Karnataka High Court
M/S Ellis Fashion Exports Private ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 September, 2023
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:35434
WP No. 4125 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 4125 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
M/S ELLIS FASHION EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.29,
WHITE HOUSE, 3RD FLOOR,
ST.MARKS ROAD,
BENGLAURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRI.JITENDRA D MAJETHIA.
...PETITIONER
Digitally (BY SRI. RAJENDRA S.,ADVOCATE)
signed by
SUMA B N
AND:
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:35434
WP No. 4125 of 2023
BANGALORE-560 001.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KIADB (METRO RAIL PROJECT)
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
MAHARSHI ARAVINDA BHAVAN,
1ST FLOOR,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
4. THE BANGALORE METRO
RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT:
BMTC COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR,
K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560027
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3;
SRI. HARISH N.N., ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE (i) WRIT OR SUCH OTHER ORDER IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.3 ON 21.01.2019 UNDER SECTION 29(2) OF
KIADB ACT, 1966 BEARING NO.KIADB/METRO/LA/R5-N-
43/2018.19, COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE-R.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:35434
WP No. 4125 of 2023
ORDER
Petitioner is before this Court for a direction to the respondents -KIADB to determine the compensation for the acquired industrial land measuring 56.25 square meters being portion of schedule property of the petitioner, as the said portion of the land has been excluded for the purpose of computation of compensation under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short 'KIAD Act') resulting in issuance of the impugned notice dated 21.01.2019.
2. The case of the petitioner is that a lease-cum- sale deed had been executed by the Bangalore Development Authority on 28.02.1979 in favour of vendor of petitioner in respect of schedule property measuring East to West 45.72 meters, North to South 16.76 meters, totally measuring 766.26 square meters. That a portion of the schedule property was subject matter of the acquisition under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act, 1966, i.e., an extent of 152 square meters, out of 766.26 square -4- NC: 2023:KHC:35434 WP No. 4125 of 2023 meters was sought to be acquired by the respondent No.2- KIADB for the benefit of respondent No.4-BMRCL.
3. It appears that during consideration of the matter under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act for the purpose of granting compensation, the respondent No.2 has observed that an extent of 56.25 square meters to be considered as 'B' kharab land and thereby excluded the said portion of land from the acquired land of 152 square meters and has granted compensation for the remaining 95.75 square meters. It is this exclusion of 56.25 square meters considering the same as 'B' karab land has led to filing of this writ petition.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that admittedly petition schedule property was allotted as an industrial site to the predecessor in title of the petitioner in terms of lease-cum-sale deed, as such question of any portion of thereof being karab land would not arise. He submits that respondent-authorities ought to -5- NC: 2023:KHC:35434 WP No. 4125 of 2023 have taken into consideration the entire extent of acquired land for the purpose of grant of compensation.
5. Sri. Harish N N, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4-BMRCL drawing attention of this Court to the communication dated 12.04.2019 produced at Annexure-R2 submits that communication had already been addressed to the Special Land Acquisition Officer of KIADB requesting for reconsideration of the matter and to issue a corrigendum. He submits admittedly the land had been acquired for the industrial purposes and had lost its agricultural nature and same had been treated as an industrial land and as such there was no reason for excluding this 56.25 square meters considering the same as 'B' karab land. He further submits that if a corrigendum is issued in this regard, the case of the petitioner would be considered for payment of compensation to the entire extent of acquired land.
6. In response, Sri. H.L.Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3-KIADB -6- NC: 2023:KHC:35434 WP No. 4125 of 2023 submits that if such corrigendum is not already issued, given some time, the same would be issued. Submission is taken on record.
7. Since the matter falls in a very narrow compass and even in the light of admitted position referred to hereinabove, the petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.3 to take steps to issue necessary correction/corrigendum to include the remaining extent of 56.25 square meters which has been excluded treating as karab land, in the facts situation of the matter, within an outer limit of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, if no such correction/corrigendum is issued. The respondent No.4 shall thereafter process the matter as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
JUDGE RU