Karnataka High Court
The Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Smt Nirmala on 26 November, 2012
Author: N.Kumar
Bench: N.Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.V.PINTO
Writ Appeal No.1947 of 2008 (LA KIADB)
c/w
Writ Appeal Nos.1583 of 2008,1494/2008,
1495/2008,2288/2008, 2289/2008 (LA KIADB)
IN W.A.1947 OF 2008
BETWEEN
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
GANDHINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 009
2. THE KARNATAKA
INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT
BOARD, 14/3, II FLOOR
RASHTROTHANA PARISHATH BUILDING
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE -560 001
BY ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER
REP BY ITS SECRETARY ... APPELLANTS
(By SRI. JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SR.COUNSEL
FOR M/S. B B PATIL & ASSTS.)
2
AND
1. SMT NIRMALA
D/O LATE L B CHUNCHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
2. SRI.NANJUNDAIAH
S/O LATE L B CHUNCHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
3. SRI.HARISH
S/O LATE L B CHUNCHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
4. SMT.NALINI
D/O LATE L B CHUNCHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
5. SRI.PANCHALINGASWAMY
S/O LATE L B CHUNCHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
6. SRI.NAGARAJ
S/O LATE BASAVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
SL.NO.5 TO 8 ARE
R/AT NO 23/4, AGRAHARA
KADUBISANAHALLI
ROAD, BELANDUR POST,
BANGALORE- 560 037
7. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPT. OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE
VIDHANA VEEDHI,
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI ROAD
BANGALORE - 560001.
8. M/S MYSORE IT SOLUTIONS PVT LTD
NO.619/H, 36TH CROSS, II BLOCK
NEAR ESI HOSPITAL, RAJAJINAGAR
3
BANGALORE - 560001.
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR/CHIARMAN
SRI G DAYANADA.
9. M/S.MASTERO HOTELS AND RESORTS
PVT.LTD. REP BY ITS DGM
MR.ASHWIN SANCHETI
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
S/O SHRI.MANOHAR CHAND SANCHETI
R/AT NO.9 & 10
CHOWDAPPA ROAD
BANGALORE-560 025. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. K T MOHAN & Sri.PURUSHOTHAMA G FOR R1-R6,
Sri.DHYAN CHINNAPPA.M & SMT.ANNAPURNA, ADVS.FOR
M/S.CREST LAW PARTNERS FOR R1-6 (NOC)
SRI K.KRISHNA, AGA. FOR R7
Sri.D.N.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.COUNSEL FOR
M/S.D.SRINIVAS MURTHY & ASSTS. FOR R8., AND
SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SR.COUNSEL FOR M/S.ANUP S SHAH
LAW FIRM, FOR R9. )
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 5081/2006
DATED 29/08/2008.
IN W.A NO 1583 OF 2008
BETWEEN
1. M/S MYSORE IT SOLUTIONS PVT LTD
NO 619/H, 36TH CROSS, II BLOCK
NEAR ESI HOSPITAL, RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 001
REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR/
CHAIRMAN
SRI G DAYANAND ... APPELLANTS
(By Sri. UDAYA HOLLA, SR.COUNSEL FOR
M/S. D.SRINIVAS MURTHY & ASSTS.)
4
AND
1. SMT NIRMALA
D/O LATE L B CHUNCHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
2. SRI.NANJUNDAIAH
S/O LATE L B CHUNCHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
3. SRI.HARISH
S/O LATE L B CHUNCHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
4. SMT.NALINI
D/O LATE L B CHUNCHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
5. SRI.PANCHALINGASWAMY
S/O LATE L B CHUNCHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
6. SRI.NAGARAJ
S/O LATE BASAVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O NO 23/4, AGRAHARA
KADUBISANAHALLI ROAD
BELANDUR POST
BANGALORE -560 037
7. THE GOVT OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPT.OF INDUSTRIES
AND COMMERCE
VIDHANA VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
8. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
HAVING ITS OFFICE
AT NO 14/3, II FLOOR, RASHTROTHANA
5
PARISHAD BUILDING
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001
BY ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER
9. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD COMPLEX
14TH CROSS, PEENYA II STAGE
BANGALORE-560 058
10. M/S.MASTERO HOTELS & RESORTS PVT LTD
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT
1956 WITH ITS REGISTERED OFFICE SITUATED
AT MONEY TERRACE, # 100, K.H.ROAD
BANGALORE- 560 027 ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. M.DHYAN CHINNPPA M ADV. FOR
M/S.CREST LAW PARTNERS FOR R1-R6,
SRI.K.KRISHNA, AGA FOR R7,
Sri.PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE, ADV. FOR R8 & R9.
