Karnataka High Court
K Sukumaran vs State Of Karnataka on 15 June, 2011
Author: Manjula Chellur
Bench: Manjula Chellur
8
DEPAR'I'MENT OF PUBLIC VVORKS
GOVERNMENT OF I{ARNA'I'AI{A
VIKAS SQUDIIA,
BANGALORE 560 O0}
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 4
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIKAS SOUDHA,
BANGALORE 560 OOI
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
DEPARTMENT REVEN1JE.?. V
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA'
VIKAS SOUDHA,
BANGALORE 550 0:01 B
BY
PRINQIPA L. __sE.<:RE'TA_R_.Y} «. _
M:NIs"1"_RY.:jOit? ENVIROND./[ENT
AND..FO'12Es"IE.__ .. \ ' ' '
C§OVERNMENT";OF _IN:';'IA
PARY_A--'JARf\.N=.BPIA'\7)9gN;~._ '
CGQ COIVIPLELX; .1,ODH--1_R.OAD,
NEw.._DELH1:1100c3 '
REPRESENTED B';
; SECRETARY '' "
7: .. .::KA9,Nz%T'E POLLUTION
CON'I'ROLL BOARD,
I " = I PARISAPA BHAVAN.
C}fUR.CHf'STREE'f
. EANGAEOIRE 560 001
REPRESENTED BY CHARIMAN
NANIDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR
ENTERPRISES LTD..
V MIDFORD GARDENS.
-'OFF: MG. ROAD,
BAN GALO RE.
13
IN 'WP NOS. 22797' TO 22818 OF 2009:
BETWEEN
1.
WP»)
VENKATARRA
S /O LATE MUNINOA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
RESIDINO A": CHIKKATOGURU GATE.
EEOUR HOELI, «
ELECTRONICS CITY POST:
BANGALORE 560 100
CHINNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, I
W/O LATE CHIKKA RAMAPPA «
CHIKKATHOGURUV VILLAGE, * '
BEGUR HOBLI,
ELECTRONICS CITY POST: 9
BANGALORE 560 I0_0.._ '
ASwA"rH;RE:7D'y,
AGED A~B'O4U'i'{_4_9 Y)EARS§~.. . .,
S/O LATE_.I{I'XD1R;l\PP2%;'.I?,ED--D.Y
RESIDTNO"A'Ii:.I::HI;<I<:ATHOOIIRU.%vILLAGE,
E)LEiC'I'ROJ:\IIC C'fi"TY POST, '
BANGALOREE .560 10.9 - _ .
K. GORAL REDDY
AGED ABQUT45 YEARS,
I _;_S/O. LATE 'RADIRARPA REDDY
I 'RES_IDI.NG AT C'Hi'KKATHOGURU VILLAGE,
ELECTRONIC CITY POST,
~ .I3AN_OA;I;OR.E 560 I00
. "*VIRA{J;ALI§;IIgI,A'T1= V
AG_ED_A'I3OUT 46 YEARS,
S/OAVBIN NANJAPPA
RESIDING AT DOOR NO, 88.
V A s MANJUNATH EI\IcLA\2'E
"AIRORT MAIN ROAD,
RONENA AGAHARA
BANGALORE? 560 O1'?
3&4,
15
BRINIVABA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
B/O KONDA REDDY «. _
RESIDING AT CHIKKATHOGURU VIIILAGE. I "
ELECTRONICS CITYPOST, ~ '
BANGALORBSGO 100
PRAKASH REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS ,
S/O KONDA REDDY ' _ '
REBIDING AT CHIKKA'PHOGUF<U.
ELECTRONIC CITY POST,
BANGALORE 560 ICC}
BABU REDDY ~ <
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARE,
S/O KONDA'REDDY"' -- 1 I
RESIDING CHIKKATH.OGURU.,f. _
ELECT'RO,NI(§:AB'ICI.T1 B05. 1 I
BANGALOREJSGQ 100f-._
BAYYAREDDY ' _ ._ "
AGED ABOUT'1:B5_YE. gs.
s/O LA'IE'NARAsII.4IIA_IAH «
CHIKKATHCf§U'RCU,Vi«1, 'AGE;
BEGUR IIOBLI,_f~._ " ._
ELECTRONICS CITY PQST,
BANGALORE V550 '3_oO~~~ "
' BAYYA REDDY
*AG_ED ,ABOU'l"68.--YEARS,
S/O' LATE MUNIREDDY
A " 'I .. VCIIVIIIKATHOGURU VILLAGE,
I;
. '--..IELEC'fRONICS CITY" POST,
BANGALORE 550100.
R HOBLI,
. PETI'i'IONERS
(By Sn NAGANAND, SR. COUNSEL &
L 2:./I12, ASHWIN PRABHU S.D.,AD\/1)
STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
'~1<i\%»
'\
18
HE§'WLE'§'i' PACKARE) GLOBALSOFT LTD?'
NCR39/40, ELECTRONICS CITY,
HOSUR ROAD, BANGALQREWSSO 100
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ONCO'S KRISHNA EDUOA'HONA_L.i;fR_Us'{'_~' '
SUDHA MANSION, A * .
NO. 42, ICROSS,
7m MAIN, BANAGIRI HILL,
BANASHANKARL 111 STAC~:'E3,-..__
BANGALORE ~ 560085 "
RELPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
AJMERA GROUP
90/1, DODDATHOGUR V1:;LAO1«:,._ _
ELECTRONIC CITY)» ~ ._ « "
BANGALORE-560100 A
REPRESENTED BY .
PROJECT,DIREC"I'QR _,
sHOBRA'DE?;r_Ei:;O'PE:RS'L;rI:>.: rejected v/0 dt.3€).9.201O
NO. 368, \.fI'<:RO'3s, '
WIL$ON.GP.R-DEN, ., V ' "
RANGALOiRE-5%3'0027AV"-
REPRI:.sENTRD" BY ....
EXEZCUTIVE 'O1''REOT_.ORR ' " ... RESPONDENTS
[By Sri. sAN.OE:«:P PAT1:,,"31§;:c1AL GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R 1?
. .0 2, 4 TO_6; 1:
.. $0; 131.»: CHAN-:1RAs:%;E:RAR, ADV. FOR R3,
._ -..s'r1 M-ADHAVACHAR, CGSC, FOR R17,
a 3 Sri O,NAOARAJ, ADV. FOR R-8,
M/S. Si-PARTRIDGE, ADVS FOR R9,
3:: Eiéi 'SWAMY, ADV. FOR R- :0,
'Sn AD:Ti{A?'sONDH1, ADV. FOR R43
"=._CRE~ST PARTNERS, ADVS. FOR R44
81'; KS' VENKATARAMANA, ADV. FOR R-15,
Sri PRASANNA SHETFY, ADV. FOR R~16
,, AA ' w(_I.MPLEADIMENT OF R212 8: R~17 IS REJECTEZD VIBE
r DATED 3{}.9.2OEG}
THESE? 'NRIT PETITICINS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
""2526 AND 227 OF THE CONSTYIUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ESSEEE A V\i'RET OF MANDAMUS DEREZCTING THE Ri7iSPOND?\TF§'"E'S
21
ASWA'I'H REDDY
S! O LATE KADIRAPPA REDDY.
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/A CHIKKATHOGURU VILLAGE.
ELECTRONIC CITY POST.
BANGALGRE 550 I00
K.€}OPAL REDDY
S/O I,A'I'E3 KADIRAPPA REDDY A
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, .
R/ A CHIKKATHOGURU VILLA{}E,
ELECTRONIC CITY POSTZ
BANGALORE 560 I00
N. VENKATESH REDBY
s/0 M.NARAYANAP'PA' ._
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/A G.K.LAYOUT _
13TH CROSS: 2ND . I ' I
ELECTRC)NICLC'ITYPQ€{F; 1' "
BANGALoRE'~--5G;o 10.9, _ " * ' »
CR. .3
AGED ABOUT 43' YEARS
R/AG.-K..LAY®UT ._ " _
13TH <:Ross,-2ND'
ELECTRONIC. CITY 90.31',
BANGALORE 560* .100."
.. « §;SAIVIPATH'CKUI\»LAR& I
-- 'SA-C! LA:I'E M.NAGRAJ
AGED .AB..OU'I' 38 YEARS
A I 'V A R;/A LAYOUT
.I3TfH._cROES, 2ND MAIN
EL'ECT:RO5NIC cm' POST,
BANGIAELOREZ 560 I00
BAYAJA REDDY
I I : S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH
"AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
°CIIIKKA'I'HOGURU VILLAGE.
BEGUR IIOBLI, ELECTRONIC CITY
BANGALORE 580 I00
POST,
x\@§§;W.
22
STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHP»
BANG/§LORE»56O OQ}
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY 8: CHAIRMAN,
EMPCFWERED COMMFITEE (BMECP)
DEPARTMENT DE COMMERCE 8;'AE*E'JI)4US'I'fRIEv''S§' .
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA1: _
VIKAS SOUDHA, i H
BANGALORE 560 001 R'
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AR-PAS. " L
DEVELOPMENT BOARD B_':VHCP;" ,
3/2 KHENY BUILDING, ._ Q
1:31' CROSS, GANDHINAGAR' 1
BANGALOREBBO 009». . ~
REPREsENTED.BY;1TS_, _ ~ I
CHIEF' QFE_1cER_ '
DEPAF3TM.EN,'F OF PUBLIC wDR1a;s"'
GQ_\z_ERNMEN3:_ F KARNA'PA_KA V
v1KAs'sQ{.JDH1{;,' " _
BANQALo'RE -560 09.1 ' ' __ --
REPRESENTELTBY 1135..
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY '
_ DEpAR}:'M_EN'r 'DE HOUSING AND
, EUREAN DEVELOPMENT
- (;@_-v.EENMEN'r' KARNATAKA
'JIKAS .SOUDHA..
" ~ VBANGALORE 560 001
REPRESEZNTED Y ETS
"'vEPR1Nc:j§?AI; SECRETARY
DE$?ARMEN'I' REVENUE
GOVERNMENT' OF KARNATAKA
AA VIKAS SOUDHA.
' , "BANGALORE 560 001
* °REPRESEN'i'ED BY US
PRINCIPAL SEC RETARY
23
E9. E\4INIS'£'RY OF ENVIRONMENT' AND FQRESTS
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
PARYAVARAN BHAVAN.
CGO COMPLEX. LODI ROAD.
NEVV DELHI I 10 003
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY
20. KARNATAKA STATE ROLLOT1ON
CONTROL BOARD
FAR1SARA BHAVAN, '
CHURCH STREET
BANGALORE 560 G0}
REPRESENTED BY
2:. STATION HOUSE O.FFTCE1i:
POLICE STAT1ON ' ' *
ELECTRONICS CITY _ __
BANCALORE560 ' RESFONDENTS
(By SR1. ASHWIN.P'RARHU.j.*AEv.,_ "FOR R7: TO 1.2
SR1 SAN1.7EEFj1>AT1L, «SPECIAL COVT. ADV. FOR R13, 14, 16
21. \
SR1 D. NACJARAJ1. ADVLFOR R20,
SR1.,F.v.' ADV. FOR R-15,
SR1 M. 1»1AD11AV.:>_1CHAR,"AEV. FOR R-19)
_T1~1ES'E WR1T APPEALS ARE F1LED U/S 4 OF THE
1<ARNATAKA HTOHA COURT ACT 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
..DAT'E1j""zT/'1O/10 FASED BY THE LEARNED S1NOLE
» JU--OOEvOFN~1,,A;--.NO, 11/10 AND MISCW. T060/10 FASSED TN THE
._ WRIT T:T1ON. 78 1 --:/92 /2009.
IN {VA NOS; £3893 to 3895 01+' 2010
R' T.' JNANOT TNFRASTRUCTURE CORRTEOR
W . «..»i..
