Karnataka High Court
Smt Chinnamma vs State Of Karnataka on 12 November, 2013
Equivalent citations: 2014 (1) AKR 485
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
®
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION No.14723 OF 2007 (LA-KIADB)
CONNECTED WITH
WRIT PETITION No.15813 of 2007 (LA-KIADB)
WRIT PETITION Nos.13055-13056 OF 2012 (LA-KIADB)
WRIT PETITION No.3293 OF 2012 (LA-KIADB)
WRIT PETITION No.27425 OF 2009 (LA-KIADB)
WRIT PETITION No.5382 OF 2008 (LA-KIADB)
WRIT PETITION No.16509 OF 2007 (LA-KIADB)
WRIT PETITION No.9325 OF 2007 (LA-KIADB)
WRIT PETITION Nos.48937-48940 OF 2013 (LA-KIADB)
IN W.P.No.14723/2007
BETWEEN:
Smt. Chinnamma,
Wife of Sri. Muniyappa,
Aged about 50 years,
Residing at Veerasandra Village,
Attibele Hobli,
Bangalore Rural District. ...PETITIONER
2
(By Shri. M. Shivaprakash, Advocate )
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By its Chief Secretary,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore.
2. Secretary,
Ministry of Industries and
Commerce,
State of Karnataka,
Bangalore.
3. Executive Officer,
Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Board,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore.
4. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Board,
Kheny Building,
1st Cross,
Gandhi Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 009.
5. M/s. J.S. Softward India Private Limited,
A company registered under the
Provision of Indian Companies Act, 1956,
Having its registered office at No.10/82,
Srinivasnagar,
BSK III Stage,
3
Bangalore - 560 085.
Presently having its Corporate
Office at No.326/32,
Rajendrapatil Nilaya,
Eramma Layout,
Hulimangala Post,
Anekal taluk,
Bangalore - 560 005,
Represented by its
Managing Director,
Sri. H.P. Rajagopal Reddy. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. P.V. Chandrashekar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3
and 4
Shri. H.T. Narendra Prasad, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
Shri. Madhusudan R Naik, Senior Advocate for Shri. M.S. Shyam
Sundar and Associates, for Respondent No.5
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash Annexure-B dated
27.8.2003, Annexure-C dated 14.5.2007, Annexure-H notification
dated 18.7.2007 and Annexure-J notice issued dated 19.5.2007
and consequently quash the entire proceedings under KIAD Act in
respect of property bearing Sy.No.89/1, owned by the petitioner.
IN W.P.No.15813/2007
BETWEEN:
1. Bhagyalakshmi,
Wife of R. Baskar,
4
Aged about 55 years,
Resident of Poojappa Layout,
Veerasandra Village,
Attibele Hobli,
Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore City.
2. Smt. Babijan,
Wife of Shaik Bhasha,
Aged about 45 years,
3. Smt. Sthya Ravindranath,
Wife of N.R.Ravindranath,
Aged about 43 years,
4. Sri. Jahan Aran,
Son of Nissar Ahmed
Aged about 43 years,
5. Smt. Banu Sunder
Wife of S. Sunder Babu,
Aged about 30 years,
6. Sri. T.A. Josh,
Son of Abraham,
Aged about 35 years,
7. Smt. P. Dhanalakshmi,
Wife of Shekran,
Aged about 50 years,
8. Sri. R. Ravindran,
Son of K.A. Rajee,
Aged about 50 years,
5
9. Smt. M. Lalitha,
Aged about 50 years,
10. Sri. M.A. Balakrishna,
Son of Late E.K.Appu,
Aged about 40 years,
11. Smt. Jagadeeswari,
Wife of Muniraju,
Aged about 45 years,
12. Sri. M. Lakshman,
Son of Late Motappa,
Aged about 70 years,
13. Sri. C.K. Ravi Kariyappa,
Son of Kariyappa,
Aged about 55 years,
14. Sri. S.T. Armugam,
Son of Late K.S. T. Pillai,
Aged about 45 years,
15. Sri. M. Subramani,
Son of S. Murugesh,
Aged about 68 years,
16. Sri. Kantharaj,
Son of Balan,
Aged about 65 years,
17. Imrana Begum,
Daughter of Sajeeda Begum,
Aged about 33 years,
Represented by her G.P.A.
6
Holder Abdul Samad,
Son of Late Shaik Ahmed,
Bangalore City.
18. Sri. Muthuswamy,
Son of Sri. Alagar Chettiar,
Aged about 55 years,
19. Sri. A.J.Pal,
Son of A. Arul Joseph,
Aged about 60 years,
20. Sri. P.S.Gopi,
Son of Sukar,
Aged about 48 years,
21. Sri. J. Margerate Joseph,
Son of Joseph,
Aged about 45 years,
22. Sri. J.D.Jayasheela Augestan,
Son of Jesus Das,
Aged about 58 years,
23. Sri. C. Sathyanarayan,
Son of B.S.Chinnaiah,
Aged about 45 years,
24. Sri. M. Iyappa,
Son of A. Muniswamy,
Aged about 48 years,
25. Sri. R.P.Chandra,
Son of Late R. Papaiah,
Aged about 48 years,
7
26. Smt.B.N. Gayathri,
Wife of Sathish Chandra,
Aged about 50 years,
27. Sri. Sathyamurthy,
Son of Late Thimmegowda,
Aged about 45 years,
28. Smt. S.R.Uma,
Wife of N.A.Sathyanarayana,
Aged about 48 years,
29. Sri. Shaik Thoulat Saheb,
Son of R. Kasim Sahib,
Aged about 40 years,
30. Smt. C. Pankajavalli,
Wife of Late B.S.Chamaiah,
Aged about 45 years,
31. Sri. Syub Khan,
Son of Jabbar Khan,
Aged about 40 years,
32. Sri. S. Diwakar,
Son of C.S.Suryanarayana Rao,
Aged about 40 years,
33. Smt. L. Indrani,
Wife of Poojappa,
Aged about 45 years,
34. Sri. P.A. Chandran,
Son of Appunni,
8
Aged about 52 years,
35. Sri. S. Udayamani,
Son of M. Chidambaranathan,
Aged about 48 years,
36. Smt. Kanchana Raju,
Wife of Raju,
Aged about 40 years,
37. Sri. R. Goulanathan,
Son of M. Ramaswamy,
Aged about 58 years,
38. Smt. Parvathi,
Daughter of Late Kuppuswamy,
Aged about 60 years,
39. Sri. J. Sathyasheelan,
Son of Joseph,
Aged about 60 years,
40. Sri. J. Leonard,
Son of A. Joseph,
Aged about 60 years,
41. Sri. Syed Azmathulla,
Son of Syed Basheer,
Aged about 60 years,
42. Sri. J.A.Raju,
Son of J. Joseph,
Aged about 70 years,
All are residing at
Poojappa Layout,
9
Veerasandra Village,
Attibele Hobli,
Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore Taluk. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. M. Shivaprakash, Advocate
Vide court order dated 15.11.2010 writ petition stand dismissed as
against petitioner nos. 2 to 42 )
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By its Chief Secretary,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore,
Bangalore City.
