Karnataka High Court
Dr. U.G.Shenoy vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 January, 2018
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna
-: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
W.P.No.57982/2016 &
W.P.Nos.58889-890/2016 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
DR. U.G.SHENOY
S/O. LATE GOVINDA S. SHENOY,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
NO.108, 9TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS,
SARASWATHIPURAM,
MYSURU - 570 009. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: B.S. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE,
(INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT),
M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD
(KIADB), REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
#49, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR,
KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD
(B.M.I.C.P.) NO.2083/2,
1ST CROSS, SUBASH NAGAR,
MANDYA - 571 401.
4. BANGALORE MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR
AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY (BMICAPA),
REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY,
NO.5, 2ND FLOOR, LOOP LANE
RACE COURSE ROAD,
-: 2 :-
BENGALURU - 560 009. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: VIJAYA KUMAR A. PATIL, ADDL. GOVT. ADV. FOR R-1;
SRI B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3;
SRI. I.G. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
*****
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY R-1 IN
SPECIAL GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DTD.03.07.1999, PUBLISHED
AT SL.NO.10(3) OF PAGES 489 AND SL.NO.12(1) OF PAGE 490
IN REF.NO.CI 196 SPQ 98 AT NO.762 OF PART-III, AT ANNEX-A
IN SO FAR AS IN SY.NO.212/4 MEASURING 1 ACRE 03 GUNTAS,
THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.216/1 MEASURING 34 GUNTAS, THE
LAND BEARING SY.NO.216/2, MEASURING 1 ACRE 38 GUNTAS
PETITIONER'S LANDS SITUATED AT RAMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK ARE CONCERNED.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These writ petitions are listed for consideration of I.A.1/17 filed for disposal of these writ petitions. Hence, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, they are heard finally.
2. Petitioner has averred that he is the owner and in possession of lands bearing Sy.No.212, measuring 1 acre 3 guntas and Sy.No.216, measuring 2 acres 32 guntas (totally measuring 3 acres 35 guntas) of Ramnahally Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk. The said -: 3 :- lands were notified for the purpose of Bangalore-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project by respondent No.1/State. However, the acquisition remained incomplete as Preliminary Notification issued under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for the sake of brevity) has not been followed by issuance of a declaration and final notification under sub-section (4) of Section 28 of the said Act. In the circumstances, petitioner has sought quashing of the Preliminary Notification.
3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents as well as perused the material on record.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that Preliminary Notification was issued in July 1999. Till date, the State has not taken any step to issue the declaration and Final Notification. It must be construed and declared that the State has abandoned the acquisition in the instant case. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of H.N. Shivanna & others vs. State of Karnataka & another [2013 (4) -: 4 :- AKR 163] ( H.N. Shivanna) and the judgment of another Division Bench reported in the case of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board vs. Smt. Anitha Purnesh [W.A.No.2402/2014 (LA-KIADB) disposed on 12/04/2016], learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a similar relief may be granted in this case also by declaring that there has been an abandonment of acquisition insofar as the petitioner's lands are concerned.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents would fairly submit that in the case of Smt. Anitha Purnesh, the Division Bench has followed the dictum of another Division Bench in the case of H.N.Shivanna referred to above. It is also stated at the Bar that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not entertained the special leave petition filed against the judgment passed in the case of Smt. Anitha Purnesh.
6. It is noted that in the instant case, the acquisition Notification is issued under Section 28(1) of the Act as far back on 03/07/1999, which is almost two decades ago. Till date, no steps have been taken to issue the declaration and Final Notification. When the State has failed to take any step under the Act, it must be construed -: 5 :- and declared and held that the State has abandoned the acquisition proceeding initiated as far back as July 1999. In this regard, it is useful to quote paragraph Nos.7 and 8 of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Anitha Purnesh, which read as under:
"7. We are of the opinion that the decision in the case of Narayanappa (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case, inasmuch as, in the said reported decision, it was only observed that there was no time limit for publication of the final notification. However, in the case of Shivanna (supra), a binding precedent on this Court, it has been held that the reasonable time should be construed as two years.
8. We feel that, as within two years from the date of preliminary notification the final notification has not been issued, following the decision in the case of Shivanna (supra), we uphold the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge quashing the acquisition proceedings." The said judgment has not been interfered with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the circumstances, it is declared that the Preliminary Notification dated -: 6 :- 03/07/1999 insofar as petitioner's lands are concerned, is quashed.
7. In the result, writ petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
In view of disposal of the writ petitions, I.A.No.1/17 also stands disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE S*