ENTERPRISE LIMITED
N01, MIDFORD HOUSE,
26
ELECTRONICS CITY
BANGALORE
BANGALQRE CITY 560 I00
{By Sri. ASHVVIN PRABHU, ADV. FOR R»1
Sri. SANDEER PATIL, SPL. GOVi'.AD/V."FOR.R/2» .
5, 6,781 Io;
Sri. RV. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. 'FOR RRII '--
Sri. MADHAVACHAR, ADV. FOR R8;'. '
Sri. D. NAGARAJ, ADV. FOR .Rl9.) '
TIIESE WRIT APPEALS EII.EI'> ' UT/'VS. II? OF THE
IIARNATAIIA IIIGII <:oII'R%.If Ac'I""'I96I R;.3,-V RULE' 27 OF THE
WRIT PROCEEDINGS RULEs,. .I'977I;.»I9RA°¥I'I~II§II'O SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 4.10.2010 PASSED PETITION
22794~796/2009_C)N_£.A.?{'If/201:9 V '
IN WA NOS. 3I'49{3»I1'5_g/}2oI.p':"
BETWEEN H
1.
_g~».>. .
AA ' «.,.SR} D RAVISANKAR
M"/S. I'NIANDI 1NIvRAs1'RUc'I'URE
CORR1DOR"E--NT'ERFRISE I.--.IM1TED
NO, I ; MIIIEORD. .HIQI_I"s.E,'
MIDEORID GARDENbS;'««M"{} ROAD,
BANGI'3~..LORE~560OO I
, REPRESENTED' BY - IIS
. « QCONSTITUTEDV VATTORNEY
" sR_I~.D RAVISANKAR
* 1. _ II'£../V'S«..NAND_I ECONOMIC CORRIDOR
'EI§I*I?ERP'RIsI::s LIMITED
' ..__N<3.«I';~MII:II«'t)RI> HOUSE,
MIDFORD GARDEN.
OFF. IvI"'<:I ROAD.
BANjGALORE«56000 1
CCENSTITUTED ATTORNEY
APPELLANTS
"933? MR. SRI DUSHYANTH DAVE &
Ivj:R. D.L.N. RAG, SR. COUNSEL FQR M/S KING 81 PARTRIDGE}
I.
~Z$'"~
S.
9.
28
SR1 C JAYARAJ
REVENUE INSPECT{)R/
CASE VVQRKER
K.I.A.D.B., B.M.E.C.P,
BANGALGRE.
J B SUHAIL
S / O JABAR BAIG
AGED 41 YEARS
R/AT NO. 46,
MILLERS ROAD
2ND CROSS,
BENSON TOWN
BANGALORE-46
J B ARIF' S/O JABEAR' BA;_G :5 A "
AGED 40 YEARS
R/AT NO. 76., MILERS.ROAD--.
2ND CROSST,' E.ENs;DN Tgémxg
BANGAL€)RE;&/H3
RESPONDENTS
{By SR1. S. :59; N_AGANAND';'*SR§"'COfUNEET; FDR M /S. JUST LAW,
SRIRANGA, EQR R38; 9- «-
SR1. BAEAVARAJ V."?SABARAD,
sR1.D.1.1NAGz_xRA;@F.oR.R@
THESE WRJT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE
_ KAR;{\IA'1'AKA H1331 COLsRT ACT PRAYING To SET ASIDE THE
ORDER; RASSED" """ "IN THE
__ »MiS_C.W,25€«2f2Q1O IN WRIT PEYHTION NDT989/2008 DATED
' 22,/O'f,€2'0_10. V _
:3 WA Nfo:3"Dj*;3:i;'51--3152/2010
BETWEER " 4'
MISC.W'.2538/2O1O
NTXNDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR
S' "ENTERPRISE LIMITED
" No.1, MEDFGRD HOUSE
MIDFORD GARDENS MG ROAD,
BANGALOREEJGOOO 1
REPRESENT ED BY ITS
FOR R3, R5 & R7
SR1. sA1\_1D'EE1«* RATE, .SPL)'=GvC'{ERNMENT ADV. FOR R1, R2 AND
R4)
AND
6.
:-~3
32
REPRESENTED HEREIN
BY ITS CHAIRMAN
B JAYAKUMAR
S/O LATE) B BAYANNA
AGED 47 YEARS
RESIDING AT BASAVANAPURA
GOTFIGERE POST
BANGALORE} 560083
R BALARAJ
S / O RYAPPA
MAJOR .\
RESIDING AT BASA V§'%NAFiJR_A, 1.
UT1'ARA1~Lr\LL: HOBL5 ._ *
GOTFIGEZRE POST T V
BANGALORDSBOOSS' .
AMULYARAJ,._V 'j ' .
3/0 Jos;fs:PH;=" _
MAJOR '
REs1Dn\;G:fi_A:: BASAV25:§IAfi>U'RA,
UT-TAR_AI~LALLi :: HOB-I11
GOTTIGEZRE POST _ "
BANGALQRL~.{'5.5o083.T_ .. '
CHOWRAPPA<
S/O M1mLLApPA' . '
MAJOR, - -. I
; RESIDING» AT BASAVANAPURA,
3 ""«:U'If1'ARAHAL:;; .H.QBLI
' . GO'T'J'IGERE POST
" ~ _ VBAvN1GALGRE~560o83
AR€§'G§fA.§¥3;2rA1\x1&'
'Vs/0 PAPANA
MAJO.R.~"
23A8.AvANApURA,
UEFARAHALLI HOBLI
* 4' GOTFIGERE POST
f.3ANGAL0R_I«:--56008:3
SHANTHAPPA
S,' O CHOVVRAPPA
MAJ O R
36
{By Sri. SS. RAMDAS 8: Sfi. SS. NAGANANDI SR. .,
FOR /8. SUNDARASWAMY RAMDAS 8: ANAND}
AND
E. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA J "
INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE I)EI:>'AR'IiIv:EN§I'_ ._
M.S.BUILDING. BR.AIv,IBEDKAR=._RCAI:I .1
BANGALORESBO 001 '
REPRESENTED BY ITS *
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ''
2. CHIEF SECRETARY
PUBLIC WORKS BERARTMAENIF
VIDHANA S0UDI-IA~.._j;- _ '
BANGAL0RE--5B0 001
3. KARNATAIIAINDUSTRIALVAREA *
DEVELOPMEIIIT BQARD' » _ -
BMICP, 3/2,fKII\H B'I_IIL::BII'\IG,'~ A ' I.
IST CRCSS fC};13NDH_INAGAf<, I
BANCIALORBSBB 0099- 'I
REPRESENTEI) B':/_ ~
EXECUTIVE D'I§mC'I'OR
4. EMPOWERE£§"COMMIT1"EE, ' BMICP
VTI)HA'1\IASOUDHA"-~._ " .
BANGAL0RE:5BB u<I1'"--
REPRESENTEEI I~IEREI'N
BY CI~IAI_RI\/IAI\I
' - 5, ~ VIIIE IIANI) ACQUISI'IIoN OFFICER
. _ ATI'ACHE;--D_ TO KARNATAKA
V _ 'INBLISTRIAI; AREA DEVELOPMENT
" SBCIARIB, BMICB, 3/2, KINI BUILDING
, 'I 'I'I'_CRC.}_SS. GANBBINAGAR
BAI'\ICAI;oRE--5B0 009
' 5. KAKNATAKA STATE POLLUTION
' L " ,' CONTROL BOARD,
CPARISARA BHAVAN, N049
CHURCH STREEIT,
BANGALOREO 1
:25»
37
REPRESENTED HEREIN
BY ITS CHAIRMAN
7. M/S NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE
CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES LTD.
A COMPANY INCORPORATION UNDER
THE) COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING NS REGISTERED OFFICE '
ATNO1, MIDFORD HOUSE, "
MIDFORD GARDENS,
OFF M.G.ROAD.,
EANOALORESEO O01,
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS _
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
8. SR: CJAYARAJ I __ . -«
REVENUE INSPECTOR/--. \_ 1
CASE WORKER ' _ I
K.I.A.D.B. EI..I\/I.I.C.,F; "
BANGALORE,
9. WE NANDI ECQNO.M1_C CORRIDOR»
ENTERPRISES IIID, '
A COMRAN'r=IN_CORRORA*I'ED UNDER
THE C'OMPANIES ACT," I 955,
F1TAVI_N--G I'I*SVR_EO1S'I?ERE_D-- OFFICE
AT_NO,_ I ,' 1\/_IIDF'ORD . HOU
MIDEORD '*
OFF M-.._G.I?.OAD,
. EANOALO,RE»560 O01.
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS
A. MEXNAG.1ANG DIRECTOR. RESPONDENTS
(By Sm§V'SA1~IDEEF. FA'I'II.. SPL. GOVT.ADV.FOR R1 & R2
" SfiI..BAS;I;V~ARAJ'V. SAEARAD FOR R35 8: 8
R. DI'RfAI<AR. ADV. FOR R6
SR1'~D.L,__N§ RAO, SR. COUNSEL FOR M /8. KING 8: PARTRIDGE
FOR R?
T. NARAYANA SVVAMY FOR R9)
THIS 'WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE) 226 OF
. CONSTI'E'UTIGN OF INDIA RRAYINO TO QUASII THE',
.. ___I_\§QTIFICA'I'£ON DT.24.1.2003, UNDER SECTION BU} ISSUED BY
THE: R}, VIBE ANNEXURE«A AND TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY
38
NOTIFICATION DT.29.i.20{}3 VIBE ANNEXURE»B, F.INAL
NOTIFICATION _
NOTIFICATION DT.5.7,2003, VIBE) ANNEXURIBC1, I:N'~SQ'
DT. 24.6.2003, VEDB ANNEXURE.4€},V _AND
PETITIONELRS LANDS ARE CONCERNED'
IN WP NO 18216 OF 2006
BETWEEN
2.
Ex)
U.)
in
B JAYAKUMAR
3/0 LATE B BAYANNA _
AGED 47 YEARS _
RESIDING AT BASAVANPURA
GOTTIGEZRE POST ~ _ % _
BANGALORE -- 560083 V
RBALARAJV' _
S/O. RA:/AP'EfA',' 452YEARS "
RESIDING A'fB;AS}X¥'AN.APU_FQg' .
UTTARA .'--'..,L1"1?}OBI;Iff--, '
GOTFIG:EREigPOS'T'
BANGALORE ;:.;55o"o83--.
*
S/O. JOSEPVH'; 47' YEARS RESTDENG AT BASAVANAPURA UTrARA1~LALL1'.H0BL1~~-- "
; GO.T]'IGERE_ POST"
1.': ' GALORE .56.o083 {T_HQV%?E§PxPPA '" S/Q. 'M1'K_EL;,APPA, 48 YEARS ._ .REZS}'D_EN€} AT BASAVANAPURA A U'FrAR'm~.:ALL1 HOBLI GQT:Jc;ERE: POST BANGALORE - 560083 AROGYASWAMY 'gs/0. PAPANNA 44 YEARS RESIDING A'? BAsA\IAmPURA UTTARAHALLI HOBLI V ' '*~:>IsM':'ss_E;:\ ;_Q"I:>f'i*;"1'1 {'1 1.09" ' 42
5. NANDI ECONOMIC CORREDQR ENTERPRISES LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 1, MEDFORD GARDENS, OFF.M.G.ROAD.
