Karnataka High Court
K Babu Reddy S/O Late Krishna Reddy T vs Government Of Karnataka on 15 June, 2011
Author: Manjula Chellur
Bench: Manjula Chellur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 15"! DAY OF JUNE, 2011 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJULA CHELLUR. AND ww a THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE H, Bi L LAPPA = WRIT PETITION NOS.34944-349¢ 46: OF 2009 LA -KiADB). BETWEEN i: K BABU REDDY . ses S/O LATE KRISHNA KEI bY Tr > AGED 44 YEARS ae 2. K ANANDARAMA REDDY Sf (O LATE KRISH NA eaRS yp K PRABHAKAR ' S/O.LATE. KRISHNA, REDDY: AGED ABOUT 33 ¥ EAL a8 apne ALL RESIDING: Ae 49/6; DODDA THOGUR VILLAGE ELECTRONIC CITY. POST BANGALORE -560160 . PETITIONERS - (By SRI.'S.8° NAGANAN Db, SR. COUNSEL & MR. SRIRANGA; ADVS.) AND. i. "GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, »,DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD RASHTROTHANA BLDGS. NIRJROAD BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER 3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER -- KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA 4 DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BMICP, 3/2. KHENY BULLDENG, IST CROSS, GANDHINAGAR ~ BANGALORE-560 009 M/S. NANDI ECONOMIC Cc SREIDOR™ ENTERPRISES LTD =. mo A COMPANY REGISTE! RE D UNDE Ro * a COMPANIES ACT. 1936 -- oo HAVING ITS OFFICE' ATN O. 1, . an MIDFORD-G JENS, oo OFF M.G.IRC : BAN GALORE- 560 G0 hs od oA iM MS. 'NANDI INFRAS! RU C PURE I NTERPRISE LID. | .MIDFORD HOUSE MIDE ORD G ARDEN OFF MG. POAD, Os Be ANGALORE:-- 560001, BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. Ge . R-ROAD. (1 KM BE FORE , TRONIC CITY), "BANGALORE ~ 560 100, . . REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR "SRE. JAWAHAR DORESWAMY. ... RESPONDENTS
- (By SRI. SANDEEP PATIL. SPL. GA FOR R-I, ~ -SRIOP V CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. FOR R-2 & R-S, "SRI T. NARAYANA SWAMY, ADV. FOR R-4, M/S. KING & PARTRIDGE, ADVS. FOR R-5, R-6 - SERVED) fos :
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH <THE NOTIFICATION NO. Cl 196 SPQ 98 DT.2.6.1999.. ISSUEL U/S.28(1) OF KIAD ACT IN SO FAR AS THE PenTOneRs LAND «. IN SY.NO.18/2, DODDATOGUR 1S | CONCEPNED~. VIDE. ANNEXURE-B: QUASH THE NOTIFICATION NO. CH "196 "SPQ . 98(P) DT.8.4.2003, ISSUED U/S.28(4), OF KIAD ACT IN' SO FAR, AS THE PETITIONERS LAND IN SY.NG.18/2. DOBDATOGUR IS"
CONCERNED VIDE ANNEXURE"2; QUASH. THE oo MAHAZAR DT.15.11.2005, RELATING 'TO SY.NO, 18/2. DODDATOGUR VIDE ANNEXURE-J: DECLARE™.THAI . 1 Senos DODDATOGUR IS CONCERNED ARS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE BMICPA PROJECT AS PER THE F-RAMEWORK AGREEMENT AND THE BMIP PROJE SAL RE POR Tete:
THES WRIT PETTIONS "id BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS 'TPIS _ DAY. _MANJULA CHELLUR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: 9. oa - _--
». ORDER ~The petitioners in this case have sought for ». quashing: the preliminary notification dated 2.6.1999 ay under section' 28 (1) and final notification under section 28 (4). dated 8.4.2003 in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 18/2. of Doddatogur and have also sought for quashing the mahazar dated 15.11.2005 in respect of Sy. No. 18/2. They have also sought for a declaration that the land in Sy. No.18/2 is not necessary for the BMICPA project in the light of the framework agreement and the"
PTR (project technical report). Accordimg.. to the © petitioners, the following are the deficits ob objections HY the process of acquisition:
a) Out of 15 gstintas. 9 guntas of land is acquired for national highway ard thes remaining 7 guntas 2 land is Surrounded: by well and fully developed areas. belonging to PES institutions ves and tlie WIPRO:. Al the surrounding lands are 'used by. the respective owners.