SRI.UDAYA HOLLA, SR.COUNSEL. FOR
M/S.ANUP S.SHAH LAW FIRM FOR R10.)
THIS WRIT IS APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION
NO.5081/2006 DATED 29/8/2008.
IN W.A NO 1494 OF 2008
BETWEEN
M/S MYSORE IT SOLUTIONS PVT LTD
NO.619/H, 36TH CROSS
II BLOCK, NEAR ESI HOSPITAL
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALFORE-560 001
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR/CHAIRMAN
SRI. G. DAYANAND ... APPELLANT
(By Sri. D.N.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.COUNSEL
FOR M/S. D.SRINIVAS MURTHY & ASSTS.)
6
AND
1. SHRI V.VENKATARAMANA
@ VENKTARAMANAPPA
S/O LATE GANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/AT NO 163, (IN SY NO. 24)
KADUBEESANAHALLI VILLAGE
VARTHUR HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE- 560 087.
2. SHRI V MUNIYAPPA
S/O SHRI VENKATARAMANA
@ VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT NO 163, (IN SY NO 24)
KADUBEESANAHALLI VILLAGE
VARTHUR HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE- 560 087.
3. SHRI SHANKARAPPA
S/O SHRI VENKATARAMANA
@ VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO.163 (IN SY.NO.24)
KADUBEESANAHALLI VILLAGE
VARTHUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
BANGALORE- 560 087.
4. SHRI SATHISH RAO
S/O SHRI RAJARAM
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT NO 163, IN SY NO. 24
KADUBEESANAHALLI VILLAGE
VARTHUR HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE - 560 087.
7
5. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPT.OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE
VIDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001
6. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
(A GOVT. OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING)
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.14/3, II FLOOR
RASHTROTHNA PARISHAD BLDG.,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001
BY ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER
7. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT
BOARD COMPLEX, 14TH CROSS,
PEENYA II STAGE
BANGALORE-560 058 ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. H KUMARA SWAMY, ADV. FOR R1-R4.
Sri.K.KRISHNA, AGA. FOR R5.
Sri.B.V.SHANKARANARAYANA, ADV. FOR R6 & R7.)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.10335/07
DATED 29/8/08.
IN W.A NO 1495 OF 2008
BETWEEN
M/S MYSORE IT SOLUTIONS PVT LTD
NO.619/H, 36TH CROSS, II BLOCK,
NEAR ESI HOSPITAL, RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE -560 001.
REPRESWENTED BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR/ CHAIRMAN,
SRI G.DAYANAND ... APPELLANT
(By Sri.D.N.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.COUNSEL FOR
M/S.D.SRINIVAS MURTHY & ASSTS.)
8
AND
1. MR V SRINIVAS
S/O VENKATARAMANA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT NO.161,(IN SY.NO.24)
KADUBEESANAHALLI VILLAGE
VARTHUR HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE - 560 087.
2. THE GOVT OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPT.OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE,
VIDHANA VEEDHI,
BANGALORE -560 001
3. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.14/3,
II FLOOR, RASHTROTHNA PARISHAD
BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001
BY ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER.
4. THE SPECIAL LAND AQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT
BOARD COMPLEX,14TH CROSS
PEENYA II STAGE
BANGALORE - 560 058.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. H KUMARA SWAMY, ADV. FOR R1,
Sri K.KRISHNA, AGA. FOR R2,
Sri.PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE, ADV. FOR R3 & R4.)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.10972/07
DATED 29/8/08.
9
IN W.A NO.2288 OF 2008
BETWEEN
1. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD
GANDHINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 009
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL ARE
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.14/3, II FLOOR
RASHTROTHNA PARISHAD BLDG.,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
BY ITS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ... APPELLANTS
(By SRI V.Y.KUMAR, ADV.
Sri. JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL, SR.COUNSEL
FOR M/S. B B PATIL & ASSTS. (NOC))
AND
1. SRI V SRINIVAS
S/O VENKATARAMANA
R/A NO.161 (IN SY.NO.24)
KADUBEESANAHALLI VILLAGE,
VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TQ.,
BANGALORE-560 087
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPT.OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI.