BANGALORE <3' MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT S FORESTS, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OE INDIA,' PARYAVARAN BHAVAN. " .__ COO COMPLEX, LODIIIROAD. * NEW DELHL1 I0 003 f RESPQNDE3N'{S (By Sri. SANDEEP PA'1'IL,'*SI'§'L. FOR RI & R2 SR1. BASAVARAJ V. SABARAD EORR3 ' . SR1. S. KALYAN EASAVARAIL _ASC.._EOR 'R6 SRI DUSHYANTH. DAVE 5;: SR1'D.L_.N«.._R.AO; COUNSEL FOR M/S. KING & E"AR'j'fREDGE. FC)R"R4 * _ SRI. T. NARA'x'LANASjwiANIy:E_OR_RS) TRIS WRIT'1I3E'TITI_ON"':S* UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THEA..CQNSfTI'TU'FI.QN OEINDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURESU "A,ND* 2.6.1999, NOTIFICATION DT. 18.2.2003 ISSUED"I3T. RESPGNDENTS 1 TO 3 ACQUIRING 3 ACRES 4n.__GUN'1'.AS7_ LAND IN SY.NO.3 OR THE RILLASANARALLI' -VII.I,A.OE. OOTTICERE POST, BANGALORE SQU""E}~£:__T2"II,UK AI\i'D._._TI7:) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO DEIETE ?fEFiE«._._EX'fENT OF 3 ACRES 4 OUNTAS OE LAND IN A Si,NO.S.E'ELONSINC TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE SCHEME " OE. I1:/IPI;EME1"€T§';%'fI'ION OF BMICR "ECHNICAL REPORT IN VIEW OF__4THEv.SUBi.SEQUEN'f DEVELOPMENT IN THE LIGHT OF THE THEME"'.AL1GNMENT APPROVED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER ON 2O.7.2'OQ_:'i INCORPORATED IN BMICAPA OUTLINE .. DE5'vT.E1,OPMEN'I'PI,AN REFERRED TO IN THE AEEIDAWI' OF THE '.,.CT~.I.IE'E SECRETARY DT. 9.9.2008 AND UNDERTARINO DT. 2.2.2009 BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT SCC " -W538/2007 AS WELL GO. QT. 3.6.l997 AS '\3v'ELL AS IN GD. DT. 3.6.1997.
46 STATE OF KARNATAKA '\/IDHANA SOUDHA BANGALOREWSGO Q01 REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 'I'Q<'i'}'{»I_ 4 GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA; I PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, E ' I VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE~56O 001 THE KARNATAKA INDUS'I'RIu}L,_'EIREA 2' DEVELOPMENT BOARD IKIADBI-. ' HAVING HS OFFICE "AT NO. I_4V/G3, , RASHTROTHANA I>ARIs--IIAI' B,U.II,DI_NGS;~» _ II FLOOR, NRURATIIUNGA ROAD,-._ ' BANGAI.OREw560 Q0'1"* . * ; I REP BY IjI"s =EXECU'I"B/Ev QFFICELR BANGEILCJRE'-MYSORE INFRAS-'1'RUC'FURE CORRIDOR 'AREA PI.Al$IININGI'AU~THORITY A RLANNIN'G'1ADIIfrIIORI'IY"CONETITUTED UNDER TOWN Ea C_OIINTRI' PLANNING AIJTI::ORI*I""I.jA.C'I: 1 9.6 I ._ * HAVING Hts ORIIICE.A<IjM.s.BUILDING, BAN CrALORE»5€O' 0,0 ' . _ M/S NANDI '1NE:'RASTEUCTURE ,, . CORRIDOR ENTERPRISE LTD. , '*A:_COIvII>ANY R1i;GiSTERED UNDER INDIANCOMPANIES ACT, I956 ' _I~I'AvII\IG HS REGISTERED OFFICE _ I .fM~i'DFORD IIOIISE;
. MIDP'OfRD GARDENS, ORE. .M;.=G.ROAD, BANGALORE»56O O01 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR \ V EEKBANGALORE DEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY KP EVEST, BANGALQRE~56C: O28 REP. BY US COIVLMISSIONER 47 SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LAND ACQUISITION, KIADB (BB./IICP] GANDHINAGAR.
BANGALORE§--56O 009 THE: UNION OF INDIA .
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO _ ' * _ ' MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND F?ORES'i'3 " _ RARYAVARAN BHAVAN, _ CGO COMPLEX, = '-
NEW DELHI-1 I0 003 THE KARNATAEA STATE ROLLII*I'.IOI\I_ CONTROL BOARD; I3/I';C.ROAD,V --. EANOALORE560 001' ' 1 REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN _ THE SECRETARY j . .
DEPARTMENT OF II\IDIgIs'I'RIEI " A & COMMERCE, _ ._.-- 1;.
NRUPATHLTNGA'ROA'Dj-- _ V' C. BANGALQRE;g56O O01 ~ SRI; SHQK I<I--I:ENY'-- --.
MANAOINO,.DIREcEO'R.v _ M'/s NANDI 'INjERAsTR_U'CTURE CORRIDOR' EN'1tERI>R.IsE I;TD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER INDIANCOMPANIES ACT, 1956 _ ;I~IAv.INO ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ' 'NQJ, MIDFO *'-HOUSE, MI'DjI?O_RD GARDENS, V' " » .OI'FE"I'vI(3I. ROAD.
-- "1.INANDIjECONOMIC CORRIDOR EN?ERI¢?.R1SES LTD, NO. I, " MIDEORD HOUSE, EANGA'EORE-56o 001 amended V/O dt.5.4.1O NIIDFORD GARDEN, V' A. OEEM.O. ROAD, *BAI'iC}ALORE1I ~RER, BY ITS CONSTI'fUTE,D ATIORNEY SR1. A. RUDRAGOUDA.
RESPONDEINTS £12 52 SMT. LAKSHMAMMA D /' O LATE) HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS TIPPUR VILLAGE.
KENGERI HOBLE BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
SR1 RAMESH ' _ S/C) DODDACSNAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS TIPPUR VILLAGE? V ' KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE: SOUTH Jlmuza SR1 LAKSHMINARASIMHAIAH 'V S /0 LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED AE?OUT 57 TIPPURVILLAGE ~. 3 KENGER1 HOBLL ' ' BANGA{.4O'RE5.;SOU"FH 'rA'L1 V SR} VGA N;ARA'yAN . .
5*/0 LA1"EG'?7ENKAT4¥P'='A . AGED ABOUT' 34 YEARS TIPPUR VILLAGE. " " "
KENEERIHOBL1, V .
BANGALOREVSOU'1"H''1'ALUK ; SRLL K M-ARAIAH "HS/Q :<__ALA1A'H« ..... .. « AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS ' " .. V '1'}PP{.JR.V1'LLAGE3 E;EN.(}ERi- HDBLE " '--.,'BANG_;ALORE SOUTH TALUK ' SR1 B MUNIYAPPA go EGDDABWAPPA AGED ABGUT 72 YEARS TIP-PUR VILLAGE:
KENGER1 HOBLI EANGALQRE SOUTH TALUK SR1. KRISHNAPPA 8/ O KEZMPAIAH AGED AGUT 6? YEEIRS ,« KW"
20. 54 SR1. C}.M. BASAVARAJAIAH S/O LATE MALLESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O GONIPURA VHLAGE, KENGERE HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
SRL N. BASAVARAJAIAH S/O LATE) NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS," ' R/O GONIPURA VILLAGE), KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE soU17Hz'1'ALm«:;' ' SR1. G.L. JAYAsHAN_KjAR ;
S / 0 LATE LINGANAPPA; ' AGED ABOUT 68 YEAVRS, R/O GQNIEURA VILLAGE2,;
KENGE1RJ'hf)EtLI. 2: ' ' BANG_AL<3RE;j§QUm f_rA:,U2<:«; if; A SR1. NAG '-'BAA S/'O"MARA1AH:-: , -
AGED_ABOUT_ 70 YEAR_, . _' R;/O 'GONIPURA \/1LLA:}E:,_ KENGERI HQ_BLI,* "
BANGALORE SOUTE 1. f_1fALUK. , -SR1. GA'/. ._NAGARA;_-IAIAH . s/O LATE VEEVRABHADRAIAH, " V .. AC}'ED"ABOU'I' 48' YEARS, R/QGONIPURA VILLAGE;
_ HQBLI.
- BANC:ALQr:E SOUTH TALUK SR}; QNARAYALNAPPA E':/'Q LATE GUTFAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O GONIPURA VILLAGE, " AKENGER1 HOBLL ' ' A BANGALO RE SO UTH TALU K, SMT. ANUPAMA W/O SR1. \R LOKESH KUMAR, ' »-. -.
[I8 55 AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
R/O NO. 1873, 7"?" 'A' CROSS.
KENGERL BANGALORE - 560 060.
SR1. GS. PRAKASH S/ O LATE SIDDAGANGAPPA.
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O GONIPURA VILL.AGE§ KEZNGEZRI HOBLI, V BANGALORE: SOUTH TALU SMT. NANJAMMA W/O LATE EERAPPA. V AGED ABOUT 80 E"EARS.
R/O GONIPURA VILE,-AG.?3,O( O KENGERI HOBLL BANGALORE. SoU'JfH3:A1;:IK;-- _ O SR1.
S /0 LA'1I'l CHA:\E_NAP}_?A, V AGED ABC_)UfI' 68" '~:'EA1:zS_ * R/Q..G_ONS1PURA,V1LLA§}E; « .. . . 1:ENGEmjHoEZ'LI} _ ' BANGALORE' "SO'Uf1'H .fi'ALUr<:. SR1; CHIKKA ASjHwA1fHAp'PA S /0 'LA'IE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, _ ; R/Q GON1PL_IRA VELLAGE.
HOELE * BANGALQRE SOTH TALUK.
A A \/*ENV'KATA1>PA S i,.A'1'P:' RAMAJAH, "AGED QABOUT 73 YEARS;
R/DO" GONIPURA VILLAGE,
29. 3:ENGER1 HQED, BANGA1,0RE SOUTH TALUK.
KSRE. GS. PARAMEESHWARAIAH ~*S/D LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/O GONIPURA VILLAGE, ...« ~"£$"' 353 56 KENGERI HOBLL BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
SR1. GP. NAGARAJAIAH 5/ C) LATE PARAMASHIVAIAH.
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
R/O GONIPURA VILLAGE, _ KENGERI HOBLI.
BANGALGRE SOUTH TALUK.
SR1. CHIKKARUDRAIAH S/O BADAMALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O GONIPURA VELLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, 7 A _ BANGALORE SOU'fH_ iifA_LU_K. g; V ' SR1. MUNISWAMAIAH -- V S/O LATE REVANNAL' « AGED ABO*UTl_' "68 Y,;:ARf~3._ R/O GQVN1pLyRA.V11.£.AQE, KENGERI '§~:QB~LIL_ , ._ _ BAN GA150--RE;'_SOU1HV TA_:,UK;* SR1. M'UNiKRIS'HNA MUNEYAPPA S'/O LATE '1"EI.,LAPP;A,._ " ~ __ AGED ABOU'F,6Q YEARS, R/O ..QoN1PURA«.ViLLA.c1}.«:; KENGERI HOBLL; ' ,:3ANGA1;o.R}; 'S'OU'1°"H i*ALUK. 5[_ AsHwA'fHANARAYANA S/O,LA'i"E', CHALUVAIAH, " 'V AGED _ABOU'f 45 YEARS?
VILLAGE, KENGERI SHOBLL A BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
SRL'i~R. YELLAPPA I S/CL} LATE REIVANNA "AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS?
"R/O GONIPURA VILLAGE, KEZNGERI HOBLL BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK'
40. N 57 SR1 D. NARAYANAS'\NAN{Y S/O DODDALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS?
R/O GONIPURA VILLAGE.
KENGERI HOBLI.
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
SR1. DODDALINGAPPA 8/ O LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, R/O GONIPURA VILLAGE, "
KENGERI HOBLI.
BANGALORE SOUTH '1'A1m§._.
