Karnataka High Court
The Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Ms Alokam Venkayamma on 7 March, 2018
Equivalent citations: 2018 (4) AKR 854
Bench: Chief Justice, S Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT APPEAL NOs.6387-6390 OF 2017 &
WRIT APPEAL NOs.6391-6394 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.49, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
EXECUTIVE MEMBER
NO.49, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
REP. NOW SPL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
-2-
AND:
1. Ms. ALOKAM VENKAYAMMA
W/O. Mr. ALOKAM PEDDABBAIAH
AGE 70 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.303, A BLOCK
ORACLE RESIDENCY, HOYASALANAGAR ROAD
HORAMAVU
BENGALURU-560 043.
2. M/S. DREAMLAND AVENUE PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
NSL ICON, 4TH FLOOR, #8-2-684/2/A,
PLOT NO.12
BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD-560 034
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
Mr. LOKESH REDDY
S/O. SHVIANNA S
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
4. KARNATAKA UDYOG MITRA
3RD FLOOR ,KHANIJA BHAWAN
(SOUTH WING), NO.40, RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU -560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
Ms.ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1 & R-2,
Ms.PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R-3,
-3-
NOTICE TO R-4 IS DISPENSED WITH
VIDE ORDER DATED 11.12.2017)
---
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4
OF THE HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 6.10.2017 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NOs.42663-667/17 AND 42668-670/17
ALLOWING THE PETITIONS OF RESPONDENT NOs. 1 AND 2
AND THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE ACQUISITION
PROCEEDINGS AS HAVING BEEN ABANDONED, PASSED BY
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NOs.42663-
667/17 AND 42668-670/17.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE CHIEF JUSTICE, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These intra-Court appeals are directed against the order dated 06.10.2017 as passed in Writ Petition Nos.42663- 42667/2017 and 42668-42670/2017, whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has held the impugned acquisition proceedings in relation to the land in question having been abandoned.
These appeals have been placed on Board on a memo moved on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 (writ petitioners) with the submission that in view of the decision taken by the State -4- Government to accept the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appeals deserve to be disposed of.
Having regard to the subject-matter, we have heard learned counsel for the appellants as also learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.3 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 at some length.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having examined the record, we are unable to find any justification to continue with these appeals.
The relevant background aspects of the matter are that, by way of notifications dated 03.11.2006 issued under Sections 3(1), 1(3) and 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 ('the Act') the land comprising Sy.Nos.120, 121, 122 and 123 admeasuring 4 acres each and Sy.Nos.126, 127, 128 and 129 admeasuring 2 acres each, situated at Bandikodigehalli, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, was declared to be a part of industrial area and was proposed for acquisition. The objections filed by the writ -5- petitioners were overruled and on 07.05.2007, the final notification under Section 28(4) of the Act was issued. This was challenged by the writ petitioners in W.P.No.9809/2007.
This Court, by the order dated 18.07.2011, quashed the final notification and directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer to reconsider the objections and to pass appropriate orders in terms of Section 28(3) of the Act. Thereafter, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO), Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB), passed the order on 27.06.2013 under Section 28(3) of the Act, recommending that the land in question may be dropped from the acquisition proceedings.
It appears that the present appellant No.2-KIADB, in its 329th Board Meeting dated 28.04.2014, accepted the recommendation of the SLAO and resolved to submit a proposal to the State Government to give up the land in question from acquisition. Pursuant to such a decision, a communication dated 14.08.2014 was addressed by the Chief Executive Officer and Executive Member, KIADB, to the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, -6- Department of Commerce and Industries. However, when no further action was taken by the State Government, the writ petitioners again approached this Court by filing W.P.Nos.37360- 37362/2015. The said petitions were disposed of on 20.04.2017, while recording the statement of learned Additional Government Advocate that upon granting reasonable time, the representations of the petitioners would be considered in accordance with law. Accordingly, the State Government was directed to consider and dispose of the representations within three months.
However, the matter having not been taken to finality yet, the writ petitioners again filed further writ petitions, being W.P.Nos.42663-42667/2017 and W.P.Nos.42668-42670/2017, which have been considered and disposed of by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order 06.10.2017. The learned Single Judge has, inter alia, commented extensively on the delay on the part of the Government in completing the acquisition proceedings as also in taking decision to exclude the land from acquisition -7- proceedings. Ultimately, the learned Single Judge has declared the acquisition proceedings as abandoned, while observing as under:
"10. Upon hearing learned counsel for all the parties, I find that there is no justification for the State Government to sit over the matter, particularly when the beneficiary - KIADB has considered the matter in accordance with law and has recommended in its meeting held on 14.8.2014 for exclusion of lands from acquisition. It cannot be lost sight that the land was notified for acquisition by issuing preliminary notification dated 3.11.2006. The SLAO-KIADB accepted the objections raised by petitioners and has recommended for exclusion of lands from acquisition. The State Government cannot take three years to take a decision in the matter. It cannot take more than the time that was granted by this Court to take a decision in the matter, particularly, when this Court had made it clear that decision should be taken within an outer limit of three months while passing the order dated 20.4.2017 in W.P.Nos.37360-37362/2015.