BANGALORE-560 001
3. MYSORE IT SOLUTIONS (P) LTD
NO.619/H, 36TH CROSS,
II BLOCK, NEAR ESI HOSPITAL,
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE ... RESPONDENTS
10
(By Sri.H.KUMARA SWAMY, ADV.FOR R1.
Sri.D.N.NANJUNDARADDY, SR.COUNSEL
FOR M/S. D SRINIVAS MURTHY & ASSTS.FOR R3.)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 10972/2007
DATED 29/08/2008.
IN W.A NO 2289 OF 2008
BETWEEN
1. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
GANDHINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 009
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
THE EXECUTIVE MEMBER
REP.BY SECRETARY ... APPELLANTS
(By SRI V.Y.KUMAR, ADV.,
Sri. JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL, SR.COUNSEL
FOR M/S.B.B PATIL & ASSTS. (NOC))
AND
1. SRI VENKATARAMANA
@ VENKATARAMANAPPA
S/O LATE GANGAPPA
AGE:69 YEARS
2. SRI.V.MUNIYAPPA
S/O VENKATARAMANA
@ VENKARAMANAPPA
AGE:46 YEARS
11
3. SRI.SHANKARAPPA
S/O VENKATARAMANA
@ VENKARAMANAPPA
AGE:40 YEARS
4. SRI.SATHISH RAO
S/O RAJARAM
AGE:33 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O SURVEY NO.24
KADUBEESANAHALLI VILLAGE
VARTHUR HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE- 560 087.
5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE- 560 001.
6. MYSORE IT SOLUTION (P) LTD
NO.619/H, 36TH CROSS
II BLOCK, NEAR ESI HOSPITAL
RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.H.KUMARA SWAMY, ADV FOR R1-R4.
Sri.K.KRISHNA, AGA FOR R5.
Sri.D.N.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.COUNSEL
FOR M/S.D SRINIVAS MURTHY & ASSTS.FOR R6.)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 10355/2007
DATED 29.08.2008.
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING THIS DAY, N. KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:-
12
JUDGMENT
These batch of appeals are preferred against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.10335/2007, 10972/2007 and 5081/2006, where in he has quashed both the preliminary notification as well as the final notification on the ground that the procedure adopted by the authority is in violation of the principle of natural justice and in violation of law and therefore, the proceedings are vitiated.
2. Parties are referred to as they are referred to in the writ petitions.
3. The subject matter in W.P.No.10335/2007 is the land bearing survey No.24 measuring 4 acres 25 guntas situated at Kadubeesanahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. It was purchased by the first petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 22.12.1976. In the partition, the said property was allotted in favour of his children. Thus, all of them are the owners of the said property. The subject matter in Writ Petition 13 no.10972/2007 is yet another land bearing survey No.24 measuring 4 acres 25 guntas of Kadubeesanahalli. The writ petitioner in W.P.No.10972/2007 is one Srinivas, who is none other than the son of Venkataramana, who also claims a portion of share in survey No.24 measuring 4 acres 25 guntas in the partition. Thus, the subject matter of these two writ petitions is survey No.24, measuring 4 acres 25 guntas and claimants are all members of a erstwhile joint family.
4. The subject matter of W.P.No.5081/2006 is land in survey No.23/4 measuring 4 acres 24 guntas situated at Kadubeesanahalli Village. The property originally stood in the name of L.B.Chunchappa , the father of the petitioner Nos.1 to 5 in the writ petition. Petition No.6 is the brother of L.B.Chunchappa All these petitioners are claiming a share in the said property.