2. Secretary,
Ministry of Industries
And Commerce,
State of Karnataka,
Bangalore,
Bangalore City.
3. Executive Officer,
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore,
Bangalore City.
4. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Karnataka Industrial Area
Development Board,
Kheny Building,
10
1st Cross,
Gandhinagar,
Bangalore - 560 009,
Bangalore City.
5. M/s. Goyal Projects Private Limited,
A company registered under
the provisions of Indian
Companies Act, 1956,
Having its Registered office
At No.98/2, Veersandra,
1st Cross, 2nd Main,
Electronic City,
Bangalore - 560 010.
Presently having its Corporate Office
At No.326/32, Rajendrapatil Nilaya,
Eramma Layout,
Hulimangala Post,
Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore - 560 005,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Sri. H.P. Rajagopal Reddy.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Madhusudan R Naik, Senior Advocate for Shri. M.S.
Shyam Sundar, Advocate for Respondent No.5
Shri. H.T. Narendra Prasad, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Respondent no.2 served and unrepresented
Shri. P.V.Chandrashekar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 & 4)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash Annexure-F dated
11
27.8.2003, Annexure-H dated 14.5.2007, Annexure-J notification
dated 18.7.2007 and Annexure-G dated 27.8.2003 and Annexure-
G1 dated 16.9.2003 and consequently quash the entire
proceedings under KIAD Act in respect of property bearing
Sy.No.88 and 96/2, owned by the petitioners.
IN W.P.Nos.13055-13056/2012
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. G. Periyanna,
Son of Late Govindappa,
Aged about 87 years,
Residing at: Gollahalli Village,
Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore Urban District,
Bangalore - 560 099.
2. Dr. Chandil Kumar,
Son of P. Gunashekar,
Aged about 33 years,
Residing at : Gollahalli Village,
Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore Urban District,
Bangalore - 560 099.
...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. M. Subramanya Bhat, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka
Represented by the
Secretary, Department of
Industries and Commerce
12
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Karnataka Industrial Area
Development Board
(KIADB), No.14/3,
2nd Floor, R.P.Building,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer,
Karnataka Industrial Area
Development Board,
Kheni Buildings,
1st Cross,
Gandhinagar,
Bangalore - 560 009.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Basavaraj V Sabarad, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2
and 3
Shri. H.T. Narendra Prasad, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1)
*****
These Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to call for the entire records
pertaining to the case of the petitioners. and quash the notification
dated 27.8.2003, issued by the first respondent under Section
28(1) of the 1966 Act, vide Annexure-C and the final notification
dated 14.5.2007, issued by the first respondent under Section
28(4) of the 1966 Act, vide Annexure -E as the same are illegal,
13
arbitrary, unconstitutional, besides being violative of Section 11-A
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and etc;
In W.P.No.3293/2012
BETWEEN:
Sri. M. Rahmathulla,
Aged about 51 years,
Son of Sri. Ajmathulla,
Residing at No.1014B,
4th 'M'Block,
Rajajinagar,
Bangalore - 560 010.
...PETITIONER
(By Shri. Suresh S Lokre, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By its Chief Secretary,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Secretary,
Ministry of Industries and
Commerce,
Government of Karnataka
Multistoried Buildings,
Vidhana Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. Executive Officer,
Karnataka Industrial Areas
14
Development Board,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
4. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Board,
Kheny Building,
1st Cross,
Gandhi Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 009.
5. M/s. Aarel Tech Park,
No.4, 6th Road,
Nandidurga Road,
Bangalore - 560 046.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. H.T. Narendra Prasad, Additional Government
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
Shri. P.V. Chandrashekar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4
Notice held sufficient for respondent No.5)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the Annexure-A
(preliminary notification dated 27.8.2003) and Annexure-B (final
notification dated 14.5.2007 and etc;
IN W.P.No.27425/2009
BETWEEN:
Sri. Kanakappa,
Aged about 60 years,
15
Son of Munivenkatappa,
Residing at Veerasandra,
Attibele Hobli,
Anekal Taluk. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. T.K.Rajagopal, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by the Secretary,
(Industries Development),
Department of Commerce and
Industry, Multistoried Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Executive Member,
Karnataka Industrial Area
Development Board,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, KIADB, No.3,
1st Cross, Kheni Building,
3rd Floor, Ghandinagar,
Bangalore - 560 009.
4. M/s. Eesha Solutions,
No.139, 1st Cross Road,
5th Block, Koramangala,
Bangalore - 560 095,
Represented by its Partner,
Shri. H.R. Rajashekar.
16
[amended carried out
Vide court order
Dated 16.6.2010] ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Praveen G Adagatti, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2
and 3
Shri. H.T. Narendra Prasad, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Shri. R.V.S.Naik, Advocate for M/s. King and Patridge, for
Respondent No.4)
******
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 27.8.2003, vide Annexure-C under Section
28(1) and the final declaration dated 14.5.2007 vide Annexure-D,
28(4) of the K.I.A.D.B. Act 1966.
IN W.P.No.5382/2008
BETWEEN:
K. Anand,
Son of Krishnappa,
Aged about 13 years,
Resident of Veerasandra Village,
Attibele Hobli,
Anekal Taluk, (minor represented
By his father and natural
Guardian Y. Krishnappa) ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. M.S. Rajendra Prasad, Senior Advocate for Shri. M.S.
Anand, Advocate for M/s. M.S. Rajendra Prasad, Associates)
17
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
M.S.Buildings,
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented by the
Principal Secretary to Government,
Commerce and Industries Department.