SRI. MUNIKRISHNA S/O YELLAPPA, ._ 3 AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
R/O GONIPURA \nLLA.GE';V ' KENGERI HQBL1, ' BANGALc)R1a;j;:j3QLiT}iA 'Fi:'§LiIK.. . V " "
SMT. K S/O LA"i~'E "MLINIYA{,LApPA,. __ AGED AB()UT R'./O GONIP.U_..__ "«V1LLA'c~E,. f KENGER1 HOBL-.T, ' ' BAN GALO RE.._so.U=TEI' SR1. "
As/0 LATE._,KAmKEI~.Ic H.ApPA. .. «AAGEBD ABOUTSO YEARS?
- R/Q GONIPURAVILLAGE, :<:E.Nc;ER;..HoB1,1, 3 " 'BANGALQRE SOUTH TALUK.
' VSMT. --ii%:~:,:IAMMA __ wj 0 LATE DASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS 1:{:O1~G0N1pURA VILLAGE, A KENGER1 HOBLL ,_ {BANGALORE seam TALUK.
SR1. G.M. NAGARAJAEAH S/O LATE MUNISHAMAIAH§ AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS' 4-4;
46, V 4?, 58 R/(} GONIPURA VELLAGE, KENGERE HOBLL BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
SR1. LAKSHMINARASAIAH S/C) LATE) GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEZARSA R/O GONIPURA VILLAGE;
KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
SR1. VENKATAPPA S/O LATE MARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/O GONIPURA VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, ' 5 _, « BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK_.f:-. A} SMT. SHIVAMMA .
w/ O VL:E.RA13IfIAORAP:>A;
AGED AE:OU;:*"8_0 , R/O GONip.URA'.§nLI.AGE, KENG1:.R1iHc2BL1; ' ._ BANGGAI;ORE'V'L%OU'fH IALUK, . SR1. VEE1f<AB%L?xORAGppA -- s/O LATE HUC'HA"PPA».--. A .\ AGED ABOUT "
R/O GONIPURA '£fl_LLAGE.
, 1<J9:NGER:..,HOBL1, '-
.BANGALORE sOO:rH TALUK, ' 8&1: G!\?';.._GANGADHAR ~ A _s;z<O 'LATE DODDAVEERABHADRAIAH, «AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, . R/O GEQNAEPURA VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
SR1'. GR THIM1\/EAIAH A/O LATE RANGAMARAIAH, ~*AGE:O ABOUT 6} YEARS, R/C) GONIPURA VILLAGE§ KENGEZRI HQBLI.
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
49.
50. 59 SR1. PRABHAIAH S/O LATE HONNAEAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
R/O GONIPURA VELLAGEL KENGEIRI HOBLL BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
SR1. (RR. JAYASHANKAR S/O LA'I'Ei RUDRAPPA.
AGED ABOUT 69 R/O GONIPURA VILLAGE, "
KENGERI HOBLL BANGALORE s0U'If_H TALLIK... A' ' SR1. RANGAPPA S/O LATE AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS.;.
R/O GONIPURA v1j;LAc3:a:,.
KENGERI HQBLI, ' *' '' BANG,AL<}>Rr;l. .'_§'ALI.,U1«:'; I V SR1. RANC}ASWA'MY S /Q" LAW?" KE:MPAHPLNU A;GED"Ar30UT':=;3 _ E:/OG-QN[P{}RAVVII;LAGE;,-- . KENGERI H<)B'L1,*.._ ' L BANGALORE S®U'I_'H'*--TALUK. _ -SR1. sf . S/O LATE SIDDAGANGAPPA.
"Ae;:E:;vL.ABoU1"MYEARS, R/"Q GONIPURA VILLAGE, A " 'V A HOBLL SOUTH TALUK, ._ $112; MALLESHAPPA gig CHIKKACHANNABASAPPA, AQEED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O GQNIPURA v1LLA<:;::, KENGERI HQBLL ' BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
SR1. G.M. BYAYAPPA S/O LATE MOPURAEAHL
56.
59. 50 AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/Q GONEPURA 'ifH,I,AGE KENGERE HOBLL BANGALORE SOUTH TALUKS SMT. 8.8. MAHADE\:'AIAH S/O LATE: SADASHIVAPPA.
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, _ R,/O GONIPURA VILLAGE25, . "
KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
sRI.B.L.cHANNAP1§>A ' 2 3/0 LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA, AGED ABQU1".-40 YEARS; A R/O T1PEUR'Tv'IL1,A'GE,g KENGI??.R1»vHGII3_L'_F, 'V 3 . BANGALORE) sD--UTH'€jALU.K_,D« SR1. CHJKKALAKSHMINARAYANAPPA syD"'LAtD3f; NAN;;:UN'DA'PPA, ' AGED ABCx~U'r 75% YE ' R/O TIPPUR' \j1LLAG'E,_ "
KENGER1 HQBL.I;- " ' BANGALOREsouTHA1_::xLUK.
SR1. D. REVANNA ' 3 ._§ S/D DDDDACHANNAPPA,
- . _ 'AGED ABOUT 32----~'fl:ARs. '1TFPLIR"az11,LAGE, " ~ . BANGALORE) SOUTH TALUK.
512.1 L"'--HA;'\IUMA1AH ego DQDDACHANNAPPA, A AGED A130U'1' 40 YEARS, " R/'O TI PPUR VILLAGE, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
SMT. LAKSHMAMMA " "~«_w/0 SA.E\»'IPANGAL/M~L
--*A<::::D ABOUT 65 YEARS.
R/O TIPPUR VILLAGE, BANGALORE SOEETH TALUKE 62' 64"
66.
67..
61V SR1. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O TIPPUR VILLAGEL BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
SR1. NARAYANA S / O MUTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
R/ O TIPPUR VILLAGE KEZNGERI HOBLL BANGALORE SOUTH T ALUK.
SR1' KRISHNAPPA S/ O DODDABYAPPA9 AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, h R/ O TIPPUR VILLAG_E;«« KENGERI HOBLI, M BANGALORE SOU'FHV_TALUK{VV 'O SR1 VEZNK S /O DOO.OA23YYApPA AGED :ABO£IT"a'5__YEA;j;S""~ V 'I'IPPUR--v,\V/'IL.IAGE, KENS j -HOIBLI;
B.ANGALC}_{P1 _ my SMT MUNIYAMMA. O W/O 'LATF,_ KALAIAH _ AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS __;TI1»P.UR VILLAGE.
~ - 'KENGERI HOB'L};" "
' « _ BANGALQRE SOUTH TALUK.
*-SRIO S /O B MUNIYAPPA ' AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS TEPPUR VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLL "BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
88.
69.
71. 72,.
62 SR1 L V BYRAIAH S / O LATE VEN KATAP PA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS TIPPUR VILLAGEE KENGEZRI HOBLL BAN GALORE SOUTH TALUK.
SMT RATH NAM MA \V/ O LATE V NARAYANASVVAMYL AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS TIPPUR VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLL BANGALORE SOUTH 'I'ALUK;» SMTV S BHAGYA ' W/O SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEAR'S, ' TIPPURVIILAGE, ' KENOERJ~Hi:>B1;1, BANOA;,.ORE1';jSOU<:'B '};'ALUK.-- " A SRITC-RAJ/LNNA - ' .
s;.IO**cH_1KKABUBOA1AB AGED ABOmj YEARS TIPPUR VILLAG._E2; A KENGERI 1+:OB:,:',V. "
BAN(3ALORE"sOUTBAT;ALUK.
V EMT.
'D,.;"--O ALNARAY 'i'~$AS _ A 7AMY AGED _A'B__OUT 30 YEARS V' " » .T1*PPUR-VILLAGE.
HOBLE, . BANE4ALO=RE SOUTH TALUK.
73. .A s/O LATE GOVINDAPPA "AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS ~ TIPPUR VILLAGE?
SR1 T G RAJANNA KENGERE HOBLL BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
74.
75.
76.
77. «_ 78;
63 SR} VENKARANGAIAH 8/ O RANGAIAH AGED ABCEUT 58 YEARS TIPPUR '\§1LLAGE' KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE KALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS TIPPUR VILLAGE, .
KENGERI HOBLI, V BANGALORE sOU1*H'E':1§',uK, V j SR1 REVANNA _ S/O cHRq<AEYYARPA"= -
AGED 45 YEARS.
TIPPUR4_V1vLLAGE, .. 1 ' KENGER1 HO}3'LI..__ ' BANGALO'jRE'.sOu'TR *i:é;_I.LfK;' ° SR: MUNiYAPiz.:% _ ._ S/O SRI ~<:H1KE;A.BYYR.RpA AGED ABOUT'-SASOYEARS-. ' ' TTPPUR VILLAGEj,._ ~ ~ KENGERIHOBL1, V BANGALORE sjOU~:'_H TALUK.
_ '5*sR1_LV'ENKATAR,A1yLANAPPA 5/=0 CHIKKABYYAPPA ' * --. _V AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS _ TTPPUR VI_LI',AGE, RERGE_RI~ IHOELL
79."-
BANG}&l,,ORE SOUTH TALUK.
SR? ' B1'-RA @ BYRAPPA 3 / LATE EERABYRAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS ' *- ..fRPPUR VILLAGE, 'RENGER: ROEEL " BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
~x\\
84.» \'~«M\§w%;' g ,.
80.
81.
82.
83. 64 SRI L N NARAYANAIAH 8/ O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS TIPPUR VILLAGE, KENGEZRI HOBLI.
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
SR1 L N ARAYANA S/O LATE: DQDDANARAE'ANA1_?PA "
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS TIPPUR v1LLAG':«:, KENGERI HOBLI, _ . «.
BANGALORE soU'1'R""§tAL1.IR. V ~ SR1 L C LAKSHMINARAYAM' ' S/O CHIKKABYYAPPA" -- ' AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
TIPPUR4.VlLLA(}E',, .. 1 ' KENGIER1 H=OBL:.__ . _ BANGA1V,o'RE»'A.sGUTHV TALUK;' Sm M 'RAgyi{AsW:xMY'Rg:-DD'2' _ S'/0 L_ATE M_ MUNIREDDY.
AGED ABOU'f,5-5 ' TIPPUR VILLAGE," ' ._ ' ' KENGERI H0R.L1,*._ ' , BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
:§MT~NANJAMMA _
- W5/'O LAfr1«: V M MUNIREDDY ' a , AGED --.ABOU'1' 80 YEARS G " "'\I§Li.ACrE, KE;1\I(3~.E)RE._HOBLI, . "BANGA':_.GRE SOUTH TALUK.
85."'~._SMj;" LAKSHMAMMA W/'Q L TE HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS = 4_ TIPPUR VILLAGE.
KENGER} HOELI.
"BANGALORE: SOUTH TALUK.
gm Am 92,
93.
94. " » 96;' 66 SR} L T HALAPPA S,/O LATE THIMMAEAH AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS TIPPUR VELLAGE;
KENOERJ HOBLL BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
SR1 RANGASSWAMY ' -.
8/ O LATE) KEINCHARANGAIEXH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS TIPPUR VILLAGE, . .
KEZNGERI HOBLL 2 BANGALORE SOUTH '1'ALU£:.7 $121 GOVINDAPPA _ _ S/O LATE THIMMAIAH' ' - _ AGED AE'O'Uf"£.72 as"
T1PPU_R~vn,1,A_OE, 'V __ KENGER1_.HOBLI; . ' "
BAl\?GA'£!€7R31:3.Q'4O"T1*'T?3LUf§}O SR1 L R LA'E;:sHM1pATHY _ S/O RANGAswAMA:AH"' ~ AGED 'ABOUT YEARS.
TIPPUR Vr,LLAO1«;, "
KENGERI HQBLI.
; BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
'<s131_j1'1{:MMA1A::: .... .. v ' s/O LATE SEENAPPA V' " .. A AGED' AB'O.UT 38 YEARS TIPPUR Y/XLEAGE.
O' HOBLI,
97."
BAN.GALOR.E SOUTH TALUK.
