Karnataka High Court
K S Girish vs State Of Karnataka on 16 January, 2018
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
WRIT PETITION Nos.42011-42012/2017 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN
K S GIRISH
S/O. LATE K.L.SHANTHANARASIMHA GUPTA,
AGED 46 YEARS
R/AT NO.27/27,
SETHU ELECTRO MALL,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
GOVINDARAJNAGAR,
BENGALURU-560040. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B RAMESH, ADV.)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES
AND COMMERCE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560001.
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
NR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560009.
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2
3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
NO.1, FORD GARDENS,
OPP. MG ROAD,
BANGALORE-560001.
4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
NO.3/2, KHENY BUILDING,
1ST CROSS GANDHINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560009. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR A PATIL, AGA FOR R1,
SRI. B B PATIL, ADV. FOR R-3 & R-4)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DTD:2.6.1999
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY WHICH IS
PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-C.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
These writ petitions are listed for preliminary hearing in B group. With the consent of learned counsel on both sides, it is taken up for final hearing.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner aver that the petitioner is in possession of lands bearing Sy.Nos.125 measuring 30 guntas and Sy.No.128 measuring 30 guntas, in all 01 acre 20 guntas, situated at Kodigehalli, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The said lands were notified for the purpose of formation of Industrial area by respondent No.1/State. However, the acquisition remained incomplete as the Preliminary Notification dated 02/06/1999 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, petitioner has sought quashing of the Preliminary Notification dated 02/06/1999. 4
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents as well as perused the material on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Preliminary Notification was issued in June 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 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 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 petitioner's lands are concerned.
5
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 the Act as far back on 02/06/1999, 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 steps under the Act, it must be construed declared and held that the State has abandoned the acquisition proceeding initiated as far back as June 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, 6 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."
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 02/06/1999 insofar as petitioner's land is concerned, is quashed. Writ petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
SD/-
JUDGE rs