2. The Chief Executive Officer
And Executive Member,
Karnataka Industrial Area Development
Board (KIADB), No.14/3,
II floor, R.P.Building,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
KIADB, International Airport
Division Office, No.14/3,
II Floor, R.P.Building,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. P.v. Chandrashekar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2
and 3
Shri H.T. Narendra Prasad, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the notice dated 4.4.2005
and the also the public notice dated 9.9.2007 so far as it relates to
the subject land as per Annexures A and B respectively.
18
IN W.P.No.16509/2007
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Ramakrishnappa,
Son of Jedappa,
Aged 40 years,
No.57, Veerasandra Village,
Anekal Hobli,
Bangalore.
2. Poul Raj,
Son of Arogyaswamy,
Aged 43 years,
No.564, Veerasandra Village,
Anekal Hobli,
Bangalore.
3. Veerabhadrappa,
Son of Rajappa,
Aged 25 years,
Resident of Veerasandra Village,
Anekal Hobli,
Bangalore.
4. Ganganna,
Son of Thimmaiah,
Aged 31 years,
Resident of Veerasandra Village,
Anekal Hobli,
Bangalore.
5. Honappa,
Son of Barumappa,
Aged 61 years,
19
Resident of Veerasandra Village,
Anekal Hobli,
Bangalore.
6. Shankar,
Son of Annamalaiah,
Aged 46 years,
Resident of Veerasandra Village,
Anekal Hobli,
Bangalore.
7. Rajappa,
Son of Chinna Govinda,
Aged 45 years,
Residing at No.367,
Veerasandra Village,
Anekal Hobli,
Bangalore.
8. A. Channa Reddy,
Son of Aarunachalareddy,
Aged 53 years,
Residing at No.354,
Veerasandra Village,
Anekal Hobli,
Bangalore.
9. M. Raghavendra,
Son of Muniramu,
Aged 26 years,
Residing at No.618,
Veerasandra Village,
Anekal Hobli,
Bangalore.
20
10. Manjula,
Daughter of Yallappa,
Aged 24 years,
Residing at No.447,
Veerasandra Village,
Anekal Hobli,
Bangalore.
11. Munipapanna,
Son of Mariyappa,
Aged 40 years,
Resident of Veerasandra Village,
Anekal Hobli,
Bangalore.
12. Sakthivelu,
Son of Perumal,
Aged 41 years,
Residing at No.227,
Veerasandra Village,
Anekal Hobli,
Bangalore.
13. Thanja,
Son of Doreswamy,
Aged 49 years,
Residing at No.71-5,
Veerasandra Village,
Anekal Hobli,
Bangalore.
14. Muniyellappa,
Son of Papaiah,
Aged 50 years,
Residing at No.519,
Veerasandra Village,
21
Anekal Hobli,
Bangalore. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. Raghu Prasad B.S., Advocate
Writ Petition stands dismissed against petitioner nos. 2 to 14
Vide order dated 15.11.2010)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Department of Industries and
Commerce, Multistoreyed Building,
Vidhana Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented by its Secretary.
2. Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Board,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented by its Executive Officer,
3. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Kheny Buildings, 1st Cross,
Gandhinagar,
Bangalore - 560 009. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. P.V. Chandrashekar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2
and 3
Shri. H.T. Narendra Prasad, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.1)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash notification dated
22
27.8.2003 vide Annexure-B notification dated 27.8.2003 vide
Annexure-C and notification dated 14.5.2007 vide Annexure-D.
Insofar as it relates to Sy.No.90 of Veerasandra Village,
Hebbagodi Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District.
IN W.P.No.9325/2007
BETWEEN:
Sri. Govindappa,
Son of Munivenkatappa,
Aged about 56 years,
Residing at Veerasandra,
Attibele Hobli,
Anekal Taluk. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. H.R. Anantha Krishna Murthy, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
(Industries Development),
Department of Commerce and
Industry, Multistoried Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Executive Member,
Karnataka Industrial
Area Development Board,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Karnataka Industrial
23
Area Development Board,
No.3, 1st Cross,
Kheni Building, 3rd Floor,
Gandhinagar,
Bangalore - 560 009.
4. M/s. Eesha Solutions,
No.139, 1st Cross Road,
5th Block, Koramangala,
Bangalore - 560 095.
Represented by its Partner,
Sri H.R. Rajashekar. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. H.T. Narendra Prasad, Additional Government
Advocate for Respondent No.1
Shri. R.V.S.Naik, Advocate for Respondent No.4
Shri. M. Sudhakar, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the notification dated
27.8.2003 under Section 28(1) vide Annexure-C and dated
14.5.2004 under Section 28(4) of the KIADB Act 1966 vide
Annexure-E.
IN W.P.Nos. 48937-940/2013
BETWEEN:
1. H.R. Rajashekar,
Son of Late H. Ramaiah Reddy,
Aged about 56 years,
Residing at No.310,
24
6th Main, HAL II Stage,
Bangalore - 560 038.
2. N.S. Anand,
Son of N.C. Subbaraju,
Aged about 48 years,
Residing at No.4027,
7th Cross, 7th block,
Jayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 082.
3. N.S. Narendra,
Son of N.C. Subbaraju,
Aged about 46 years,
Residing at No.4027,
7th Cross,
7th Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 082.
4. M/s. Eesha Solutions,
A Partnership Firm,
Having its office at No.139,
1st Cross Road, 5th Block,
Koramangala, Bangalore - 560 095,
Represented by its Partner,
Mr. H.R. Rajashekar. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. Nitin Prasad, Advocate for M/s. King and Partridge,
Advocates)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Department of Commerce and Industries,
Vidhana Soudha,
25
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented by its
Principal Secretary.
2. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development
Board, No.14/3, II Floor,
Rashtrothana Parishat Building,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented by its
Chief Executive Officer and
Executive Member.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
KIADB, No.3, I Cross,
III Floor, Kheny Building,
Gandhinagar,
Bangalore - 560 009.
4. Karnataka Udyog Mitra,
A Government of Karnataka
Organisation, 3rd Floor,
Khanija Bhavan (South Wing),
No.49, Race Course Road,
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented herein by its
Managing Director. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. H.T. Narendra Prasad, Additional Government
Advocate)
*****
These Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the notification dated
26
14.5.2007, issued by the respondent no.1 under Section 28(4) of
the KIAD Act vide Annexure-C and etc;
These Petitions, having been heard and reserved on
31.10.2013 and coming on for Pronouncement of Orders this day,
the Court delivered the following:-
ORDER
These petitions are heard and disposed of by this common order, as the subject matter of the petitions is common.