SRLKENOHAADPA S';/O1. LATE THEMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS V L" w TFIPPUR VILLAGE,
-A "KENOERI HOBLL BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
""%';m, Q8.
99. E00.
101.
102. 5?
SR} L V NA'E?fASIMHAMURTHY 8/ O LATE EERANARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS TIPPUR VILI,AGE$ KENGERI HQBLL BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
SR1 NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS , TIPPUR VILLAGE}, " I KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK. .
SR1 RANGASWMAY:-' _ S/O LATE RANGA1"AH«--
AGED ABOUT 60 ' TJZPPUR VILLAGE, "
KENGERI HCtBLI, "
BANGAI,Qf{F1:. SOUTH ' .. h 2 SR1 L ;\»?'"'V*;'v:4Ni<:~A*f._ V. s/0 E;:+:R;;NARA$.ApPA».'%' '_ ' AVG-ED _AB_O UT :54 TIPPUR' v:tLLAc;13, _ "
Iu:,Nc;1::R1 H'JBL1;, "
BANGAL0RE'sQIJ*1*H_:
SR1 RSEENAPPA' .
S/O L'ATE"RAN._GAIAH~.-"
{ 'AGED A.B'OUT 80 YEARS '~'.,TI:P_I'-'*U_R VILEAGE,' . HOBLI, A " ~ B.AN{};»i\,LORE SOUTH TALUK. ' _. % SR;
' S/0 1;A%1fE: MALLAIAH AG_ €D- ABOUT 90 YEARS VEIPPIURV VILLAGE, K_E.NGERI HOBLL A' ' BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, xkxfmk 54;' : SR1 VENKA'I'ARABv'IANAPPA S / Q LATE VENKATAN RAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS TIPPUR VILLAGE,
105.
106.
107. 108;
68 KENGERI HOBLL BANGALORE SOUTH TALUKL SR1 MUNIYAPPA Sf O LATE VEZNKATANARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS TIPPUR VILLAGE KEINGERI HOBLL BANIGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
SMT THIMMALAKBBMAMMA W/O LATE) MUNIYAPPA " ' AGED ABOUT 75 YBARB TIPPUR VILLAGE, A ' KENGERI HOBLL _ ;
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUKJ SR1 NARAYANABBA... _ W. 8/0 LATB ALAGAIAH UR1:?'FB1'MMA1AB« "
AGED ABOUi;W0 Y::ABB"' 'HBPUR"viLLAGiL_: ' __ * KBNGE._R1--:'B'<3BLr; » _ A , BANGALORB'1«:3_Q_UI?B TL' "
SR1 AN;I}x\N;¢;PE13L.A _ . .
SJO LATE MUNISWAM.AIz";__H AGED ABO UT 65'YE}'--;.RS' "
'I'IPPUR v:.LLAGB',, "
_ KBNGBR§._AHOBI,I, . BANGALORB BOUjfH TALUK.
BBL PO"ifirA1AH " S'/.Q"LATE' BBRAPPA AGBB 'ABOUT 75 YEARS ' "BB§>UB 'JELLAGE.
KEN~F}_I¥jE'<I HOBLL BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
.110.
' 1,8/O I:>OBDAMUTI~LA1AB ..=AGB:> ABOUT 80 YEARS w.\v\§N% SR} MALIGAPBA TIPPUR VILLAGE).
KENGELRI HOBLI.
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK;
E11'
112.
113.
114.
115. 69 SR1 M NARAYANASEUAIVTY' S / O MALIGAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS TIPPUR V11,1,AGE§ KENGER1 HOBL1, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, SR1 N MUNIRAJ S / O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS TIPPUR VILLAGE, KEZNGER1 HOBL1, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUA;
SR1 R RANGASWANFK S/O LATE DOODA:2A'N.GA13pA. V --« AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS ' TIPPUR VILLAGE), ' .
KENGER1 HGBLI, -- . ' BANGALOR;F2.T.§}3UI'=H .. h 1 SMT V_]E)'1\IE<iA_TA1X'I;l\/IA .j W /O L,/'--'_xTE:'{ D,ODD.A.RA1\fGAPPA Y5 AGED A"B,OU'F:g5'1'EAE§S * I:APPURA.v;fI,1,AC:{E', _ KENGAERIV}-1xjB_I,1',L ' BANGALORE ~s'Ou*1'L:
SR1 15SI93L'.NAPPAA. "
.8./O LATE_'DOO*OARAi§:.GAPPA .. AAGED ABO UT' 55 YEARS
- "1'IPPUE2AVI1,I,AG'E;"
KENS HOBLI, 1" " ABANGA1;QR!§ SOUTH TALUK. '1 116;-
1 'SA: NARAYANA S/(}~L_A'_'E'E? DODDARANGAPPA 1' AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS TIPPUR VILLAGE, KENGER1 HOBLL A "_BAN{}ALORE SOUTH '1'AI.L'E{. ,7 117,
118.
119.
120. ~ . '_ 12:
:30 SR? D VENK1~'\.TESH S,' O LATE DODDARANGAPPA.
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS TIPPUR \.:'YH4L./3xCrE§ KENGERI HOBLL BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
SMT A NAGARATHNAMI\/Léx W/O SR1 D SEENAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS TIPPUR VILLAGE, V __ KENGERI HOBLI, ' BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK'.
SR1 cH12q:ANARAYANAp§§A s/0 NAF§AYANAPPA _. _ AGED ABoU;1~'5V1 KENDDR1--:;{DB1,1'; ' ._ ' BAN.DA1;QRE'~:§.Qum' 1f_A1§U1~:._. . SR1 NAF<'A'{ANA7'PPA_ * S910 MUNIYAPPA» ' _ AGED .ABOUTr65VYEARS.
sEEDEHA1.L1. v'H,LAGE,, ' KENGERI'HOB._LI,?_ ' ; BVANGALORESOUTH TALUK.
.,sR1'MUN1RAJU. ..... .. .
S/ID LATE NARAYANAPPA ' * --. _ AGEDAD--o_U'1' 62 YEARS 's:§EDE:%:A_Li.,: VILLAGE,
-.__«KENC}ERI:;HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
122. SR: N§;R'AsIMHA1AH 3 / Q NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABQUT 56 YEARS ' *- ._ SEEGEHALLI VILLAGE?
_,-KENGEZRI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
AND Ex) 72 STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SGUDHA BANGALORE~56O O01 REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY THE: PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE) GOVERNMENT OF KARN!-'\fi'A_KA, R PUBLIC 'WORKS DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE«56O O01 ' THE KARNATAKA INDUsTRIAL'ARFA ' DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB), HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NQ;'14-;'3',-- ' ._ RASHTROTHANA P;'\RfSHA.'F B.U1'LD£'NGS II FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGARQ":AI), ' BANGALORE -560o0I ' ' REP BY ITS _CH_IEF IE*;XI5'GI.'IjI'IVEfOFIFICIGRIP BANGAI..,O.RE5jMIésORF, I>NFRAsi*RuCTURI2 CORRIDOR: FLAIIINING' AUTHORITY A FLANNIN.G;;AUTIIORI*FY CONSTITUTED UN'DER_TOVVN iI:5>;= --CG-UNTRY " I FLANNIN'O'.AII'I'IIOR1TY_ ACT,' I 96 1 , HAVING ITSOFFICE ;Atr"IvI s BUILDINGS BANGAI,ORI:~56Qo0'I~ M/s NAND1 EN}}*RZXS'FRUC'i'URE .. ;fCOR.RIDOR.F_:_N'I'F:RI>RIsE: LTD 'A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER « _ ' INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 " -I .H.IW1NGI.I"I'S_ REGISTERED OFFICE AT RMIDFORD HOUSEI
-- "-IIMIDFQRIIGARDENS, OFF M G ROADI BANGAI;ORE«56000I ,\f...N 2 REPABY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR s BPINGALORE DEVELQPMENT AUTHORITY, V' O VIZEST, BANGALORE -- 560 020, R ' "REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LAND ACQUISITIONI
10.,
11. 73 KIADB {BMICP}, GANDHENAGAR, BAN{}ALORE--f:360099 THE UNION OF INDIA REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS, PARYAVARAN BHA\/'A_RN..,. _ OGO COMPLEX F' NEVJ DELHI-1 10 003 THE) KARNATAKA S'i}¥I'E PO{_,LUTION ' CONTROL BOARD, M G ROAK}, V"
BANGALORE--560001 O' REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN THE SECRETARY ; V. COMMERCE 8: INDUSTRiES.DE:PARTMENT NRUPATHUNGA ROAD' * ..
BANGALORE%56OOC)1 " _ _ _ SR1 ASHOK V MANAO1:\frC;D1REC'rOR'~..._ " » M /S N.AND1'1NERAsfrRIUC1U.RE CORRIDOR E--NfDERPR1S'E LTD. , V A COMRANY R?"§G1STER}5'.D UNDER IN,D1Ar«: COMP.ANEIESE.AGT, ~ 1956 HAVING us REGISTEREL3 OFFICE AT NO. MIDEORD HOUSE, M1DEO.RDC.ARDE.Ns«,... OFF M G ROAD, ; E.ANGALORE:5'6oo-01 NANDI E1C'O'NOMIC CORRIDOR EMERPRISE LTD, N01.
MI-DF()i?%D HOUSE.
i'viiv}3'EOR.DviS'AR£)ENS; OFF M G ROAD, . EANC£égLf3RE-560001 REP Ry': YES CONS'FITUTED ATFORNEY A. RUDRA GOUDA RESPONDENIS SESANDEER RADL, SPL. GA FOR R1, 2 & 9, r _ ,SRfL'_P.V, CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. FOR R-3 8: 7, Y. NARAYANA. SVVAMY, ADV FOR R»4, M/S. KING 81 PARTRIDGEZ, ADVS. FOR R«5, E1 8a 12. BASAVARAJ V. SABARAD, ADV. FOR R-6; SR1 M. MADHAVACHAR, CGSC FOR R-8 $§£J7v»,«m*?2'A~.
\ .5: ' 3 I 47-4 E§UTD.NAGAR§J,ADV}FORE%Q THESE WRIT ARREALS ARE ETLED U/S3;-.' EBB. KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYTNG TO SEj'r"--AS:DE' THE ORDER DT. 19.11.2010 PASSED BY THE LEARRED._S;NGL:E ' JUDGE IN WRIT PE§'I'I'I'ION _JN.O_S.233B5;'2Bz;9T"w 23537/2009(LA~KIADB) AND CONNECTED' 1*.<tA~TTE;:RS, RESTORE ALL THE: SAID WRIT PETITIONS ORf"EETI,E.. ALONG .S"w1'"'A:iGfr£ w.R.NO.233B4/2009 (LAKIADB) ARARTEROM <:O'RTIT«;UTNG INTERIM ORDER AS GRAN':'ED.TN- THE WRIT PE'i'i"I'IQf'ES_,_H IN WA NOS. 1314-1321/2011 n » W.A. Nos. 1683-1782/201 1 A BEWNEEN
1. SR} MUNIYAPPA _ S/O YARAPPA H ' AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS V. R/O T'H1RRUR__.' 2: ~ A -
BANGA1,O.RE:SO'_UTR«TA:,UK__«-- . SMT LAKSHwxM:=.aA4 W/.0..LATE"LS;;Nf\r"b?&'1'ANPiS¥7\IA1\/Pi' AGED ABOUT 55'YEARS R'/0'1}-{IPP'UE1.._ -- .
BANGALORE SOUT*:={.*1*ALUR N 3, SMT A/:UNrYELLAMMA.,\ W/O LATE NARAYANAPA ~ '5:AGE:D ABOU'--F.7_0 YEARS " R/=0. THIPPUR "" "
' v .. _ B.ANGALGRE SOUTH TALUK "' A SR: fNARA7YANARRA . "S,!O LATE"cH1KKA LAKKAIAH AGED. ABOUT 65 YEARS Rf/THIERUR BARGA1,ORE SOUTH T ,.UK " _ XSRT T R NANJAPPA.
