Karnataka High Court
Mrs Shahana Ahmed vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 October, 2020
Author: S R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No. 4937 OF 2020 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
MRS. SHAHANA AHMED
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
D/O MR. SHAMSHEER AHMED
@ GULSHEER AHMED
W/O MR. MOHAMMED AHSAN
R/AT KESERKE VILLAGE, HOSAHALLI PETE POST
CHICKMAGALURU TOWN - 577 101.
REPRESENTED BY HER G.P.A HOLDER
MR. MOHAMMED AHSAN
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
S/O. MR. MOHAMMED ABDUL RAHAMAN SAIT
R/AT NO. 88/11, 2ND CROSS, COLES ROAD
FRAZER TOWN
BENGALURU - 560 005.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.B.S. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL & COMMERCE
(INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT)
M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
(KIADB) REP. BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
# 49,4TH & 5TH FLOOR
2
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.
4. BENGALURU MYSURU
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. KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-1
SRI. K.M. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2& R-3
SMT. SUMANGALA, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. I.G. GACCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUAH THE
PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY R-1 PUBLISHED
IN THE SPECIAL GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED:
03.07.1999 MADE IN REF ( IN SO FAR AS TEH PETITIONERS
LAND IN SY.NO. 215/7) AN DRESPECTIVELY INOLD SY NO.
215) ARE CONCERNED) U/S 28(1) OF HTE KIADB ACT IN
WHICH THE PETITIONERS LAND TOTALLY MEASURING 1
ACRE 26 GUNTAS, IN SY NO. 215 OF RAMMANAHALLI
VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK WAS NOTIFIED
IN THE NAME OF PETITIONERS VENDORS VENDOR AT
SL.NO. 11(4) AND S.NO. 11(6) OF HE SAID NOTIFICATION,
FOR THE PURPOSE OF BANGALORE - MYSURU
INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR PROJECT, COPY
SUBMITTED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
3
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and learned counsel for respondent No.4 and also perused the material on record.
2. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner and referring to the documents produced by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not in dispute that subsequent to issuance of the preliminary notification dated 03.07.1999, issued under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (for short "the KIAD Act"), respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not issued the final notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act, sofar and as such, the entire acquisition has lapsed. It is therefore submitted that the impugned preliminary notification deserves to be quashed.
3. In support of his contentions, learned counsel invites my attention to the decisions of this Court in the 4 case of DR. U.G. SHENOY Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS - W.P.No.57982/2016 and W.P.Nos.58889- 890/2016 dated 12.01.2018. It is also submitted that though the petitioner purchased the subject land only on 12.07.2018, subsequent to 03.07.1999, under identical circumstances, in respect of the same survey number, in the case of SMT. S.J. NAGARATHNA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS - W.P.No.27897/2018 AND 31506/2018 dated 14.06.2019 was pleased to quash the preliminary notification following the earlier decision in U.G. Shenoy's case supra. It is therefore submitted that the impugned notification deserves to be quashed on this ground alone.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that in view of the fact that the petitioner purchased the subject land in the year 2014 after issuance of the preliminary notification dated 03.07.1999, the present petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. After giving my anxious consideration to the rival contentions and upon perusal of records, it is relevant to 5 note that in the case of U.G. Shenoy supra, at paragraph Nos.4, 5, 6 and 7, this Court has held as under:
"4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that Preliminary Notification was issued in July 1999. Till date, the State has not taken any step to issue the declaration and Final Notification. It must be construed and declared that the State has abandoned the acquisition in the instant case. Placing 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], learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a similar relief may be granted in this case also by declaring that there has been an abandonment of acquisition insofar as the petitioner's 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
6. It is noted that in the instant case, the acquisition Notification is issued under Section 28(1) of 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 and 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 decisionk, 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 7 Single Judge quashing the acquisition proceedings."
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 petitioner's lands are concerned, it quashed.
7. In the result, writ petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
In view of the disposal of the writ petitions, I.A.No.1/2017 also stands disposed."
6. It is also relevant to state that in the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Smt. S.J. Nagarathna supra in respect of the very same survey number, the petition filed by the petitioner therein, who had also purchased the land subsequent to the preliminary notification, this Court has quashed the preliminary notification by holding as under at paragraph Nos.2, 3 and 4 of the order:
"2. In these petitions the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:
Issue a writ of certiorari for quashment of the preliminary notification issued by respondent No.1 in Special Gazette 8 Notification dated 03.07.1999, published at S.No.10(8) and Sl.No.19(2) in Ref.No.CI 196 SPQ 98 at No.762 of Part-III, at Annexure-A insofar as the petitioner's land in Sy.No.212 [notified at S.No.10(8), measuring 1 acre 23 guntas and Sy.No.223 measuring 17 guntas and now it is new numbered as Sy.No.212/3 and Sy.No.223/2, of Ramnahalli Village situated at Ramnahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk are concerned.
3. When the matters were taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matters are squarely covered by a decision rendered by a Bench of this Court in W.P.No.57982/2016 and W.P.Nos.58889-890/2016 decided on 12.01.2018 and these writ petitions may also be disposed of on the same footing.
4. In view of the aforesaid submission and for the reasons assigned by this Court by an order dated 12.01.2018 passed in W.P.No.57982/2016 & W.P.Nos.58889-890/2016, Annexure-A is quashed and the writ petitions are disposed of on the same terms and with similar directions."
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for the reasons assigned by this Court in its decisions in the cases of Dr. U.G. Shenoy and also Smt. S.G. 9 Nagarathna (supra), I am of the considered opinion that the impugned notification insofar as the petitioner is concerned, deserves to be quashed.
8. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
i. The petition is allowed in terms of the aforesaid decisions of this Court in Dr. U.G. Shenoy's case and Smt. S.G. Nagarathna's case supra.
ii. The impugned Preliminary Notification issued by respondent No.1 published in the Special Gazette Notification dated 03.07.1999 vide Annexure-A, insofar as petitioner's lands are concerned, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bmc/-