2. By a notification dated 27-8-2003 issued under Section 3 (1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (Hereinafter referred to as 'The KIAD Act', for brevity) the State Government had declared lands, specified thereunder, in and around Attibele Hobli as an industrial area. It was proposed to acquire an extent of 224 acres 33 guntas of land for the purpose of developing the Electronic City IV Stage, located in Veerasandra and Hebbagodi village limits. However, in the notification issued under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act, dated 14-5-2007, it was restricted to an extent of 118 acres and 8 guntas. 27
It is in respect this acquisition and the subsequent events that have followed that the present petitions are filed. Re. WP 14723 / 2007:
The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of land in Survey no. 89/1, measuring 2 acres 14 guntas of Veerasandra, Attibele Hobli, Anekal . The petitioner is said to have acquired the land under a sale deed dated 10-4-1980. On acquisition of title the petitioner and at his instance, the Department of Survey had phoded the land and assigned sub-division numbers to Sy. No. 89
- as 89/1 & 89/2. An extent of land measuring 2 acres 3 guntas in Sy. No. 89/2 was held by one Laxmamma, wife of Chinnappaiah. It is the case of the petitioner that the said Laxmamma had made a representation to the KIADB seeking to voluntarily surrender the said extent of land held by her and which was notified for acquisition. It is also stated that she had assigned her right in favour of a land developer one H.C. Rajagopala Reddy. It is alleged by the petitioner that in a blatant and mischievous manner, the authorities had connived with the land developer to delete the 28 land of Laxmamma from the acquisition proceedings but to the shock of the petitioner his land in Survey no. 89/2 which was not even notified for acquisition was inexplicably included in a notification under Section 28(8) of the KIAD Act.
It is contended that the above instance which directly involves the petitioner is but an example and that the entire proceedings from inception is rife with large scale manipulation, where it is apparent that the authorities have indiscriminately deleted lands proposed to be acquired for extraneous considerations resulting in gross illegality and an arbitrary and fraudulent exercise of power.
It is asserted that the respondent authorities having notified the proposed acquisition of a total extent of 224.33 acres, have without jurisdiction and without ascribing acceptable reasons having denotified vast extent of lands and the ultimate extent of land to be finally acquired being reduced to about 40 acres would indicate that the entire exercise was to benefit a few private parties who had identified particular lands as being suitable for their 29 alleged projects and the authorities having willingly set apart those items of lands for the particular benefit of those individual parties, even before the initiation of the acquisition proceedings would indicate an unholy nexus between the said private parties and the concerned authorities and that a procedure having been adopted which is blatantly illegal and contrary to the scheme envisaged under the Act. In this regard it is pointed out that even earlier to the conclusion of the acquisition proceedings, the authorities had communicated to certain private parties namely, M/s JS software Pvt. Ltd., M/s RGR Tech Park Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Goyal Projects Pvt. Ltd. , that the petitioner's land is earmarked for allotment to them. This is wholly inexplicable and illegal. Re. WP 15813 /2007:
The petitioners are said to be individual residential site owners, who are in possession of their respective sites formed in a layout developed by one Poojappa, who is no more. The said sites are formed in land in Survey no.88 of Veerasandra village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk. The petitioners had purchased the 30 said parcels of land in the years 1994 & 1995. The entire extent in Sy.No. 88 measures 4 acres 2 guntas. The petitioners having exercised ownership over the land in respect of their individual sites is duly acknowledged by the local authority in the issue of Khatha certificates and collection of property taxes thereof.
It is stated that the respondent authorities had notified the subject land as held by late Poojappa, in entirety, for proposed acquisition and had thereafter issued the final notification under Section 28 (4) of the KIAD Act also in the name of Poojappa and later having issued a notification under Section 28(8) of the KIAD Act, as a prelude to taking possession of the land, completely ignoring the right that has accrued to the petitioners and they being under a serious threat of immediate dispossession, have preferred the petition on several grounds.
Re. WP 9325 / 2007:
The petitioner is said to be the owner in possession of land measuring 30 guntas in Sy. No.3 of Veerasandra village. The 31 same was part of his ancestral property, totally measuring 4 acres 20 guntas. At a partition between himself and his brothers, the above extent having fallen to the petitioner's share, the revenue authorities are said to have effected the khatha accepting the mutation and the RTC also is said to be in the name of the petitioner in respect of the above extent. It is the case of the petitioner that the property in question consists of a dwelling house with vacant land where the petitioner has grown flowering plants and vegetables and that he along with his family of his wife, children and others is engaged in flower vending for his livelihood.
It is stated that the authorities have initiated acquisition proceedings in respect of the entire extent of land measuring 4 acres and 20 guntas belonging to his family and as it stood before partition. The petitioner had filed his objections to the notification under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act. The same having been ignored and the petitioner not having been heard before a final 32 notification was issued under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act, the petitioner has preferred this petition.
The petitioner has highlighted certain obviously irregular circumstances indicating the want of bona fides of the authorities.
That there is inordinate delay in issuing the notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act, which vitiates the proceedings.
That the respondents had chosen only certain lands for being notified without any acceptable explanation. As for instance the land in survey no. 1, 2 and other lands adjacent to the land of the petitioner is not notified for reasons best known to the respondents.
It is further pointed out that respondent no. 4 was a partnership firm, the partners are said to have entered into an agreement to purchase the lands of the petitioner- but the agreement became unenforceable by efflux of time. The said partners are said to be holding land in Survey no. 2 adjacent to the petitioner's land. The same is said to have been notified for 33 acquisition and promptly denotified. And it is ironic that the petitioner's land is sought to be acquired for the benefit of the very fourth respondent. This blatant act on the part of the respondents would demonstrate that the acquisition proceedings are clearly a fraud on power as it is only to satisfy private interests that the same are being resorted to in the guise of subserving public interest.
Re. WP 16509 / 2007:
The petitioners are said to be residents of land in Sy. No. 90 of Veerasandra, Hebbagodi, they had been allowed to construct residential dwelling units by the Hebbagodi Grama Panchayath, under the Ashraya Scheme promulgated by the State Government. They had also been provided with all amenities like water and electricity.
