

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A3. A  :'

VV_A.NO.47O/2QgO{LAsKLRDEﬁ"}=,
W. A. Nos. 472-478/20108: 3846-32-47/20'a0

BETWEEN :

1\IIRMALA[):IE3'-..71 _  _ - 
D/O SRI?NIV;+1SREDDY"" "  
ACED.A3QU<T.;§8*{.jEARS   H

R/A KONAj_:A;>PA:x!'A_ '

BEOIJR' 'ItIOBL1,. _EL_E;C"1'RO-1\II.C "CITY POST
BANGALORE-56C.41'0.Q .

KRISHNA  _'   
S / O "ABBAIAH REDDY
AGED "ABOU,Tj'--63'vYE3ARS
_ {R/A KONNAPPANA AGRAHARA
..'__'B15:--r3UR HOBLi;"'ELECTRONIC CITY POST

  BAN_C--A'LQRE--56O 1.00

 K;'G:}"--«{}OPA.J; mom
. 'S/O LATE GURAPPA REDDY
 AGED, ABOUT 63 YEARS
R./A. KONNAPPANA AGRAI-{ARA

C BEGUR HOBLI, ELECTRONIC CITY POST
'  .BANCALORE--560 1.00

G CHANDRA REDDY

S/O LATE A GURAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
KONNAPPANA AGRAHARA

%

V'?



AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE -660 O0}

REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
81 CHAIRMAN

EMPOWERED COMMITTEE
[}3IVIICP)

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

& INDUSTRIES    .
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAHA 
VIKAS SOUDHA  
BANGALORE -A 560 001   '

REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL  '    

KARNATAKA INDU--STR1AL""   
AREAS DEVELOPMENT -I_30,AR'D._ _' .  " « _ _

BMICP, 3 /2'K_I~IEI\Tf' BUILDING_
18'!' CR0SS,'~§},ANDHINACAR A ' "
EANGAIL.oR1a:;--.'_.S6o_'Q0-3, REP; BYI
CHIEF Ex-ECUTIvE"Q:EEI=CER=_ 

I3EPAR<.€I¢IENI*§V OF PI_IBLIC_ W0 RKS
GQVERN MEZNT OF'-KARNA-'I'AKA
VUr'€AS«.SOUDiv{A, BANGALORE -A 560 001
REPLBYI ITS'-PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

_;D'EPARTME_NTI CR HOUSING
v.'___"AI§_E.D URBAN 'B-E'v'ELOPMENT

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

 f ~ V\_rIEAS,'SQIIDHA
.  BANISALQRE A 560 001
K ' 'REP.'BTI_'.i'TS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

I DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

'I ~.jvII<:AS SOUDHA
.c}3ANGAL()RE~560 001

REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND
FORESTS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

I

-n



 KEY SR1 SANDEEP PATIL, ADV. FOR R1, 2, 4, 6 & 11.

  -SR1 TNARAEANASWAIAY, ADV. FOR R10 )

  O~RL§_ER PASSED IN THE W.P.NO. 265904304/2009
 VLDATLED 1%. /02/2010.

 A    THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
 DAY, A. S. BOPANNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

PARYAVARAN BITIAVAN

CGO COMPLEX, LODE-{I ROAD
NEW DELHI -- 110 003

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

8 KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
PARISARA BHAVAN
CHURCH STREET
BANGALORE W 560 001   -
REP. BY CHAIRMAN '

9 NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE. CORRIDOR
ENTERPRISES LTD.  " . I
1, MIDFORD GARDENS  '
OFF. M.G. ROAD 
BANGALORE   5  "   
REP. BY ITS MANAG-ING 'D_IRECTOjR,   _

10 NANDIECONQMIC'VC"O'RRIDQR_V Z
ENTERPRISES-.'LTL3. =:  
1, M1DFGRD':jGARD_EN'S..  
OFF. 1*}/I.G_; ROAD . A '
,  _ 
REP. BY.  MfA1'~3AC1 NG DIRECTOR
11 STATION HOUSE 'O.FF.IC.ER
POLICE STATION .-- V 
BANNER.G'IIATTA'--._ ' "
" BANGALORE  RESPONDENTS

'  "M/Sv {Si PATRIDGE, ADV. FOR C / R~9

y"'THESE':__v;rRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARI-§.ATAI<'AHIGII COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE

$2



JUDGMENT

The appellants claiming to be the owne;ﬂs»0.of different extents of lands situate in Sy.Nos. and 34/4 of Doddathogur Village and Sy. /Ct: d 53/i, 68/1A, 73/4A, 80/2, sen, :846j2'--,aiid'=:8E5f»f§_V'def? Konnappana Agrahara, Begun Hohli, Taluk, had filed writ petitions.'V::ii1VV_W:P;..VV:1\§os.l}2659O-- 604/2009 [LA--KIADB)_*~.._;T'he "sait;i.l1aends{"a1ong with other lands had ifthe illeiangalore Mysore lnfrastri1.c.t1if'e.lCdi?i;idor:'PV1aoiect::.(£01; short the 'Bl\/IICP') by the Kaihnatakatv Development Board (for short lands were included in the .--'V.A_vnoti_fieati_on dated......Of:E.O6.l999 issued under Section Act. The notiﬁcation under Section 28i4j*bf Act was issued on 08.04.2003. Though "the petivtiener had not challenged the acquisition at an point, had filed the instant petitions only during September 2009 seeking deletion of the lands. 4;