11. As rightly contended by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners, as the lands are to be regarded as still under the process of acquisition, the land owners/petitioners have been deprived of enjoying their lands in accordance with law. Such uncertainty over the rights of petitioners is due to the omission on the part of State Government.
12. It cannot take 11 years for completion of acquisition proceedings or for a decision to be taken to exclude the lands from acquisition proceedings. The State has acted according to its whims and fancies causing irreparable loss and hardship to the petitioners. Hence, absolutely there is no justification -8- for the inaction of the respondent-State. The acquisition proceedings, as rightly contended, has been abandoned both, by beneficiary and the State Government. A declaration needs to be granted in this regard keeping in mind the ends of justice.
13. Hence, these writ petitions are allowed. The impugned acquisition proceedings insofar as lands in question are concerned are declared as abandoned. Parties to bear their respective costs."
The SLAO and the Chief Executive Officer and Executive Member, KIADB have filed the present writ appeals while suggesting that with issuance of the notification under Section 28(4) of the Act, the land stood vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances and, inter alia, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.Nagabhushana vs State of Karnataka & Others: AIR 2011 SC 1113 has been referred. With reference to such submissions on behalf of the appellants, these appeals were admitted for consideration on 09.01.2018 and operation of the impugned order dated 06.10.2017 was stayed.
The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed a memo, essentially stating the facts that the State Government has taken a decision -9- not to file any appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 06.10.2017, as would appear from the certified copy of the proceedings in the Government, which is annexed along with the memo as document No.1. It is noticed in the said document No.1 that at Note No.71 by the Legal Cell Head and In-charge Under Secretary to Government, Department of Commerce and Industries the views were expressed as follows:
"71. When we examine the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, it is clear that the Special Land Acquisition Officer on conducting suitable enquiry has recommended dropping the lands under the ownership of the applicant and the said recommendation being acknowledged by the Executive Member and Officer of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board have submitted their No Objection and the same is clear. By taking all these facts into consideration, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by fixing three months time in Writ petition No.37360-37362/2015 had directed the Government of Karnataka to take suitable action. This order is published, knowing that even thereafter, the said order is not complied. Therefore, this order is correct and justifiable as per the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act. There are no suitable reasons to prefer appeal against this order. Therefore, it is opined that this is not fit case for preferring appeal."
(English translation from the original in Kannada, as supplied by respondent Nos.1 & 2)
- 10 -
It appears that, thereafter, the aforesaid views were approved in the Law Department. The learned Additional Government Advocate also candidly submits that the decision of the learned Single Judge has been accepted by the State Government and the Government does not propose to file any appeal.
In the aforesaid position, learned counsel for the appellants- KIADB, and its SLAO was queried on the very basis on which the appellants seek to continue with this litigation and that too, in the face of the position that it had been on their own proposition that the Government proceeded to give up the acquisition proceedings in regard to the land in question. Learned counsel would only endeavor to submit that the time-line for acquisition proceedings as suggested in the impugned order, is not envisaged in the scheme of the Act and, therefore, these appeals have been filed.
We are unable to find any reason or justification that the present appellants, despite their own proposition to the contrary, seek to question the order passed by the learned Single Judge so as to somehow continue with this litigation.
- 11 -
As noticed, the State Government proceeded to give up the acquisition qua the land in question only and essentially at the very instance of the present appellants. In fact, the learned Single Judge has also passed the impugned order with reference to the very proposition that emanated from the present appellants in their meeting dated 28.04.2014 and the communication dated 14.08.2014.
In the given facts and circumstances, we find no reason to continue with these appeals at the instance of the present appellants, particularly when the Government has accepted the order passed by the learned Single Judge and has taken the decision in accordance therewith. Therefore, these appeals are required to be dismissed.
Having regard to the circumstances of the case, though we are not passing any order for imposing costs in these matters, but it is expected of the authorities concerned to be discreet in their propositions, while taking the decision to proceed with any litigation. As noticed in the present case, the present appellants cannot
- 12 -
proceed with this litigation contrary to their own propositions and then, at conflict with the stand of the State Government. Having said so, we prefer to leave the matter at that only.
The appeals stand dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE SA