"S#3LHHZKAPANMAH AGEDABOUTSOYEARS 76 SR}. DODDANARAYANASXVAMY S/O LATEZ G0&fINDAIAH3 AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O THIPPUR, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
SR1. L. GOVINDARAJU 8/0 C. LAKSHMINARAYANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. -
R/O THIPPUR, I BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
SR1' L. MANJUNATH .._V 8/0 C. LAEEHMINARAYANAIAH.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, "
R/O THIPPUR, _ _ BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK. . A ~ SR1. LINGANNA ._ V S/O LATE DODDABAUD'DALAH,A...'=. ._ AGED AEO'D'T€<o ' " "
R/OTH1F.PUR;' A-_ V BANGALORE s'O'1_J'FR-.f;fAL'D.E; _ SRIKC I,AKSHi"€;f[iNARAYAI'Jfi{PP;i'1' "
Si/O LATE! 'GH2m:EAMvDT-1:VEN:<ATApPA, AGED AEOUT.f7._Q R/O THIPPUR,' A. "
BANGALGRE"s_OUTH_ 'ALUK.
V, _iSRL. N. LAKGRMINARAYANAPPA V. /{O LATE NARAYz9x'NAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, V' " » .R;'vO'*T;;E.RPURT EANjGALORE SOUTH TALUR.
SMT; GTDDAMMA 'W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, " A R/OTHEPPUR, 2&1 \\\\§";aT ' ' ' "BANGALORE SOUTH YALUK.
V. VENKATEZSHAPPA 8/ O [ATE VENKA'FARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT ":70 YEARS, 2!, 77 RXO THIPPUR.
BANGALORE SO UTH '1'ALUK.
NARAYANAPPA 8/ O LATE NARAYANAPPAT AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/'0 THIPPUR, BANGALORE: SOUTH TALUK.
SR1. DG. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE: GANGATAH, ' AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS;
R/O THIPPUR, --
BANGALORE sGU'1'HjTA:,u;<;'' -- "
PATEL NARE:sEGoWDA._ ;
S/O LATE PAPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,' R/OTHIPPUR,"'. j _, BANGA1,QRT;:iSQUTH T'ALUK,_ SMT. s;UNANDA?'a:HANiDR;AsTTEKAR' W/O SR1. 'CHAND RA.SHEI§AR;
AGED .ABjOUT' YEARS, ' F1./O'{'HI'PPUR,'3,V .
BANGm.0REsQUTH--TALU1{.
SR1;uTHIM1\'/LA1AH'-- ' s/o LA,'1'E_HAT\lUIvIAPP'A, _ AGED ABQUT :30 YEARS.
, TR/G THIPPUR, V "BA&\IGAT,0RE SOUTH TALUK, " ~ A _sR1;"::2HAfxAAsH1vA1AH S2'-Q"-SEQ'-'TNKAIWPA, AGE:D'GAB?GUT' 55 YEARS, A RxD~TH.TPPUR, BATNGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
SMT. JAYAMMA Kw,/0 LATE L. POQJAPPA.
-=AGE:D ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O THIPPUR.
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
30.
31.
33. » 78 SR}; MANEK.YA S/' O LATE DODDAMARAPPA.
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O OONEPURA, BANOALO RE SOUTH TALUK.
SR1. VARADAPPA 8/ O LATE DODDAMARAPPA.
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R,' O GONIPURA, BANGALORE SOUTH '1'AI,5j _V SR}. R, MUNESWAMY S/O LATE GANGAPPA, _ AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O THIPPUR, ~ . * BANGALORE) SOUTH '1"Ai,U§:v.° SR1. R. KRISHNAPEA V _ S /O LA *5: OANOAP':>A,iO AGED_.ABO.UT.. YEjAR_S;.._ A' R/O TH11:>:?>U_R, SR1. R.' 'M.UN1NL"ARA.:AH' S}! O LATE O.A1\IGAPPA_, ' .. ' AGED 4_ABO1UT'V3jaYEARs, R/OVVTHIPPUR, ..
_BANOA1.4OR1:vsOu~f_rH'<rALUK. SR1'; M. vfiiN=;<Af_1'Es.H 's,z_O LATI3: S. MUNIYAPPA, AGE1)-ABOUT 45 YEARS.
3 R/O 'THiP_PUR, BAN'O.A1,O'R;i: SOUTH TALUK.
34. SR3. ~ Pf~{A.BHA§AH O S LATE MOPURAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/'O GONIPURA VELLAGE3.
O' "BANGALORE: SOUTH TALUK.
"5§?*$§??é<§%'*v-»m.
%"'*»s'A?
36,
37.
39. 79 SRE. VENKATAPPA 8/ O LATE: MARAIAH AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/C} GONIPURA VELLAGE.
BANGALORE SOUTH '"E'ALUK.
SR1. SHIVANNA S/' O LATE HONNAPPA :
AGED ABOUT 68 'FEARS, * ' RXO GONIPURA VILLAGE, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK SR1. GRSHIVANNA S/O LATE RUDRAPPA7 _ _ AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/O GONIPURA v1L1..AG_E._ BANGALORE S.OU'Ii'H 1fAl;U{{ SMT. NE§§LA'~3mvIA L w/ O L!XTED14¥S$.\PPA ._ "
AGED ABOUT 75 K R/O GONIPURA VILLAGE;
BANGALORE SOUTH jrALUK" ' ' "
SMT.._ OHIKBAMUNIYAMMA. -
W/Q V_EN:<ATA1AH AGED ABOUT 50 YE:A--R_s' R/O GQNIPURA \>7{I,LAGE, ; 'BANGALORESOUTH TALUK BBL S0.MANN2§ """ '"
B/O. .LATE. PUTFAVEERAIAHL V " ' AG«F}D~vAB_OU'I' 85 YEARS %«R;'vO"'G_ON:BURA VILLAGE, V ' BA.1_\:GALORE SOUTH TALUK SR1. AP PAJAPPA 3/ LATE KADARAPPA.
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS I R/O GONIPURA VILLAGE, .. BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK SR1' R LAKSHAIAH SE C} LATE RPLNGANARAYANAPPA, \""x.§\h\
44.
45.
46.
4?.
S/O LATE MALLALAH.
80 AGED ABOUT 58 YEZARS R/O OONKPURA VILI.AGE.
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK SMT. MUNIRATHAMMA \V/ O LATE: NARAYANAPPA.
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O GONIPURA VILLAGE, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK SMT. KAMAKSHI D / O MUNIRAJAPPA, T. AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, * ' R/O GONIPURA VILLAGEZ, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK SMT. JAYAMMA ' «.
W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA;
AGED ABOUT 48 R/O GONIPURA VILLAGE:
BANGALORE, SOUTH 'I§ALUE-.
SR1. G' A A 5/0 LAf:E».;A.§3PAJ.AP1?A',~v.' .. AGEE..AEOU'I $45 YEARS R/O GON1f9URA'vLLLAGE._ BANGALO RE. jSOU'rH-- UK SR1."'NARASHnV1AM»LIRrHY VS/O LATE' NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/KO GON1PURA----v:L1,AGE, BANG_ALORE SOUTH TALUK g 321 3x2:ARARpA S/O--LA'r:E MARAIAH', AGED' jABOU'r 68 YEARS 4' R70 GONIPURA VILLAGE.
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK SR1. KEZMPARANGAEAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS § }'§>?2?§3§3$W~, ,_ 50
1)') g\.)
54.
3".
\ ..I .r' -, 81 R/(} GONIPURA VILLAGE?
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
SR1. J D EEVANNA S/Q LATE CHTKEADHENNAEASAPEA AOED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O GONIPURA VILLAGE, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
SR1. NANJUNDASWAMY S ,/ O LATE CHIKEA NANJAPPA AOED ABOUT 52 YEARS 7 R/() SEEGEHALLI VHLAGE ' *--- BANGALORE SOUTH TALUE.
SMT. MALAMMA V O D/O LATE HANUMAJAH, ~_ AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS' , R/O SEEGEHALLI \z1L_LAOEv_ A --~ BANGALORE' SOUTH TALUK.' SR1. VEN'i<,A'I'AP--PAv S/O JUN,LA9PA;=--. . " A .
AOED ABOUT65 ~ _ R/ O" "S'EEl;}EH1'%-LLI 'v1LLAOE',"' ' "
E§ANOALOEE.VsOU'TI:§ "*1'.AL1f.JE. ER1."=:;MUNiRA;iU »--
V S/O LATE'sAN-JEEVALAHT , AOED ABOUT 41 YEARS °~R;,_:'--.O SERGE » A ""LLT\/'II,LAGE BA1\;'G_AL_QRE SOUTH TALUK fsvE1j;.. HANDAEAO PAR " « S/O LATE RAMAOHARL A ABOUT' 80 YEPRS S/O LATE MUNECHENNAPPA.
' FUD SEEZGEHALLI VILLAGE BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK SR1. HUCHAPFA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
64.
66.
68. 83 R/O SEZEGEHALLI VILLAGE?
BANGALORE) SOUTH TALUK SMT. A ANUSLYA D/O R APPAYANNA.
AGED ABOUT S3 YEARS R/O GONIPURA VELLAGE BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK SR1' GANGANNA S/O LATE GHTREA NANJAPPAT AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 7 R/O GONIPURA VILLAGE" _ BANGALORE SOUTH TALUE._ SR1. SRTKANTARPA S/O LATE RE\/ANNA, _ AGED ABOUT 55 R/O GONIPURAVIL1,AvGEV _ V' . BANGALORE SOUTH TALUR --.
SMT. S}viI*VAl'-Zfl\/LA ~ g D . S / O 1;ATE..SHIVAN,NA;j'-- * V ; AGED ABOUT50 ~ R/'O"G~ON1RUR?3"xHL1AGE BANGALORE SOUTH 'TALUE SR1. "vENT1:A'TATRAMpJxTAPpA _ -35,/O CH1I\;NA.G~TRDzARPAT . AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS "Rs,/---O D.QDDAKU'N"1iANAHALLI VTLLAGE 'A E_ANG.ALORE SOUTH TALUK _ G}S'EZfj"«(§OV£N'DARTAJU S/O TRIRUMALLAIAH, A AGED 5'%.BOUT 35 YEARS
-- TS R/O DODDAKUNTANAHALLI VILLAGE EAR GALORE SOUTH TALUE . 4' SRL GOVTNDAIAH " S/Q LATE GOOGGAEAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
72.
73.
74. 84 RI O DODDAKUN'I'ANAHALLI V.{LLAGE« BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK SR1? NAGARAJU 8/ O MAHLADEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/ O DODDAKUNTANAHALLI VILLAGE BAN GALORE} SOUTH TALUK SR1. CHIKKAGOPALAIAH S/O DODDAMARAPPA g AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS :
R/O DOODAKUNTANAHATL:'A.51T,LAOE V BANGALORE SOUTH 'I'ALUK'a. V' SR1. VENKATASWAULAEPA,«'"" - "
S/O LATE BOMMAN-NA" _ AGED ABOUT 55 ' R/OTHIPPUR VILLAC}E __ UV BANOALORE'S.OUTH TALUL:_ SR1. SADASHIVAIAH' _ S /O LATE _;j2§NARD}flDLN:;A * AGED ABO'U';i_g;0 YEEARS ~ _ R/'O'DOD'IDAKU1N'fANAHALII"ELLAGE BANOA_LORE .SO«U'FH_T"ALU.K_' SR1. MUN1MARALAH"
S/O LATDKADARAPPA, V, ._;AOEO ABO UT 80 YEARS _ - R/:_9.ADODDAKUI\ETANAHALLI VILLAGE ~ . A BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
- SRL fi--<ON?O-AEPA . "'TS/<31;Aj':'EZA11\/IARAPPA
--._AG_E-O .A,BOU'I' 58 YEARS R/O_OOE»DAK;UNTANAHALLT VILLAGE B5;A.:$;é;Aq,ORE SOUTH TALUK _ OSRL DASAPPA ' "S/O LATE GOOGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 85 VILLAGE R/' O DODDAKUNTANAHALLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK SMT. THIMMAKKA D / O VEN KATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/ O DODDAKUNTANAHALLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK VILLAGE 7'8.