2. in that regard the following prayers were made:

"i](a) Directing the respondents herein to.._d*elet_e ' X21') the schedule lands of the petitionersq"ﬁ?o.rn~V. the process of acquisition and"

appropriate notification thereof, and ' Alternatively, quash dated 02.00.1999. issued: the she-conldi respondent under S.._2E3.{l), ,1,'lIA'D' 'Act' produced at {Atinex..ure~F] and ..n0_ti'fieation * L' dated O8.04.2003"'e» issued " by" 0 the second respondent under....S_.2.8{4) of tl1e_Kl'AD Act (Annexure«-G]';..respectiv.ely;'~i.n so as it applies to the petitioners.' A} A. d Quayshing {the dated 13.07.1999 [Arpjne':ca're§1?R}; "and Out--iine Development PIai_1._ p0£l+;:1:_e notified vide G.0. Nos. ':'._5 '?BZ;§A *2GO3~T_d_ated :y2.02.2004 (Annexure 9 A '' 'cth:erA..p'1Vfoeeedings of 1191, 12?" and 1391 "VEi'n'poWered Committees L (Annexure GGG, Annexu-re HI-IH and Annexure JJJ] Issuethan-'---appropriate writ, order or direction .0 directing the respondents herein not to take possession of the lands of the petitioners. ."l§_eclare that the lands required for the BMIC "Project are that indicated in the letter of the Secretary, PWD, Government of Karnataka. dated 03.06.1997 (AnneXure~J) Direct. the respondents to pay costs of the litigation to the petitioner and grant such other and further reliefs."

3. The learned Single Judge had considered the instant petitions along with certain other writ petitions involving the same subject matter and disrnissed.__the writ petitions by the common order dated 1 ..

4. While assailing the order of the V' Judge and questioning the acq_u'isi'Li«on."._ forth on behalf of the appellants".is"~that question are not only in exclevss'-tof the for the project, but were 'not envi's'asg;edl"cto be inclnded for the project. ReferencesA_is'f"tlierefore.l»__i.nade to the communicatioiitlated:D3;C-5:.19g?-ilanddlfits enclosures to contend' that numbers belonging to the appellants included therein. In that A convtelxt. the irigquestion did not form a part of the Wori{Agreement [for short 'the FWA') and there couldlnot 'liavelbeen change in the alignment so as to 'include vthevsubject lands. It is also contended that the A '~:lfi'alncll"s~«_.are fertile lands and should be deleted. H5. In the background of the facts involved and the Wrhcontentions raised, a perusal of the order dated 4;

C':

Judge has kept in View the opinion expressed the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 11.02.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge would indicate that the instant contentions and several other contentions were urged on behalf of all the landfloo_"sei*s including the appellants herein, who had V' acquisition in the different petitioris'.

whole issue was, whether the question and the lands involire'd>in was not sustainable since petitioriers the same were not part the Project Technical Report the following common the learned Single Judge I "i] it issued by this Court and the Ap.ex'Court to execute the Project in terms. of the Frame Work Agreement and the Project Technical Report has to be construed asnot approving the change of alignment? A. "~ii)V.V ' the present writ petitions are ' ' barred by the principles of res judicata? "

A' While considering the same, the learned i &( 9 State of Karnataka & Others -~vs- All India Manufacturers Organisation (2006 (4) SCC _6_83). Thereafter on analysing the fact situation, Single Judge has rightly held that the questitinv 1' to change in alignment and excess" 1-and -'_bei1i'g-'I,j'ijCVl'u.ded-.& were all issues Considered in the'-.previ0"i:.s relating to the same projeet;-v.:i~n» faet,u. of it the matter has also bVeen'.e1e'0nVside1+ed "ilivision Bench of this :*§zvh.i:1e-- . disposing of W.A.No. 1 192 (1iAmK;Aj0e4}.Eiiei.teed"M2i3;07.20 1 0. 7,..Th_atqapa1I71;;.CertainA0ther"§1and loosers who were the petietionersvttvtlﬁfg-~._11\/';.fiV.1'e.i§'().__' 27565-570/2009 Ie, the ConnectedttignattersK_ the common order dated V1fhiCh._...«1S impugned herein had filed and 753/2010 assailing the said cemgiiiéon dated 11.02.2010 and a Division Bench "pf this has dismissed the said appeals by order A ":.da,ted"A_«06.10.2010. Furthei', relying on the said order V""i-fﬁdated 06.10.2010, the Writ appeals ﬁled by the petitioners in W.P.Nos.1381_3~817/2009 by another set i V Endex: Y/N $0 of land ioosers against the said common order dated 11.02.2010 in W.A.Nos.1050--54/2010 were __.__'a}so dismissed by us. In that View of the mattei';:.f"g:ai'id keeping in View the appropriate opinion . the learned Single Judge on the keeping in View the appropgriateld"oﬁnion the learned Single Judge V we see no reason to accede to"'tiie'eo'i1t_entions forth by the learned counsel for}theaj3pe11an_t's'»i_?f1.erein. devoid of merit stand dis%_1;;1is's.e'ti.1d«1.; No ofdevr as..1;oWc£)sts. it ..... I Chief J ustice Sd/--» Judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court