5. The aforesaid lands i.e., survey No.24 measuring 4 acres 25 guntas and in 23/4 measuring 4 acres 24 guntas along with the other lands were notified for acquisition by the State Government, for the benefit of 14 Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board. The notification under Section 3(1) of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act, 1966 (hereinafter called as 'the Act' for brevity) was issued on 10.12.2001. Similarly, one more notification under Section 1(3) of the Act was issued on the same day, notifying the said lands in question along with other lands situated in the area for applying the provisions of Chapter VII of the Act. However, it is on 29.02.2004, a notification was issued under Section 28(1) of the Act notifying 103 acres and 4 guntas situated in the villages for the proposed acquisition for Industrial Development. It is in that notification, the land of these petitioners was notified. They have been duly served by the notice under Section 28(2) of the Act. They filed their objections opposing the acquisition. Their contention was in particular the owners of the land bearing survey No.23/4 is, that Chunchappa having three sons and three daughters and Nagaraja having three sons and one daughter, already have effected a partition. After partition, the said Chunchappa has already constructed a farm house 10 years ago and residing with his third son 15 named C.Panchalingaswamy and constructed remaining houses. Nagaraj has constructed two dwelling house measuring 42 ft. x 58 ft. and 22 ft. x 38 ft. and in a land measuring 15 ft. x 25 ft. he has constructed cattle shed and remaining land is used for cultivation. They also contend that, the said lands are the only property belonging to the family. In their family, there are educated members and the members are utilizing the said land for commercial, industrial and also for agricultural purpose. They have also submitted a memorandum to the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 10.09.2003 requesting for de- notification of the said lands and therefore, they wanted acquisition proceedings to be dropped. In respect of survey No.24, the owners of the lands also filed objections contending that by a family partition, they have effected partition by metes and bounds. Accordingly, they are cultivating the land and rearing the cattle in the remaining land. They also requested for dropping the acquisition proceedings. On consideration of the aforesaid facts, the Government proceeded to issue final notification on 19.12.2005 under Section 28 (4) of the Act. Thereafter, 16 the petitioners have preferred these petitions challenging the acquisition.
6. The learned Single Judge opines though objections are filed against the acquisition without considering the said objection, the LAO has passed an order under Section 28(3) of the Act mechanically. The LAO has not considered the question, whether the houses which the petitioners say that they have constructed are in their possession, were constructed prior to preliminary notification or not. He has relied on a circular dated 30.7.2007 where certain guidelines have been issued to the authorities for not including the properties to ascertain as to whether the conditions stipulated in the circular exists. One such condition is whether the area is already developed, constructions are put up, families are residing in the said premises which is the factor that should be taken into consideration before issuing notification. Therefore, the learned Single Judge is of the view that as the said circular is not taken note of and the disputed facts are not satisfactorily decided, the 17 acquisition is bad. Therefore, he has set aside the preliminary as well as the final notification. Aggrieved by the said order, both the beneficiaries as well as the Board has preferred these appeals.
7. Sri Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Board contended that the circular on which the reliance is placed has no application to the facts of the case. The said circular is of the year 2007, whereas the notification which is impugned in the proceedings is of the years 2004 and 2005. Secondly, he contended that the construction so put in Sy.No.28/3 are after the preliminary notification, the total extent of land is 4 acres 5 guntas and the construction put up are very small in nature which are put up subsequent to the notification. Any how that cannot be a consideration for quashing an acquisition. Moreover, he submitted that the petitioners have sold their land during the pendency of these appeals. Even that ground is not available. Even on an equity they are not entitled to any relief in the hands of justice. 18 Therefore, he prays that the impugned order requires to be set aside.
8. Sri D.N. Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the beneficiary pointed out that, the total extent of land notified in the acquisition in all is 103 acres 4 guntas; out of which 97 acres has been acquired in Sy.No.15/2. The land which was de-notified was the subject matter of preliminary notification in the year 2001. Subsequently, that land has been excluded from acquisition. Unfortunately, ignoring the said fact again in the impugned notification, it was included under Section 28(1) where the land owner filed objections pointing out that, it has been excluded from notification and no notification is issued under Section 28(4) of the Act. After the issue of 28(4) notification, no land has been de- notified. Therefore, the argument that there is discrimination in the de-notification is without any substance.
9. Per contra, Sri Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the land owner and also for the 19 impleading applicants submitted that there is an indiscriminate de-notification of the lands surrounding the land in question. In the land in question, the petitioners in particular in Sy.No.23/4 have put up construction; they are living with the family members; they cannot be denied the said land. The Apex Court has held that if lands adjoining the notified land are de-notified, the same rule should apply to others. In support of his contention he relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court. Therefore, he contends that the impugned order is valid and legal and does not call for any interference.
10. Learned Government Advocate supported the aforesaid submissions.
11. In the light of the aforesaid facts and the rival contentions, the point that arises for our consideration is:-
Whether the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires interference?
