Karnataka High Court
R Anantharamu vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 October, 2022
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.19283 OF 2022 (LA - KIADB)
BETWEEN
R. ANANTHARAMU,
S/O RAMAMUTHAIAH,
AGED 52 YEARS,
R/A KURUBARA KARENEHALLI VILLAGE,
BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 109.
PRESENTLY R/AT 270, 23RD BLOCK,
KSRP HUDKO QUARTERS,
KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE - 34.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.RAMESH, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND
COMMERCE (INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT),
M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
NO.14/3, RASHTROTHANA PARISHATH,
2ND FLOOR, NRUPTHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER.
2
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD (BMICP),
1ST FLOOR, MARASHI ARAVIND BHAVAN,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. M/S. NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE
CORRIDOR ENTERPRISE LTD.,
NO.1, FORD GARDENS,
OPP. M.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY THE
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT.
5. NANDI ECONOMIC CORRIDOR
ENTERPRISE LTD.,
NO.1, MIDFORD HOUSE,
MIDFORD GARDENS,
OFF. M.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, AGA FOR R1;
SRI.P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3;
SRI.NITHIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED
21.07.1999 BEARING NO.CI.198.SPQ.1998 ISSUED BY
THE R3 AUTHORITY WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED
AS ANNEXURE - A AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-
"a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the Preliminary Notification dated: 21.07.1999 bearing No.CI:198:SPQ:1998 issued by the respondent No.3 authority which is produced and marked as ANNEXURE-'A'.
b. To declare that the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondent authorities in respect of the property bearing Sy.No.66 measuring to an extent of 04 acres 18 guntas situated at Kurubara Karenehalli Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk and District is lapsed/abandoned.
c. To pass such order suitable as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to be granted in the facts and circumstance of the case in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent No.1, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and also perused the material on record.
3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner and referring to the documents produced by the petitioner, learned 4 counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not in dispute that subsequent to issuance of the preliminary notification dated 21.07.1999, issued under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (for short "the KIAD Act"), respondent No.2 has not issued the final notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act so far and as such, the entire acquisition has lapsed. It is therefore submitted that the impugned preliminary notification deserves to be quashed.
4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel invites my attention to the following decisions of this Court:-
i. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board and other vs. Smt. Anitha Purnesh in W.A. No.2402/2014 dated 12.04.2016.
ii. Sri Munivenkatappa and others vs. The state of Karnataka in W.P Nos.58842-58344/2016 dated 19.07.2018 iii. Smt Indramma and others vs. State of Karnataka in W.P Nos.10667-70/2018 dated 05.07.2019 iv. Sri.K.Gangadhar and others vs. State of Karnataka and others in W.P Nos. 112501-112506/2014 dated 18.02.2016 5 v. M. Ramakrishna Reddy vs. State of Karnataka & Others
- W.P.No.6354-6356/2011 dated 01.12.2011.
vi. Smt. N. Rekha vs. State of Karnataka and Others -
W.P.No.32704-32705/2017 dated 05.12.2017 vii. Smt. N. Rekha vs. State of Karnataka and Others -
W.P.No.36021-36026/2017dated 06.02.2018 viii. Smt. N. Rekha vs. State of Karnataka and Others -
W.P.No.35031/2017 and connected matters dated 19.01.2018 5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 submits that liberty may be reserved in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 to take appropriate legal action against the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 would controvert the said submission and submit that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 are not entitled to any relief as against respondent Nos.1 to 3.
7. Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, the material on record indicates that despite issuance of the 6 preliminary notification as long back as on 21.07.1999, the KIADB has not taken any steps to proceed with the acquisition proceedings and has neither passed an order under Section 28(3) of the Act nor issued a final notification so far. In this context, having regard to the aforesaid decisions of this Court and the long and inordinate delay and latches on the part of the respondents in failing to take steps to complete the acquisition proceedings despite a lapse of almost 23 years, I am of the considered opinion that the acquisition proceedings pursuant to the impugned preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act have been abandoned and stood lapsed and the same deserves to be quashed.
8. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Petition is hereby allowed.
ii) The impugned acquisition proceedings pursuant to the impugned preliminary notification dated 21.07.1999, issued by the State under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act is hereby quashed 7 insofar as the schedule property of the petitioner is concerned.
iii) Liberty is however reserved in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 to take recourse to such remedies as available in law against respondent Nos.1 to 3.
iv) It is needless to state that liberty is also reserved in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 3 to defend any such action to be taken by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 against the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
(v) It is further directed that all rival contentions inter-se between respondent Nos.1 to 5 are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.
Sd/-
JUDGE NR/-