'b}.The ebjections filed by the petitioners were by the Land Acquisition Officer without being caused to the _ ¢) The petitioners continue to be in possession and enjoyment of the land in question and the Gl construction of the road is complete which is 150 metres away from the property .of. the petitioner. None of the procedure fe r iss cuanee iment me rahazar under the KIAD) Astw a "hi ea acquisition is frauiistent and tHe scitiones who are owners of very, small exient of land are being deprived "of ae rights. whereas strong and Powerful' institu tions and individuals are being. s par wed by, the res spondents. Therefore, it 15 violative 2 of A ric cie 14. of the Constitution. There is Na deviation of the alignment of the road, because-earlier as per PTR the project contemplated construction of southern portion ofthe peripheral road, link road and townships but the 2004 ODP is entirely against the said PTR and the framework agreement dated 3.4.1997.
e) The land of the petitioners was never a part of the project as originally conceived, becarise the list of survey mumbers to be acquired By. fe the Chief Secretary to al ae non earlier occasion, did rit indicaie the hand: f the. petitioners being Ol 1c of the slirvey "numbers sought to be acquired s With these averments' t hey have sought for cllowing the writ petitions Accordiniy tot he re SOG aden the very same petitioners, challenged the. notifications in the earli round of fitigation in W.P. No.16529/04 with similar ~, grounds and thre-same came to be dismissed on ~ £8.11. 2005-holding that the issues raised were already ered itr the earlier judgment which came to be ~ confirmed in W.A.72/2004 dated 28.2.2005. By this judg sment. the acquisition of the land for the ae implementation of BM filed by various owners before the Apex Court in C.A.3848-84/2006 also came to be dismiseed confirming the judgment of the Division. 'Bench as) reported in (2006) 4 SCC 683 in the ¢ case OF f STATE. OF . KARNATAKA vs. ALL INDE Mz ANU PACTU ies ORGANISATION. The present. writ peti tots. are hatred by principles of res-juudicata' Sand are : liable to be dismissed. |
3. By « chan ging the er " lour' of catise of action, the petitioners. have again. vreeshat this Court which is not permissible | its law, : Even. otherwise, on 23.11.2005 itself land in qiiestion w as handed over to the 4 respondent.. by the: Board for the implementation of
-_ certain, components oi BMICP comprising of 41 kms. of io peripheral, road, 9.1 kms. of link road, 12 kms. of expressway: and one township. Apart from the land of ia oan the petitioners, several parcels of land in various survey ine eo.
"numbe ers surrounding Sy. No.18/2 were handed over and the petitioners' land alone is not singled out as contended by the petitioners. The project is implemented as originally conceived without». any deviation.
4. According to the Board, possession: was: taken - in accordance with law after completing the accuisition provisions of Constitution, in 'particular, Article 14 of the Constitution. The-tand in question: is required for the project which is a public purpose. which is up-held by the Ap ox ; Court i : several | j u dgments on earlier occasion includitig the. writ petit ions filed by the present petitioners. T he 'compensation came to be deposited in the concerned-Court.and the matters are referred to the . civilCourt under...sections 30 & 31 of the Land ».. Acquisition Act.in LAC.61/2008. As they are already dispossessed, question of dispossessing them will not arise -and declaring the land free from acquisition "proceedings also would not arise, is the contention. With these averments, they have sought for dismissal of the petitions.
5. The petitioners in this case had already"
approached this Court and the contentions. aised by ~ them earlier were answered in W. Ay No. 72 /2004: The udgment of the Division Bench was u pield. holding that the acquisition of lands for implementation of BMIC is justifiable. Therefore, they" cannot. re-agitate the same. The objection' statem: ents cle arly indicate that after adheririg to the pibeeduré tid down for acquisition of lands:- "posses 2810 has been.taken over. As long as the land in aucdtion is required for the project which is an integre ated infrastracture project, the present me petitioners canniot raise similar issues again and again, : as they 'are barred by the principles of res-judicata. Evert otherwise, the contentions raised in these petitions: contending mnon-consideration of their "objections ¢ or questioning the procedure for issuance of . prelim linary and final notifications cannot be considered fom gt sak 10 as tat was the subject matter of earlier round of é litigation.
6. So far as other contentions regarding deviation"
Ce EID of original alignment indicated in Projéct.Pechnical ~ Report (PTR) by notifying out the Cuihlne.Development Plan (ODP) 2004. their "laad iss net "required for _beyend the out a te ~~ .
ine
--s a industrial development: land "4s "sil ner yb a 4) "nae cand hai ye ge ales Te red a pia cer irerl are peripheral road and thai exeess land-benig acquired are also. subject " matter "ef. eonsideration in W-P. £05 Nos.3438/2040 "and -conne 'domatters and they are answered-in detat.-.
Accordingly, ihe writ.petitions are disposed of as barred by-.Res-Judicata and in terms of the order
-. passed..im. W.P."Nos:3438/2010 and other connected . Tratters.