The petitioners claim to have become aware of the acquisition proceedings only in retrospect and had blissfully remained unaware of the same. It is however, the case of the petitioners that they have continued to be in possession of the land 34 and there has been no subsequent notice of the proceedings to the petitioners. But the authorities having proceeded on the basis that possession has been taken over and in turn seeking to hand over the lands to alleged beneficiaries, the petitioners being faced with imminent forcible dispossession, are before this court. Re. WP 5382 /2008 :
The petitioner is said to be the owner of land in Survey no. 97/2 measuring 2 acres and 12 guntas, of Veerasandra. The same is said to have been acquired under a will dated 10-12-1999 executed by the petitioner's grand-father, GK Yellappa, who is said to have died on 21-2-2004. The petitioner's name is now reflected in the revenue records. The said land having been notified for acquisition vide notification dated 15-3-2005, the petitioner had filed his objections to the effect that the land was wet land and was under active cultivation and that the petitioner also had 25 head of cattle which were sustained on the land. That the petitioner also resides on the land with his family members etc. However, the said objections were overruled and a final 35 notification having been issued, the petitioner is before this court. The petitioner seeks to question the acquisition, inter-alia, on the ground that the State Government has issued a circular dated
3.3.2007, which in effect declares a policy statement to the effect that whenever any land is sought to be acquired for industrial purposes, and if in those lands, temples, schools, grave yards or residential houses are located, the same are to be excluded from acquisition- and that the petitioner's land qualifies on that ground also but that the authorities have overlooked the same. Re.W.P. 27425 / 2009:
The present petitioner is similarly placed as the petitioner in WP 9325 / 2007 above. The petitioner is before this court on identical grounds as urged in that petition, as the claim in respect of a portion of land measuring 30 guntas of the very same sy. No. which is notified as it stood before partition of the lands apparently between the present petitioner and the petitioner in the above referred petition and others.36
Re. WP 3293 /2011:
The petitioner is said to be the owner of land in Sy. No. 121/4, measuring 22.8 guntas, of Hebbagodi, having purchased the same in the year 1992. The petitioner is the proprietor of registered Small Scale Industrial unit since the year 1993 and the same is established on the said land.
The endeavour on the part of the respondent authorities to favour the fifth respondent in seeking to allot the land belonging to the petitioner, pursuant to the acquisition proceedings, in favour of the fifth respondent particularly is one of the grounds cited to disclose the mala fides in the acquisition proceedings. The petitioner himself stakes a claim to allotment as a small scale industrial unit, even if the acquisition proceedings are to be sustained.
Re. WP 13055-56 /2012:
The petitioners are said to be owners of land in Sy. No. 121/15 of Hebbagodi, each owning 28 guntas thereof. The first respondent had issued a notification under Section 28(1) of the 37 KIAD Act, dated 27-8-2003, proposing to acquire 90.03 acres of land for the formation of the Electronic City IV Phase. The land of the petitioners was shown therein. However, the respondent authorities withdrew from the acquisition in respect of land measuring 12.20 acres and 71.27 acres, under two notifications dated 14.5.2007 and 30.8.2007, respectively. This left only 5.36 acres of land available for the purpose for which it was acquired. Even out of this a further extent of 2.30 acres was deleted by virtue of orders passed in WP 9568 & WP 9569 / 2007, by this court. This effectively left the respondents with the land measuring 1.16 acres of land belonging to the petitioners to satisfy the above purpose of acquisition, which the petitioners seek to point out is meaningless.
Re. WP 48937 -940 /2013:
The petitioners herein are before this court with an unusual prayer. The petitioners 1 to 3 are the partners of the petitioner no.4, firm. An application had been made as on 26.10.2007 by petitioner no.4 to respondent no.4 seeking allotment of land in sy. 38 No. 3 of Veerasandra village- including 3 acres of land acquired from petitioners no.1 to 3, on their proposal for setting up a software development facility. The petitioners were allotted 3 acres of land only. On their further representation to allot the remaining extent of 1 acre 20 guntas (incidentally held by the petitioners in WP 9325 /2007 and WP 27425 / 2009, to an extent of 30 guntas, each)- they had been called upon to pay the cost of acquisition of the same. This had been paid by the petitioners in a sum of Rs.59,47,500/- as on 12.10.2009, to respondent no.2.
3. In view of the acquisition proceedings having gone awry-
in the respondent authorities continuing to withdraw from acquisition in respect of vast tracts of land originally notified for acquisition and the petitioners having lost faith of any further positive development in the remaining extent of land being allotted to them in the near future, the petitioners contend that with passage of time and the enormous delay in handing over the balance land to the petitioners and in the view of complete absence of provision of infrastructure and amenities, despite 39 payment of development charges in a sum of Rs.9.60 lakh as early as 22.10.2008, the project of the petitioners is rendered unviable and unworkable and therefore seek quashing of the acquisition proceedings and refund of monies paid by them.
4. The several counsel appearing for the several petitioners have elaborated on the grounds urged in each of their petitions at length. It is also highlighted that most of these petitions had been heard and allowed by a learned single judge by his order dated 15.10.2012. The same having been challenged before a division bench of this court, the appeal in Writ appeal No.758 /2011 was allowed by a judgment dated 4.10.2012 and the matter was remitted for a fresh consideration. Following the said judgment other appeals filed against the orders in favour of the rest of the petitioners were also allowed and it is thus that these petitions are heard on merits for the second time.
5. The learned single judge who had heard the above matters over a sustained period of time has graphically expressed his dismay at the sequence of events that have marked the 40 acquisition proceedings from inception - on an examination of the material particulars that were obtained by the petitioner (in W.P.No.14723 of 2007) by recourse to the Right to Information Act. The learned single judge had by his order dated 15-12-2010 expressed thus :
"10. The manner in which the board very courageously and enterprisingly embarked upon the adventure or if one may describe it as a misadventure, to acquire an extent of 224.33 acres of agricultural land and other converted land in these two villages, has undergone a metamorphosis in the board and the government periodically giving up one land after the other from the purview of acquisition and though under the declaration issued under Section 28(4) of the Act, an extent of 138.08 acres of land was covered and ultimately it is now conceded by the board that it will be able to implement its project/plan for so-called IV Stage of Electronic City, only in respect of an extent of 29.25 acres of land, in terms of Annexure-H.
11. However, this factual aspect is sought to be disputed by Sri. P.V. Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the respondent - board, pointing out the additional statement of objections filed on 18.11.2010, wherein it 41 is, no doubt, mentioned that the board is able to possess the land to the extent of 48.23 acres."
