Karnataka High Court
Sri C Somasekhar vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 March, 2014
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 01st DAY OF MARCH 2014
BEFORE:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.4964-4965 OF 2011(LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
Sri. C. Somasekhar,
Son of Late Channabasavaiah,
Aged about 63 years,
Residing at Mylanahalli,
Kasaba Hobli,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
...PETITIONER
(By Shri. T. Seshagiri Rao, Advocate )
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Industries and Commerce,
M.S.Buildings,
Vidhanaveedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board,
Nrupathunga Road,
2
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board,
No.3/2, 1st Cross,
3rd Cross, Kheeny Buildings,
Gandhinagar,
Bangalore - 560 009.
4. The Karnataka Small Industries Development
Corporation, represented by
Its Managing Director, having
R/office at Industrial Shed,
Rajajinagar,
Bangalore - 560 010.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Basavaraj V Sabarad, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
Smt. Manjula N Tejaswi, Advocate for Respondent No.4)
*****
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 16.6.2010 vide Annexure-E to the writ petition
in so far as the petitioner's property is concerned and etc;
3
These petitions, having been heard and reserved on
20.02.2014 and coming on for Pronouncement of Orders this
day, the Court delivered the following:-
ORDER
The petitioner claims to be the owner of land bearing Sy.no.10/2, measuring 2 acres 27 guntas at Narayana Rao Palya, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore District. He is said to have purchased the same under a sale deed dated 26.6.1991. The petitioner claims that he and his family consisting of himself, his wife and two married sons are all dependant on the said land for their livelihood and that the same is well irrigated and capable of yielding two crops a year. He lives there in a farm house in a portion of the land. It is claimed that there are a large number of fruit yielding trees and standing timber on the land.
2. It is claimed that the land in question has been notified for acquisition under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (Hereinafter referred to as the 4 'KIAD Act', for brevity) as per a preliminary notification dated 16.6.2010. Though the petitioner is said to have filed objections to the same, it is alleged that without affording a hearing, a final notification dated 9.12.2010 is said to have been issued.
It is claimed that the State Government as per a Circular dated 3.3.2007 had indicated that where ever there was a proposal to acquire garden land or other fertile land in which two crops could be grown annually, the same should not be acquired for industrial purposes. It is contended that there cannot be any dispute that the petitioner's land answers that description. In this regard, the petitioner seeks to highlight the circumstance that though the following lands were sought to be acquired, the same were dropped, as the same were found to be lands, which were exempt from acquisition in terms of the above circular, vide notification dated 15.12.2010.
5
Sl.No. Survey No. Acres Extent
Guntas
1 30/1 07 27
2 30/2 19 29
3 31 16 00
4 32/1 11 0
5 32/2 07 24
It is also pointed out that the beneficiary Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation (KSSIDC) had indicated that it would not require the entire extent of land that was proposed to be acquired. It was on record that it required only 135 acres as against the proposed acquisition of 206 acres of land. On the basis of the said intimation, it is claimed that more than 62 acres of land have been deleted.
3. Respondents no.2 and 3 have filed statement of objections to contend that the acquisition proceedings had proceeded in accordance with law. It is also contended that the reliance placed by the petitioner on the circular dated 3.3.2007 is 6 misplaced. The said document is only a circular and it is subject to the conditions 1 to 7 listed therein. The circular clearly states that exclusion of lands falling in the categories indicated should be considered without affecting the compactness and contiguity of the lands acquired. The contention of the petitioner that the land is at the edge of the layout is incorrect and is hereby denied. The land in Survey No.10/2 of Narayana Rao Palya is in the middle of the industrial area and therefore cannot be deleted from acquisition proceedings.
Since the compactness and continuity of lands acquired would be severely affected if the land of the petitioner is excluded, the circular cannot be applied. Moreover, circular instructions do not have statutory force.
