Karnataka High Court
Prakash S/O Shivappa Gumme vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 25 January, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
W.P.No.202500/2022 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
Sri PRAKASH S/O SHIVAPPA GUMME,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O H NO.19-6-333/85,
SHIVANAGAR NORTH,
BIDAR-585401.
.... PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAVI B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE UNDER SECRETARY
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES,
VIDHAN SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVT. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
KAPANOOR INDUSTRIAL AREA,
PHASE-1, HUMNABAD ROAD,
2
KALABURAGI-585104.
4. THE CHIEF DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
AND CHIEF ENGINEER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
3RD FLOOR, ANNEXED BUILDING,
KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560027.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BIDAR DISTRICT, D.C.OFFICE,
BIDAR-585401.
6. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
K.I.A.D.B OFFICE, PLOT NO.16-A
KOLHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA,
BIDAR-585403.
7. M/S SRI. SI AYURVEDIC MEDICINE
PROPRIETOR, DR. VIJAYAKUMAR
S/O VITTALRAO HAIBATTI,
R/O HALAHALLI-K, TQ. BHALKI,
DIST. BIDAR-585401.
8. M/S ALLAMPRABHU NUTS, BOLTS
AUTOMOBILE WORK UNIT
PROPRIETOR SRI.MADANA CHANDRAPPA
S/O PRABHANNA, H NO.EWS-34,
KHB COLONY, JANAWADA ROAD,
BIDAR-585401.
9. M/S AMIT DALL INDUSTRIES,
PROP. SRI. SHARAVANKUMAR
S/O SHIVARAM, R/O H NO.1/326
SHAMSHIRINAGAR THANDA,
TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR-585401.
10. M/S Y A R S INDUSTRIES
PROP. NAGARAJ S/O LAXMAN,
3
R/O H NO. 17-3-258,
GANDHI NAGAR COLONY,
MAILOOR ROAD, BIDAR-585401.
11. M/S GAIKWAD INDUSTRIES
PROP. PRADEEP
S/O RAGHUNATH GAIKWAD
R/O AMBEDKAR COLONY,
BIDAR- 585401.
12. M/S KHUSI INDUSTRIES
PROP, SRI. RAHUL S/O KASHINATH,
R/O NAUBAD,
TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR-585401.
13. M/S RISHIKA ENTERPRISES
PROP SRI. RAHUL S/O PRABHU MOURYA,
R/O H NO.3/9, ASTOOR VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR-585401.
14. M/S VARU INDUSTRIES,
PROP. SRI. SATISH S/O SHAMULING,
R/O WALDODDI VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR-585401.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIRANAGOUDA M. BIRADAR, AGA FOR R1, R2 &
R5;
SRI A.M. NAGARAL, FOR R3, R4 & R6;
SRI JAIRAJ K. BUKKA, ADVOCATE FOR R7 & R14)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED LAYOUT
MAP AS AT ANNEXURE- G UTILIZING THE PORTION OF THE
LAND OF THE PETITIONER IN SY NO.4/P4/1 (PORTION OF SY
NO.4/4) MEASURING 2 ACRES 21 GUNTAS OF BELLUR VILLAGE
TQ AND DIST BIDAR, BASED ON THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION
AS AT ANNEXURE- F, F1 AND F2, AS CONTRARY TO THE
PROVISION OF LAW AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
4
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. In this petition the petitioner has questioned Annexure-G the layout map prepared by the respondent No.6 and also the notifications at Annexures-F, F1 and F2 issued by first respondent and a prayer is also made to quash the allotment letters at Annexures-J to J7 issued by sixth respondent in favour of respondents No.7 to 14.
3. Writ of mandamus is also sought against respondents No.3 to 6 to make necessary corrections in the layout plan at Annexure-G.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notifications at Annexures-F, F1 and F2 are not impugned in this present petition and same has been wrongly mentioned in the prayer column (A). This court has taken 5 note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and same is placed on record.
5. The petitioner claims to have purchased the property bearing Sy.No.4/P/4/1 which was originally part of Sy.No.4/4. The total extent of land which the petitioner claims to have purchased is 2 acres 21 guntas as per registered sale-deed dated 06.07.2022 which is registered on 08.07.2022. The property according to the petitioner is sold by one Narasareddy S/o Pentareddy.
6. The respondents have taken a stand that the land was subject matter of acquisition under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act and subsequently the consent agreement was entered into between Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board and the vendor / original owner of the land who claims to have sold the property to the present petitioner. Said consent agreement is dated 10.06.2008.
7. It is also brought to the notice of this court that the W.P.No.200769-770/2015 filed by the petitioner's 6 vendor is pending consideration before this court and in the said petition the petitioner has questioned the notification under Sections 28(1) and 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act and it has also questioned the consent agreement dated 10.06.2008.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the present petition filed by the purchaser of the land is not tenable in view of the law laid down in the case of Delhi Development Authority vs. Manpreet Singh and others [2023 SCC Online SC 29].
9. This court has perused the said judgment and in terms of the ratio laid down in the said case, it is apparent that the person who has purchased the property after the acquisition of property from the land loser has no locus standi to question the land acquisition proceedings.
Under these circumstances, the present petition is not maintainable, as it is filed by the person who has purchased the land after notification for acquisition and 7 also after the consent agreement between the land owner and the acquisition body.
Hence, the petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE sn