The learned single judge while taking note of the manner in which the State Government had liberally withdrawn from the acquisition proceedings in respect of large tracts of land out of the extent originally envisaged for acquisition, has also found that a practice adopted by the State Government to earmark lands identified by the ultimate beneficiary even prior to the acquisition proceedings being initiated and to thereafter notify the same for acquisition, as an unhealthy practice that amounted to a gross abuse of power and had proceeded to quash the acquisition proceedings , thus :
"17. The present practice of the board identifying the beneficiaries even in advance is a very unhealthy trend and is indicative of the trend on the part of authorities particularly the statutory authorities under the Act yielding to private pressures and acting for their benefit or gain. A development of this nature while is definitely not a healthy development, but is disastrous to the maintenance of law and order and is definitely 42 anathema to the equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
18. While the state is always mandated by the constitution to treat all citizens equally, exercise of the state powers for acquisition of private lands which is an inroad into the private rights of citizens and can even be characterized as an exception to the enforcement of rule of law, is allowed only to the limited extent of the acquisition being solely and exclusively for a definite public purpose. When it is demonstrated before the court and even otherwise this court has noticed that the acquisition proceedings initiated by the state government at the behest of the board has not gone on proper lines and on the other hand the proceedings and the power are misused for the benefit of private interest, acquisition proceedings can never be sustained, though the present petitioner, perhaps, might have been ready and willing to the proposal as per the joint memo, it is not possible for this court to act on this joint memo, as it is not merely the interest of the petitioner that is examined in such matters, but the judicial review is of the administrative action and the manner of exercise of statutory power by respondents 1 to 4 and it is not the petitioner's interest alone that is in focus in the present petition and definitely not the interest of the fifth respondent, assuming that the fifth respondent claims 43 some interest in the subject matter, as a possible beneficiary.
19. It is, therefore, that the joint memo is not acted upon and the acquisition proceedings having been held to be vitiated by legal mala fides, by abuse and misuse of statutory powers by the state and the board, acquisition proceedings in terms of the declaration under Section 28(4) of the Act and all further proceedings thereafter are quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari."
The division bench which heard the appeal against the above order of the learned single judge has opined thus :
"13. Since all these points are inter-linked with each other, we would like to deal with the same together as hereunder:
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have seen the entire pleadings of the parties and the order of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge upto paragraph-4 has narrated the various averments made in the Writ Petition by the Writ Petitioner. In para-6, he has dealt with the application filed by the allottee to come on record. Though the application filed by the allottee was stoutly opposed by 44 the Writ Petitioner, the application was allowed by the court considering that he is a necessary party as serious allegations were made against the allottee in the petition. Accordingly, the application filed by the allottee came to be allowed to come on record. He was permitted to file objections and thereafter the matter was formally admitted by issuing Rule on 15.11.2010 and he has set out the reasons assigned by the court to admit the petition. While doing so, he has also recorded the submissions made by the learned Advocate General appearing for the State and the matter was adjourned to explore the possibility of settlement. Thereafter, a joint Memo was filed as detailed in paragraph-7 of the order of the learned Single Judge. In paragraphs-8 and 9 he has dealt with why the compromise petition filed by the parties could not be accepted by the court and from paragraph-12 onwards he proceeded on the basis that the acquisition proceedings is ostensibly for a public purpose and the 5th respondent is more interested in the acquisition proceedings than the Government or the Board. In the circumstances, he has allowed the Writ Petition by quashing the notification with cost of Rs.25,000/-.
14. From the above narration of the order of the learned Single Judge, it is clear to the court, none of the 45 contentions urged by the Board or by the allottee has been considered by the learned Single Judge. No point is formulated by the learned Single Judge to decide the Writ Petition on merits. In paragraphs-17 to 19, the learned Single Judge has stated that the practice of the Board in identifying the beneficiaries even prior to the acquisition proceedings as bad and the same is nothing but disastrous to the maintenance of law and he however stated that State is always required to treat all the citizens equally. Exercise of the said power for acquisition of private lands which is an inroad into the private rights of citizens can be characterized as an exception to the enforcement of rule of Law. In order to come to this conclusion, the learned Single Judge was required to consider the objections filed by the Board as well as by the allottee. But unfortunately, the learned Single Judge did not consider the case of the parties.
Though the appellant has contended that the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner was barred by principles of resjudicata, whether really filing of second petition was resjudicata or not, Single Judge was required to give a finding and if the case of the appellant and the allottee had been considered by the learned Single Judge, we would not have interfered with the order of the learned Single Judge. Because the learned Single Judge has proceeded on a footing that the acquisition 46 procedure is bad in law on account of misuse of power and with a mala fide intention to give benefit to the 5th respondent, without considering their case, we are of the view that an error is committed by the learned Single Judge. If he had formed such a opinion after considering the objections of the allottee and the appellant, the matter would have been different. Therefore, we are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from infirmity and that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the learned Single Judge afresh."
6. Given the strict view expressed by the division bench as to the manner in which an order is required to be structured in addressing these petitions - it is no mean task for this bench to now deal with these petitions.
It would, in the opinion of this bench, be useful to firstly take stock of the sequence of events as admitted by the respondent KIADB .
It transpires that on Bangalore-Hosur National Highway an extent of 370 acres of land had been developed by KIADB and the land was leased in favour of Karnataka Electronics Development 47 Corporation KEONICS which was marketed by KEONICS as Electronics City I Phase. The KIADB is said to have thereafter developed an extent of 340 acres and allotted lands to entrepreneurs, in what is known as Electronics City II Phase. Considering the demand for land in this area while yet another extent of 172 acres of land was being acquired for the Electronics City III Phase, there was said to be a demand for, 140 acres of lands by the industrialists. There was growing demand for land in Electronics City. Under the circumstances, considering the demand for industrial land as also the available infrastructural facilities and amenities in the industrial area and the fact that the lands were earmarked for industrial purpose in the then CDP, it was proposed to acquire an extent of 300 acres of land in Veerasandra, Konappana Agrahara, Doddathogur and Berathna Agrahara villages for Electronics City IV Phase. Accordingly, as per Resolution dated 16.12.2000 on Additional Subject No.3 in the 233rd Board Meeting, it was resolved to acquire the said 300 acres of land for formation of industrial area. 48
It is claimed that the then Chief Executive Officer and Executive Member of the KIADB had conducted a spot inspection and had recommended to the Board that it would be expedient to acquire lands in Hebbagodi and Veerasandra villages. Accordingly, the Board at its 242nd Meeting held on 10.4.2002 is said to have resolved to acquire an extent of 320 acres and 14 guntas of land in Veerasandra and Hebbagodi villages for expansion of the existing Electronics City. Accordingly a proposal is said to have been sent to the Government for notifying an extent of 322-03 acres as per letter, dated 02.05.2002.