SR1' SRINIVASA , _ S/O LATE TRIBUMALLAIAB, , "
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS '\/}_LLA°'E._ '- R/O DODDAKUNTANAHALLI* ' BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK ~ . __ SR1 MUNIKBIsHNA"<--.7 A A 8 OD DDA PALAHH. . = / O G0 ' v__V:LL--AOE;..._;._ AGED ABOUT 35 YEARSf A R/O DODVDUAKU_NT[;NAHA'.LLI_ _ _ BANGAL€)RE}SQUTH TALUE' Di/O.AN;1EENA,pBA--._" ' ' AGED 'ABO_UT 48 YEARS _ '" "'LAGE~ B10 DODDA:~;UN1jANABAL1..-I BANGALORE ' s.'O.UTB_ 'FALUK
79. 80
82. SR1 1\V}4AR1YAVPB_A,G'..v"
; B/O MARAPPA ' 3 =*.,AO_EDV ABOUT .7_Q_'YEARs VILLAGE' R'/'O D"ODDAKUNTANAHA1,L1 V BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK s/O. LA"_E'}:Z KURLAPPA ACSEBV ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O DODDAKUNTANABALL1 BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK A 2\\%4, SR! VENKATARAMANAPPA S/O CHIKKAVEARAPPA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS R/O GONIPURA VILLAGE BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK \/WLLAGE,
86. 90, _i 86 SR} SADASHIVAIAH 8,2' O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O GONIPURA VILLAGE BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK SR1 KEMPAIAH S/' O LATE BOMMANNA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/ O GONIPURA VILLAGE BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK SMT. SOUBHAGYA D / O MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/O GONIPURA V1LLAOE_.T-W -. BANGALORE SOUT.H'TAL1_JK§. . V ~ SMT. MUNIYAMMA .
W /O LATE _MU_N1YAPPA~ .. 'A AGED AEOUi{'S.'75 YEARS.
R/O DQDDA5KU_1\I'FAI\TA aV1LLAC;jE;' EANGALO.'R.E"SOUTHVjjjTAL:.1ES. ' S /O LATE ._--RANOAEPA« . V _ AGED ABOUT -50 YEA.1f{"S R/O THIPPUR \.[ILLAGEu BANGALORE SOIJ'1'H??ALUK R. MUNVIVRAJU:
S;/TO LATE RAN-O--.--APPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS A " = . SEJOO TTHIPPUR VILLAGE 91 __ OBAN(,3A1..l.(3%P:E SOUTH TALUK SE1; RQMUNISWAMY S;zO LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R; O THIPPUR VILLAGE G' " BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK SR1 RAMACHADRACHAR S/' O LATE RAMACHARI AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS 'K C?" .
. W '
93.
94.
96.
97. 87 R/7 O SEES EHDALLI VILLAGE.
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK SR1 KEMPAIAH 8/ O LATE BOMMANNA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O GONIPURA VILLAGE, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK SR1 MUGABUL AHAMAD 8/ O LATE SYED GOUS AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS .
R/O GONIPURA VILLAGE? ' BANGALORE SOUTH TAI,U}i, SR1 GOVINDAPPA .
8/ O LATE GARUD'A_IA'H .
AGED ABOUT 45 A R/O GONIPUR VILLAGE .
BANGALORE $GU'rH"'1AI._;UK" A A SR1 G.L_, NAp.;AYANAI>PA S/O 'L AGED ABD.I;;jr 45 .
R,'--o-'GQN1pURA=v1LLAGE B_ANGAI§O'E_?.E_ 'VSQUTEIA 'TALUK SR; BASAV*AI.1'AAQ'UOO' W .. " e S/D"LA'rE CH1_KI§HJ\LA-GAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 '(EARS V _; R/Q GDNRDRA VILLAGE "BANGALORE 'SOUTH TALUK . sRI"r«1AN§jLINDA1AH OSV/'V4(}.LVAT'E?LENGAIAH A. "WAGED"AEiOUT 80 YEARS R/D Gé§>N1pURA VILLAGE BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK SR: DODDAHEZLAGAIAH 'Es/D LATE CHIKKAHALAGAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O GONIPURA VELLAGE BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK AAEEAW» 88 SMT. GANGAMMA W7 O LATE RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS R/' O GONTPURA BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK SR1 KADARAPPA S/O LATE HONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O GONIPURA VILLAGE BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK SR1 HUCHHAIAH S / O LATE KADARAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 R/ O GONIPURA BANGALORE SOU'FH TALU K SMT. YELLAMMA « W/O LATE)'B,U_DA1AJ_H I .4 AGED AEQU';f"5_O YEARS R/O OON:pURA'.?,n1,1TAOE.
BANGALORE: SOUTH '11A_L.UI<:* SR1 NARASIMHMPAAEAH S-/O LATE '§'TENKA'I'APPA __ ~ AGED ._ABQU'I' .50VYE:ARS R/Oa_GONIPURA*VH_.LAQE BANGALORE S_OUTHa'I~'ALUK :-i.SR1"'HUcHHA1AH__A.v S A3 LATE SIDDAIAH AGED'/ABOUT 60 YEARS " ' RV/O' OO:~I:P:.JRA «BAN=:_;ALQR*E SOUTH TALUK SR} RAMASWAMY " S /'O LATE: DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/'O GONIPURA VILLAGE A "~_BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK SR} M. NAGARAJU S / O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
6. xx Q0 HAVING F18 REGESTEZRED OFFICE ATE' N03, 1\/{IDFORD HOUSE, MIDFORD GARDENS.
OFF MG ROAD, BANGALOREWSBOOOI REP BY US MANz'7\GING DIRECTOR BANGALORE DEVETLOPMENI'AU'FH::'RE'i'Y "
K P \/VEST, BANGLAGRE~56OQO20 .. REP BY FIB COMMISSION'E',R~.._V SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIGNER LAND ACQUISITION, K_1ADB~~{BM:.<::P} _ GANDHENAGAR, _ 5 . .
BANGALORE-560009 * ; . ' THE UNIONOF IND}; _ _ REP BY ITS'SECREfI'ARY_ * MINISTRY OE?E21\.".ZIFfOI'~1_MENfI' AN'D"F®REsTs, CGO cQM}é1,.£:X," » _ '_ N_I€:W,.DE;L,_HI~"}$000.3' ' THE K.A1§iN:xf12.z3im POLLUTION CONTROL BOA-EDT, 'ROAD BAN{}ALORE_~560001'=--._ ' REP BY Us craAIRMA3:
THE SECRETARY, V. V, CO1\/IMERC'E,& INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, _ "~N:2I.JPA.'1'HUNGAROAD, BA1\IGAL{_)RE3 -- 560 001.
" SR1 ASHOK KHENY :»I,A1x?A"<3§NQ.v~DiRECi'0R ' /:3 NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRJDOR ENTERPRISE LTD.
A COMPANY REGISTEZRD UNDER fND}'AN COMPANIES ACT,1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT V "vNCr. 1, MEDFORD HOUSE.
--*M:D1r<>R:> GARDENS.
OFF' M G ROAD, BANGALORESSSG O01 93 specie Bench Eater on.
E 565/2008 were concIuded.»On__i.y on»? 20 _ The petiti0ner"'~iV_rfl1 \fJ'§'P;"ve.:'§'=1t}".t'3438/<20Id is the ewner of iand measutrtitng '_Sy.Nos.41 and 42 situated sateBeratetta".:Agfa:ha_re 'fltiage, Bangalore South.
The :tos.227e1-22792/2009 §§fi.No%Y&@9fi%tE4§§%1;5?E'%§/16i<t39éiJ}5§, 3'3'?2 5ar§Hj§1 8? Chikkathx0'gtJr'vLnVt/i_1ie'ge;.:.'Bangaiore south. Nos.22794--22796/2009 the petitioners "ge_3r-Le of different extents of lands in syt,et\:os.29,t%te} 30/1 and 30/3 of Chikkatoguru vmage, '' Bang'a,ViVt$i~e'e South, L In we Nos.22797--22818/2009 the petitioners §§«'?Nc§§?52?'§'§"%'§/1?f3/'j1'ff€§F2T' 4%F'3E}?%, <12,/*t,ndtS4/5:
The e.rgum¥e;tt's'v 'irév .0. J. ' : _ 3 fit 94 14/3, 16/5, 33/2, 32/1A, 63; 2/18, 64; 6/5;. 63/6; 10/1, 10/6, 32/10 and 32/6 situated in Chikkavthe.c;o.ru village, Bangaiore South.
W./1\. Nos.3880~3891/Ziliiiljyit" i33%93«l3sh9S/%2§o;1no arise on account of an interim "or'<':ier bv.I1i:h.e 'iea*rn'ed"g Single Judge in w.i>. Nos.22'7$'1~227§*2,f'«20vO9.':a'nd W.P. 22794-22796/2009; iheaeclision in} the said writ petitions would a;i7.p'e'als as well. The in these matters had apprcgachvecif}_the'f.4V' CoLl_'rt on earlier occasion in w.i>.Nos,_5881/2of)4,i49208/2003, 50590 to 91/2003, whien came izoljé disposed of on 85420043 "x.'i'--h_:e:.beti'i:ioners in W.P. 22781 to 7792/2009 are heforev.t.he}__(;iourt challenging Preliminary Notifications and i:.inal Declarations pertaining to the years 1999, _ and 2005 respectively.
95 The writ petitioners in W.P. Ne.1989/28638 are the ewhers of different extents of lands in situated in Gottigere village ef UttaF%3.l'la§lis:VV::rliC§i:_§'§1,'W Bangalore, The petitioners in W,i'~.'t__l ewners of different extentsV!4_l:'i:>f:_%ands."irt_§y.l§os.41/1, 42, 44/2, 44/3, 4'V5'l;'.i.",.'4c6[E;}T.}%i.!.'.'V.%'V€#%(E-B'; 45/2, 46/1A situated in Basayfanap'u'rea:Z'yill'a.gee, B.an'tj'elore. The lpeillistner V""l§\lC5.'15641/2009 is the owne:;*vet'"$'y'i_.5i$lQf£165.':ifilllaganelhvalli village measuring 3 acres "contends that the land in questiosgn beinge" nursery and garden land, could not acquired as per the prohibition the Government Netification dated lg 1. i". 1%9et8i?.i' vlml i\les,3i49-3l5€}/2010, 32513152; 2010, 3:153-3154/2010 and 3498/2018 arise on account of an interim erder passed by the learned Single Eudge in gen 96 the above three writ petitions viz, WR1989/2808, WP. 18216/2006 and we 15641/.2009. Hent;e;'.the decision in the above said writ petitions woifld' off the writ appeais as weli.