12. The facts are not in dispute. The land bearing Sy.No.24 measuring 4 acres 25 guntas; Sy.No.23/4 20 measuring 4 acres 24 guntas situated at Kadubeesanahalli, Bellandur, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk belongs to the petitioners. Section 3(1) notification has been issued in the year 2001 declaring the area comprising of lands in question as the Industrial area. Section 3(1) notification is also issued making part VII of the Act applicable to the lands in question. It is thereafter on 29.2.2004 notification under Section 28(1) of the Act is issued proposing to acquire the lands in question for industrial purposes. The petitioners in all these writ petitions were duly served and they have filed their objections. In respect of Sy.No.23/4, the objections was family members have partitioned the said property. In the portion which has fallen to their share, they have constructed houses and living there. The petitioners also intend to set up IT park. In the other writ petition, there is no construction. The members of the family have partitioned the said property, they are cultivating the same and they have also opposed to the acquisition. Over- ruling all these objections, the Government has proceeded to issue notification under Section 28(1) on 19.12.2005. 21 From the materials on record, it is clear that there is no serious challenge regarding the object with which the notification has been issued. It is acquired for industrial purpose. The total extent of land acquired was 103.04 guntas in the notification issued under Section 28(1). In 28(4) notification 97 acres of land was acquired. After the issue of 28(4) notification there was no de-notification. Insofar as Sy.No.15/2 measuring 3 acres 15 guntas is concerned, that was the subject matter of preliminary notification, which were issued in the year 2001. Subsequently, the said land was excluded from acquisition. Denotification under Section 4 of the Act excluding the said land was not issued. The said land continued to be in the industrial area in terms of the notification under Section 3(1) of the Act. Therefore, when they have issued the impugned notification the said land was not excluded. The land owners filed objections to the notification. Therefore, the said land was not notified for acquisition under Section 28(4). It is not a case of de- notification of the lands which are similarly situated as that of the petitioners.
22
13. If in the notified land there are construction of houses that is a consideration which the authorities may take note of and may not proceed further in the matter. That is one of the guidelines issued in the circular which came into effect on 3.3.2007. That circular was not issued at the time when the preliminary notification and final notification was issued. Therefore, the learned Single Judge could not have found fault with the acquiring authority and ought not to have looked into the said circular. When we look at the statement of objections filed in these cases, the constructions which the land owners in Sy.No.23/4 are said to have put up are only to the extent of 42 feet x 58 feet; 22 feet x 38 feet and in a land measuring 15 feet x 35 feet with cattle shed is constructed with cement. In appeal, impleading application is filed by one mastero Hotels and Resorts Private Limited, a Company incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act. In the application, it is stated the petitioners along with other legal heirs have sold the land which was the subject matter of acquisition to them under registered Sale Deed dated 4.9.2008 after passing of the 23 order of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, they are the current owners of the schedule land. This fact is not disputed by the owners. This conduct of the petitioners during the pendency of the appeal negatives their contention that they are all poor agriculturists living in small houses which are constructed in the agricultural land eking out their living by agriculture and tethering their cattle. Therefore, they have no intention of continuing to occupy the said house and continue the agricultural operations in the said land. They have sold the property after the Judgment is passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, when they wanted money. On that ground the acquisition validly made cannot be set aside. The learned Single Judge did not properly appreciate the object behind the acquisition and the purpose for which the land is required and the settled law in this regard. He has been carried away by the fact that the petitioners are all agriculturists, small time farmers, they are living in their ancestral house and that houses are going to be demolished. The finding is not based on any evidence at all. Be that as it may, this is a case where 24 by exercise of statutory power, the Government has issued notification, declaring of the area including the schedule land as an industrial area. Thereafter the Government has made Chapter VII of the Act applicable to the land in question. Then they have issued a notification under Section 28(1) of KIADB Act proposing to acquire the land. The very fact that in Sy.No.23/4, 97 acres are notified in the final notification under Section 28(4) would show the bonafides of the Authority to acquire the land. If it is required for industrial purpose, the owners of the land are entitled to compensation in accordance with law.
14. Insofar as the impleading applicant is concerned, he has purchased the land during the pendency of the legal proceedings. It is hit by doctrine of lis pendence. They have no independent rights. They have no right to challenge acquisition as they have purchased the land after notification. The only ground on which any sympathetic view could be shown to the owners is that they are poor agriculturists, living in a small portions of built up area by their ancestors. The Court could have 25 thought of granting some relief. They have parted with the property and also have made a fortune. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge requires to be set aside.
15. Hence, we pass the following:-
ORDER All the appeals filed by the Board as well as the beneficiaries are allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside. The writ petitions are dismissed and impugned notification is upheld. Impleading Application is also dismissed.
Parties to bear their own costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Nvj/cp*