But the said proposal did not culminate in the issuance of a notification. After much correspondence, on 28.06.2003 the KIADB had addressed the Special Land Acquisition Officer KIADB who was directed to send a proposal for acquisition of land after excluding an extent of 93 acres 33 guntas, on the footing that upon spot inspection the said extent of land was found to have been fully developed.
49
Under those circumstances, a proposal was said to have been sent to the Government to notify an extent of 224 acres 33 guntas of land in Hebbagodi and Veerasandra villages under Sections 1(3), 3(1) and 28(1) of the KIAD Act, 1966. Accordingly, the State Government had issued the notification dated 27.08.2003 under Sections 1(3) and 3(1) of the KIAD Act in respect of an extent of 224 acres 33 guntas of land declaring the said extent as an industrial area. Out of this extent an extent of 32 acres 32 guntas were government lands. Hence, excluding the said extent, preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act was said to have been published on 27.08.2003 in respect of an extent of 193 acres 22 guntas. An arithmetical error was noticed as to the extent of lands shown in the notifications under Sections 1(3) and 3(1), namely, it was shown as 224 acres 33 guntas instead of have 224 acres 21 guntas. The total extent of the lands in the said two villages were as follows: 50
Village Extent in Actual extent
Notification A-G
Veerasandra 103-19 101-38
Hebbagodi 90-03 89-32-11
After proceedings under Sections 28(2) and Section 28(3) were completed the proposal was sent to the Government for issuance of the Final Notification as required under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act. At that juncture according to the KIADB, it was noticed that the following lands were not available for acquisition for the reasons mentioned against the extent of land:
Reasons Extent
A-G
Change of land use already given by the 18-27 Bangalore Development Authority (residential purpose) Land acquired under Bangalore Development 18-02 Authority Act Project Clearance by SLSWCC under 15-37 Karnataka Industries Facilitation Act in favour of Parasam Associates P Ltd. and Abharan Inotec etc Government tank 31-08 51 Land failing outside the compactness and 02-25 contiguity Sy.No.38 of Veerasandra village Total 86-19 Village Extent A-G Veerasandra 73-39 Hebbagodi 12-20 Total 86-19 The above said extent of 86 acres 19 guntas had been therefore deleted from acquisition by issuing a notification under Section 4 of the KIAD Act published in the Gazette dated 14.05.2007.
Therefore the extent of land available in Veerasandra and Hebbagodi villages for acquisition as on the above date was as follows:
Village Extent
A-G
Veerasandra 60-28
Hebbagodi 77-20
52
Total 138-08
For the above extent of 138 acres 08 guntas the final declaration under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act has been published on 14.05.2007. Out of the said extent of 138 acres 08 guntas of land an extent of 89 acres 25 guntas of land in the said two villages have been deleted from industrial area by publishing a notification under Section 4 of the KIAD Act which is published in the Gazette on 30.08.2007. This notification was published based on the Government direction contained in the letter bearing No.CI 571 SPQ 2004 dated 24.08.2007. The reasons assigned in this letter for deletion were, (a) time-lag between the preliminary and final notifications, (b) approval of projects by State Level Single Window Clearance Committee and projects awaiting approvals and (c) lands being situate in the midst of developed area.
53
Village Extent
A-G
Veerasandra 17-38
Hebbagodi 71-27
Total 89-25
Under the premises stated above the acquisition
proceedings were continued only in respect of the following extent of land:
Village Extent
A-G
Veerasandra 42-30
Hebbagodi 05-33
Total 48-23
It is the case of KIADB that the acquisition proceedings were proceeded further in respect of the above extent of 48 acres 23 guntas considering the fact that the State Level Single Window Clearance Committee had cleared the projects of the following companies:
54
Name Date of Veerasandra Total
Clearance
RGR Techpark P Ltd 23.03.07 14-04 14-04
Limited
Goyal Projects P Ltd 23.03.07 17-03 14-31
(excluding Sy.No.97/2 2
acres 12 guntas vide
notification dated
07.09.2007
JS software India P Ltd 23.03.07 07-19 07-19
Easha Solutions Ltd 26.11.07 03-00 03-00
Land abutting the proposed 02-36
BDA ring road
42-10
Easha Solutions Ltd 26.06.09 00-30 00-30
43-00
Name Date of Hebbagodi Total
Claearance
New Gen R & D Centre P Ltd 18.08.07 02-10 02-10
Bangalore Social and 27.09.07 01-15 01-15
Educational Association
AAR EL Tech Park 27.09.07 00-32 00-32
Land required for road 00-16 00-16
Proposal of Oxide Business 01-00 01-00
Solutions P Ltd.
5-33
55
Although the project proposal of JS Software India Private Limited was 7 acres 19 guntas the area available in the survey numbers requested by the said company was only 7 acres 09 guntas. Accordingly, the land in Veerasandra was 42 acre and 30 guntas and Hebbagodi village was 5 acres 33 guntas. This tallied with the balance 48 acres 23 guntas as reflected in the final notification. It was claimed that out of 48 acres 23 guntas the possession of the following extent of lands was taken over and transferred to KIADB under Section 28(8) of the KIAD Act.
Date of Veerasandra Hebbagodi Total
transfer
18.07.07 29-25 ½ - 29-25 ½
08.10.07 4-27 ¾ 0-32 05-19 ¾
24.11.07 0-30 - 0-30
17.03.08 3-00 - 3-00
38-03 ¼ 0-32 38-35 ¼
56
A sum of Rs.15,24,65,625/- (Rupees Fifteen Crore Twenty Four Lakh Sixty Five Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Five only) had been paid as compensation at the agreed rate of Rs.65/- lakhs per acre. It is claimed that the following extent of lands had been allotted and possession handed over to the allottees.