It is further contended that originally, the KSSIDC had proposed to develop an industrial estate in about 206 acres. Finding that there was no proper response from the villagers of Mylanahalli and also having regard to the fact that 433 applications for allotment had been received by them, they had 7 thought it appropriate to restrict the acquisition to 135 acres only. The request was considered and the acquisition of an extent of 62.10 acres notified at Mylanahalli village was decided to be excluded from acquisition by issuing appropriate notification. After excluding 62.10 acres at Mylanahalli village, the remaining entire extent of 143.35 acres has been acquired under the final notification dated 9.12.2010. The authorities had not given up acquisition by considering any statement of objections as alleged in the writ petition. But it was done on the request of the project proponent namely, KSSIDC. The lands and survey numbers indicated in paragraph 10 of the writ petition relate to Mylanahalli village. The reasons for their exclusion are already explained above and it is incorrect to say that because of serious objections, acquisition of lands was given up in favour of some persons.
4. Respondent no.4 has also filed statement of objections to contend, inter-alia, that the land of the petitioner, which is situated in Narayana Rao Palya village bearing Survey No.10/2 measuring 2 acres 27 guntas, has been notified under the 8 Preliminary Notification dated 16.6.2010 and the final notification dated 9.12.2010 by Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB), but KIADB has not given the possession of the said land so far. The fourth respondent has made full payment towards the cost of the land at Narayana Rao Palya and Narasimhanapalya as per the demand raised by KIADB in a sum of Rs.61,74,63,875/- and taken possession of the land excluding some kharab lands. Further development work has also been taken up at a cost of Rs.30.90 crores and an amount of Rs.9.9 crore has already been invested for the development of the lands. Further, the KSSIDC has received 690 applications from small scale industrial entrepreneurs for allotment of industrial plots. It is contended that the allotment of plots would be taken up in due course of time. Hence, the fourth respondent would incur huge loss, if the prayer of the petitioner is considered and the project is delayed for any reasons. Having paid a huge amount to the KIADB in the year 2011 itself, towards the cost of the land and having already invested a large sum of money, the 9 development of the acquired land, the fourth respondent is under a great pressure from the entrepreneurs who have applied for the allotment of the sheds.
The said respondent has also furnished material to indicate that the layout plan has been finalized and the units formed therein are to be allotted to applicants, who are in excess of the available plots. And the lay out plan is produced to depict the details of the same. It is pointed out that the petitioner's land measuring 2 acres and 27 guntas is situated on the one end of the layout at its outer edge and has been earmarked for location of civic amenities to service the industrial layout and the deletion of the same would completely dislocate the plan and the vital amenities cannot be accommodated. The said area is needed as a buffer zone for the industrial lay out and hence, it is contended that the petitioner's prayer cannot be considered.
The petitioner, in turn, has produced additional documents, to claim that the land in question is capable of producing two crops annually and the inclusion of the same in the layout was 10 totally opposed to the express instructions and the policy of the State Government. And further, the State having chosen to selectively implement the circular in favour of other land owners, the petitioner cannot be discriminated against.
5. In the light of the above, it is noticed that contrary to the assertion of the KIADB to the effect that the petitioner's land was in the midst of the lay out and that the deletion of the same would affect the contiguity of the industrial layout, is belied by the layout plan produced by the fourth respondent. It is seen that the land is on the extreme southern arm of the industrial layout, forming a portion of its boundary. It is seen that apart from the petitioner's land, there is twice the area of the petitioner's land earmarked together as reserved for civic amenities. Apart from this, there are other areas earmarked for civic amenities.
It is also seen that the petitioner has been cultivating his lands as seen from the records. This is not disputed by the respondents. The fact that the land is capable of yielding two crops annually is also sought to be demonstrated. 11
The possession of the land continues with the petitioner till date.
In the opinion of this court - the need of the land for a public purpose can hardly be denied - nor can the plaintive plea of a farmer not to deprive his family of the only source of his livelihood, be ignored. Hence, to balance these competing wants, it would be appropriate if the land is shared by the respondents and the petitioner. The petitioner is held entitled to retain an extent of 1 acre and 27 guntas of land towards the boundary of the layout. Consequently, the acquisition to the extent of 1 acre of land, out of 2 acres 27 guntas, is sustained. This is on a further condition that the petitioner and his successors shall not alienate the area so retained without the consent of the State government, which shall exercise its discretion at that point of time either to acquire the same for a fair market value or may permit the petitioner to deal with the same.
12
The petition is allowed in part, in terms as above.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv*