Karnataka High Court
Dr T S Nagaraju vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 January, 2018
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna
-: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
WRIT PETITION No.58838/2016 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. DR. T.S. NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
S/O. LATE SIDDEGOWDA,
(SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT
NOT CLAIMED).
2. SRI T.N. PRAJWAL
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
S/O. DR. T.S. NAGARAJU
BOTH ARE R/AT: NO.5259,
"PARAMPARE" 1ST BLOCK,
2ND CROSS, KANAKADASA NAGARA,
DATTAGAHALLY,
MYSURU - 570 022. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI: B.S. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE
(INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT)
M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD
(KIADB) REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
# 49, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR,
KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
(B.M.I.C.P.) NO.2083/2,
1ST CROSS, SUBASH NAGAR,
MANDYA - 571 401.
-: 2 :-
4. BANGALORE MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR,
AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY (BMICAPA)
REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY
NO.5, 2ND FLOOR, LOOP LANE,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 009. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: VIJAYA KUMAR A. PATIL, ADDL. GOVT. ADV. FOR R-1;
SRI P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3;
SRI. I.G. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
*****
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY R-1 IN SPECIAL
GAZETTED NOTIFICATION DTD.03.07.1999, PUBLISHED AT
SL.NO.10(3) OF PAGES 489 AND SL.NO.14 (3) OF PAGE 490 IN
REF. NO.CI 196 SPQ 98 AT NO.762 OF PART-III AT ANNEX-A IN
SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER'S LAND IN SY.NO.218 AND
MEASURING 3 ACRES 3 GUNTAS (NOW RENUMBERED AS
SY.NO.218/1, 218/2, 218/3 AND SY.NO.218/4) OF RAMNAHALLI
VILLAGE, SITUATED AT RAMNAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI,
MYSURU TALUK, ARE CONCERNED.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is listed for consideration of I.A.1/17 for impleadment. However, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, it is heard finally.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners aver that the petitioners are in possession of lands bearing Sy.Nos.218/1, 218/2, 218/3 and 218/4, totally measuring -: 3 :- 3 acres 2 guntas of Ramnahally Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk. The said lands were notified for the purpose of Bangalore-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project by respondent No.1/State. However, the acquisition remained incomplete as the Preliminary Notification dated 03/07/1999 issued under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act", for the sake of brevity) has not been followed by issuance of a declaration and final notification under sub-section (4) of Section 28 of the said Act. In the circumstances, petitioners have sought quashing of the Preliminary Notification dated 03/07/1999.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondents as well as perused the material on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that Preliminary Notification was issued in July 1999. Till date, the State has not taken any step to issue declaration and Final Notification under Section 28(4) of the Act. It must be construed and declared that the State has abandoned acquisition in the instant case. Placing -: 4 :- reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of H.N. Shivanna & others vs. State of Karnataka & another [2013 (4) AKR 163] (H.N. Shivanna) and the judgment of another Division Bench reported in the case of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board vs. Smt. Anitha Purnesh [W.A.No.2402/2014 (LA-KIADB), disposed on 12/04/2016] (Smt. Anitha Purnesh), learned counsel for the petitioners contended that a similar relief may be granted in this case also by declaring that there has been an abandonment of acquisition insofar as petitioners' lands are concerned.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents would fairly submit that in the case of Smt. Anitha Purnesh, the Division Bench has followed the dictum of another Division Bench in the case of H.N.Shivanna referred to above. It is also stated at the Bar that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not entertained the special leave petition filed against the judgment passed in the case of Smt. Anitha Purnesh.
6. It is noted that in the instant case, the acquisition Notification was issued under Section 28(1) of -: 5 :- the Act as far back on 03/07/1999, which is almost two decades ago. Till date, no steps have been taken to issue the declaration and Final Notification. When the State has failed to take any step under the Act, it must be construed declared and held that the State has abandoned the acquisition proceeding initiated as far back as July 1999. In this regard, it is useful to quote paragraph Nos.7 and 8 of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Anitha Purnesh, which read as under:
"7. We are of the opinion that the decision in the case of Narayanappa (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case, inasmuch as, in the said reported decision, it was only observed that there was no time limit for publication of the final notification. However, in the case of Shivanna (supra), a binding precedent on this Court, it has been held that the reasonable time should be construed as two years.
8. We feel that, as within two years from the date of preliminary notification the final notification has not been issued, following the decision in the case of Shivanna (supra), we uphold the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge quashing the acquisition proceedings." -: 6 :- The said judgment has not been interfered with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the circumstances, it is declared that the Preliminary Notification dated 03/07/1999 insofar as petitioners lands are concerned, is quashed. Writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
In view of disposal of the writ petition, I.A.No.1/17 would not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE S*