Name Date of Extent
Allotment Veerasandra
RGR Techpark P Ltd 14.11.07 14-04
Limited
Goyal Projects P Ltd 14.11.07 12-13 ¼
JS Software India P Ltd 14.11.07 03-08
Easha Solutions Ltd 29.05.09 03-00
Total 32-25 ¼
It is claimed by the KIADB out of 42 acres 30 guntas of land in Veerasandra included in the final declaration the ultimate picture that emerges is as follows:
Extent acquired 42-30 42.75 100%
Possession taken 38-03 38.08125 89%
¼
Government land 1-24 1.60 3.75
57
in Sy.No.90
Balance 03-02 3.06875 7.25%
¾
This was the position as detailed by the KIADB itself, and as pertaining in the year 2010.
At the time of final hearing, the KIADB has filed a Memo placing on record a copy of the proceedings of the 324th Board Meeting dated 27.06.2013, pertaining to these petitions and also an Office note dated 25.10.2013.
It is to be seen that the Board while taking stock of the situation, has recorded that out of the several projects, which had been identified by the State Level Single Window Committee , the land owners of lands, earmarked for the benefit of three projects, namely, M/s RGR Techpark Pvt. Ltd., M/s Goyal Projects Pvt. Ltd., and M/s JS Software India Pvt. Ltd., had given their consent only in respect of an extent of 29.25 acres, which could be handed over to the said beneficiaries. However, out of the land 58 earmarked for the above projects, an extent of 7 acres and 12 ½ guntas was the subject matter of the present writ petitions.
It was further recorded that an outfit known as Dalit Panthers of India were resisting delivery of possession of land in the following survey numbers of Veerasandra of the following extents :
Survey No. Extent (acres)
88/1 1.23¾
96/2 0.08
90 1.24
97/2 2.12
7. In view of the Board not having been able to take physical possession of the above extent of land and the same was to be utilized for the formation of a 60'road and the land owners being agreeable to surrender land only to the extent required for the formation of a 40' road, it was resolved by the Board to take possession only of the extent of lands required for formation of a 59 40' road and to recommend to the State Government to withdraw from the acquisition proceedings in respect of the balance lands. The said recommendation is said to be pending before the State Government.
8. It is thus apparent that one of the beneficiaries, M/s Eesha Solutions, had through its partners chosen to abandon the project in view of the acquisition of land for the formation of the industrial layout and the provision of infrastructural facilities and amenities therein, being interminably delayed. It is in that futile circumstance that the writ petition in WP 48937-940/2013 is obviously filed by the said beneficiaries themselves seeking that the acquisition proceedings be set at naught. And has sought to withdraw the statement of objections filed in a connected writ petition, as a contesting respondent, that had been filed at an earlier point of time.
Added to this, one other beneficiary, namely, M/s JS Software Pvt. Ltd., has filed a memo dated 31.10.2013, to state that it was crucial to its project that the land allotted to it be 60 provided with an access road of a minimum of 60 feet in width. The Board having found that it was no longer feasible to provide a 60 feet road, the said respondent has expressed that - should the State Government accept the recommendation now made by the Board, as per Resolution dated 27.6.2013, referred to herein above, it is claimed that the said respondent would be put to hardship and irreparable damage and the very purpose of allotment would fail. In that, it would then be impossible to obtain necessary sanctions, under the building bye-laws and other statutory provisions in establishing its industry, in the absence of a road with a minimum width of 60 feet.
9. In the light of the above developments, the glaring circumstance that is apparent and which would be required to be addressed as the primary point for consideration, is whether the very object of the acquisition is any longer relevant with virtually the entire extent of land declared as an industrial area, Electronic City, Phase-IV, having been dropped from the acquisition proceedings.
61
In that, it is on record that the Electronic City Phase- I is spread over 370 acres. Phase -II is spread over 340 acres and Phase -III was again spread over several hundred acres of land. It was in keeping with such a cohesive development that an extent of about 320.03 acres was recommended for acquisition for Phase - IV. The industrial area declared was spread over 224.21 acres. However, in the circumstances noted above, the said extent has been progressively and liberally whittled down to infinitesimal parcels, and from the tenor of the latest resolutions of the Board the process of deleting the lands duly notified under Section 28 (4) of the KIADB Act, continues. The legality of that exercise having been carried out even earlier, by recourse to Section 4, is itself seriously doubtful. Therefore, whether the object of acquisition, to wit, the formation of Electronic City- Phase IV was any longer identifiable, is the point that rears up for consideration.
The petitioners as well as the KIADB have produced several rough sketches in respect of the few remaining items of land that are still the subject matter of acquisition and are to 62 constitute Electronic City Phase-IV. It would be expected of the KIADB to demonstrate that the said extent is of a size to qualify as one of the phases of the Electronic City and not merely consisting of a few additional industrial units, apart from Phases I to III. It is also necessary to demonstrate that the same forms a contiguous and reasonably compact block to accommodate the infrastructural facilities to be developed . Further, it should also be shown that these remaining items of land are in proximity and contiguous to the other Phases of the Electronic City. There is no such endeavour on the part of KIADB, except to vaguely state that if the claim of the petitioners is accepted, it would affect the contiguity and compact development of the Industrial layout. While at the same time, there is a move afoot to withdraw from acquisition in respect of even more items of land, further reducing the already depleted extent of land.
The almost continuous withdrawal from the acquisition proceedings, from inception till date, in respect of large swathes of land identified and earmarked as part of the declared industrial 63 area, for one or the other reason, including reasons as are sought to be urged by these petitioners, would certainly indicate gross arbitrariness of treatment. Albeit that there may be some consenting land owners, who have voluntarily surrendered their land and even received compensation in respect of the same, the acquisition proceedings being set at naught would not disable the State Government from making appropriate amends to accommodate such of those allottees in respect of any parcels of land, in respect of which, the land owner may not seek restitution of the land, on refund of the compensation amount paid. The power available to the State Government under Section 37 of the KIADB Act, may appropriately be exercised, in the present peculiar circumstances, in respect of such instances.
Further, even in respect of those beneficiaries, as for instance, the petitioners in WP 48937-940/2013 and as for instance, respondent no.5, in WP 14723 / 2007, who are no longer keen in retaining possession of any land allotted to them, the State would be obliged to refund monies received from them, after 64 deducting such legitimate expenses incurred pursuant to the transaction, and resume such land, if it is also such land which the land owner or owners as are not inclined to seek restitution of - and to deal with the same as State property.
Subject to the above, the writ petitions are allowed. The notifications bearing no.CI 172 SPQ 2002 dated 27.8.2003 and Notification no.CI 571 SPQ 2004 dated 14.5.2007 and all consequential orders are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KS/NV*