The writ petitioners in these :fi*ia'tteirs we're" tiefoire the Court in the eariier"rou.nd of_iitigevt:iAoij""*i'nV Nos.31026 to 27/2003, 359359"ii<:"s3%/2o'03,-9.577/2004 and 1499/2009. i The in W.P. No.3957/2i)iiiiV_:Ai"s"thewo'iii'n'e.r:fr--oi*:,§properties bearing Sy. guntas situated at Thipptiri Bangalore South Taiuk. ;*The'u"petiti'oner M. Channappa in \!\/.P. owner of properties bearing Sy. measuring 2 acres 22.5 guntas sit':'Li"ate--Vc:l.at":Gonipura viiiage, Kengeri Hobii, Bangaiore South iiaiuki it The petitioner in WP. No.11002~11Gi_2/2010 & VWi}.Oi3/2810 is the owner of properties bearing Syn _/N, , x' .'j _ 97 i\ies.46Ci/1 to 6 in aii measuring 6 aeresli~-.:§t,i.ri'ta_,Syig Ne.461/1 to 3 measuring Sy.Ne. 462/1 to 3 mea[surin:g>._ situated at Kodi aia K'a:rehahaiii,["V.B:i'dad»i'""Wirriebiiiw Rarnanagararn Taiu . _ * j;
2. The petitioners1|ni'v-tih:es_e_:"'rriavt_t_ers are before this Court FQ.r« first the acquisition ortheiriarnags€95 i ' petitioners, their iands were not partjiof ' :.4'id.eritified for Bangalore-Mysore Infra'str_uct.Lsr-e._Chorrivdor Project (for short known as Cf"theé'res'oondent, and they were not even iocation of townships. By changing of the peripherai road and by impiervnenting the project contrary to the orders of A th»is"'A_Court, which is confirmed by the Apex Court, the respondents have acquired the Eands of the petitioners fer the prejecti In certain cases; eniy smeii gortions r / 98 of iands are acquired and the remairrihg.;'§§or*t.§_e-esI-of_ the iands though away from the periehera.i::
remain notified.
4. According to the--v:.s:js:i5'etitioV'ner_s,;,VE;§yVV':";vsVer'ie:s oft' manipuiations unde=r_.ther""'g:.t{i'se"-»r.of "executing the project, project coiiusien with the officerS.--::i't;f_ 'irtindustriai Area Deveiopnf;e.r'}t44"j_:{_he:rei.hVaifterVVreferred to as the 'KIADB_.i)V,V"h.o:tiVti.§_e_d ' >t"'E}\\%\'::',,l/,'qa'!:':'I':flfV"S jerk the petitioners for acquisitionD'i'v--".V-The'-otsrpose for which acquisition notifications was totally absent in the notifica.tioh.s'-rot"iacciuisition of land. Therefore the is outside the purview of Frame Weirk (for short 'F\/VA'), is the contention.
it ~.5.';_Ih two rounds of iitigatioh, the i-'WA which V' of the PTR was upheid reiying on the Aistatiemehts made by Nancii Infrastructure Corridor co»ii~i:eh_ded "-'that, though 99 Enterprises Limited (for short "i\iICEL'). .__Now proposed peripheral road is to the north of KOFii'ia::t3:a'fl_8 Agrahara and Beretena Agrahara kilometers away from they-'"or'*igeiha'iiyrj'ieori€:e.iiyeViL:iA it alignment of the peripheral road'.__or:_V_the of villages as envisaged in t'Eire""ProjeCt._TeChhVi'C;a'iV"report it (for short ' PTR').
6. Severai changed by adding" 2 villages.
This yviasiiiiiihiiaterai and contrary to the project has to be deveiopédgiriiiiiithe PTR. It is further Ba ngaiore'-Mysore Corridor Area Pianning Authority (for has been constituted for a specific purpose, it has no authority to change the aiignmerit oiriother components envisaged in the PTR. Under the ___§i:;uise of confiderstiai terms at Ciause 22.5 of FWA,
-: 5 5 detai s o iarids 100 After coming into force of Right to Information Act, they were abie to get such detaiis and thveVa_..:s:anne teveaied fraud, manipulation, malafides r.ofg_ power on the part of the respont;iVe_hts in''a'e.d_u,i'r'i:hg_the" 1' Eands of the petitioners.
7. According to them,"vtth:e'a§ignVrhehtvas.':t>er 2004 Outline Deve!opme'n.t_"':p««Plah §{Afo::V__'.e'ts«ort 2004') based upon which pe.r.§p:herav--lV formed, as of now ha_s_r:.o _to_; V by the State __ .AGo.vVer'nme.n:t-Q_n. 20.11.1995; (bx 1 the ti'v.I/is L. ;'"{f,) uttifiéfp"Cortierv. of this Court in I-LT. A 1 _ ..So:hVaVS'h'ekhar Reddy's case; of this Court in AU India V1.1'Vu7."tj--3_Mahhufactuers' Organisation case in W.P. '"";No.45334/2004 ;
Order of the Supreme Court in C./-\. _ _ _ _ No.3492--3/494/2005;
(f) Decision of the State Cabinet dated 18.10.2008.
x _'**\%g« 101
8. It is further contended that the acquisité-on of the lands for implementation of the peripheraiVifi.::ad.l%n the vicinity of the Gottigere tank contrary to the directions of Court' . . _. . . . .. .
9. They also contend,"Ve>:;:Tcess la'rid"_'otheVfv.§thVan the lands required for are being acquired.Vforis..co.rnVm.'erc.i»al""'vle§dji.lvo'Vitation in the interchange§*....are:a_s which is totally lands identified for the the FWA dated 3.4.1997 remainecltthe sa_mAe"wui'thout any change, as evident colriresporidence. But only on 29.7.1997 the 'departments of there of list of lands and this list was the project proponent and not by any of Government. Subsequently BMKZAPA also came into effect. According to the ...-.oetitéoners, the manipulation on the part of the project 102 proponent was weii schemecf thgat no_.'o'n'e.:'_coVu~id''feei 9' the change of survey numbers, Accord.i.ngi§g V§{i'thdu_t any doubt the said survey '«n_Vumbe_rs were"'cohsid3ered.Vin» and the planning authority hviéasg:prepate*d_VV:th:e C§gDP.
10. There was 9' systematic suppression" hot the project proponent"c'onjAt§va7n\j :';fio.ti'i'ication of the ODP 2004 'coiossa.i.vf§raud on the power. As differ:e.nt*«setof':'pjigangs"'tiiie--re approved as per the plans and dra\:rvtig_'hgs' NICEL on 18.9.1998, the nogtifica.tion came into effect based on such
- fr'é'iU{j'i..Wh'iat_.wasmaccepted by the State Cabinet in the is totally deviated by what was 'oer ODP-2004 which got the approval of the Goivernmeht on 12.2.2004' 9' 11. According to the etitioners, in the case of Somashekara Raddy, KECEL and the State Government took up a specific stand that no excess 103 land was given to NICEL atithecost of'tiive.fjci:ti'a:eeAs 'v this State and the alignment of1_the-..rofaci~.yahlsw-e'i'i~i location of the townships Vwe_re d'ete'r'mined'i- into:"; consideration every minutelxdetayil by-.u'sivngx:':scientific methodology. Accep_t~;.qg t"h'e:_ . the 9 tespondents, the writ petition came:_to:_t=e_'u'dfVisr.<i.lssed__'observing that interest of served if the Infrastructure.V¢oi?«ridor...__is~._cle_ye_:loVped as contemplated by Technical report'.
In minute detail explained before is also referred to. As pergthe..obse'i'vations of the Court, 6,999 acres of land was ici'ent:i1"i.ed for expressway, peripheral road, link per the FWA, the total requirement of the.__lano" forllthe project is 20,193 acres, out of which 6,T9S€».aé:cres is Government land and 13,237 acres is "'*V'.AApri\{ate land. It was also observed that neither iakes nor forest will be affected on account of impiementation of the above project. But; % A 104 subseqiientiy there was an agreement for acquisition of 23,837 acres__ef._p4rivate"' of 13,237 acres. This is evide4nt:jifi'ern'tiie~ dated 14.10.1998 immetiiateiyhh-a'tteVr_ Redd;/'5 case on 21.9.1998vi'i"a.Vhc¥.VVthe"ie_tter addressed by the KIADB on t_eiith_e,'Vvp~rQject cpkzrdinater of BMICP and affirmeciV_b\,i%_Vth'e'
12. fi*'i'ie_r..cprr::j'--ect:jpe.rbpQri_eh_t by this fraud is being givenvi.i--a«nd':A"'tp' acres in excess of whatis reqiivivreti-»fC:r':th:e"project and the market price of these'iaridVsx'0_fa"t.he.:'tarmers is fixed at 5 to 8 iakhs pergiacre V}/ear 1998-99 and the project p.re'pon'ent"h._as circuiated a brochure intending to seii a'V$ria'i|abie at the interchange of Outer Pe'i=iph_e'ra-i5RA0ad for a price at RS543 creres per acre = apeprexiiniateiyi This is nothing but a comrherciai 9' 'prefect at the cost of the poor iiiiterate farmers, is the = ..._.cohtenti0n.
105
13. Even the Environment AssessmentVV.i%:e'p.ort prepared by the project proponent for;'_'"'G'5l5§~ir:Fi'ilfill_ environment clearance for theroad the concerned authorities Pollution Control Board;'l._refersA"'tQ indicated in the and-snot-»..eAthe"ODP,:§ is the submission.
14. AVC.r;or}{:ll'ng.,V:to€i:he_:if>€3tl'tloi'i'ers, the NICEL in collusion'? wit'hi".;_::§orn'eV of the Government submiiitted' chan'g.ed>ea'lii_tj'rirrie-rit i.e. one Major Ramesh, PWD SeCreta.ryV"wnho"sighted the FWA on behalf of the :Goyer'n'n**.en_t_,.~after his retirement has joined submitted the changed alignment as writ A iProj%ect_'Dir:fietitor of NICEL. Because of this change in the 'ailignment, lands originally not falling in the "V'.AAai.ioj'riment of the PTR have been notified, which is V. mfontrary to the law in H.?". Somashekara Reoidi/'s case is the submission.
«K -
106
15. Subsequentiy, Ail India Organisation (for short 'AIMS'):'ha,.9tfiied"'_Wi;i.t'_i5e.t_i}tio'aAAll No.4S334/2004 which came 3.5.2005 holding that the ptgejtect ofv..the.gVN_:IC--éL"has to"
be implemented asi----origina*iiyg_:*t:on_ceived--a5~'§per the Government Order dalted' FWA has to be followed inj'i't$ lette'r'a:pi_ritl'- his came to be chailenged before theg.'x~pe'xA'C_oiJ.lf§.i and the matter came to the Jaudgment of the High and FWA. Original as well as VVVc'hang.edAfjalllignhaent, the Government Order dated 2oii1,199'5 eneieep 2004 were well within the krioiivle.dgeA ofhth-i~s" Court while disposing of Writ l9Ve't'ition:_:VNo'£45386/2004 by this Court and inspite of it, itg'glave«.'.va'j__direction for the implementation of the proie.ct'«;_as originally conceived and upheld in A Sofnashekara Reddifs case. Therefore the alignment h'ha"s."to be in accordance with the PTR and FWA. .V X;
A. 18. According to the 1017
16. The persons who signed the witnesses in relation to the lands~i*-»ii-n'jjj~..Ee:ra.ten:av Agrahara viilage have signedizhithevina'lja':ats'--.fQf"'tAhe lands of the petitioners anfldso a'iso"--for th..'E%'.i.i§i~ids'v other villages.
17. With the abeize aye.r;n'enlt§};*petitioners have sought for the followiri*g-hdiirectionlito
(a) _'._tii.e':.Iand.s _oVfijf,heV'petitioners from the Z: and issue appropriate V %%%% "
1("b)" and final declarations KIADB under Sections 28(1) A' afi<:l._V_l7:_VE3(4V:: of the KIAD Act; it i~z].uashHHt)Autline Development Plan approved iill"anpt:2.2.2oo4; and (dA)'v'v'i:'I_._ci.i;rect the authorities to return the lands to the petitioners.
respondents, the writ . ' a_pe~titions are totally misconceived and are nothing but ' :W..._.t:o confuse the issues by producing voluminous 108 documents. After referring to the earl.i_e:r they proceed to say that 39.5 l<ti»lor.nete'_rHs'o'fra..;;eri'phera_Vluh' road, 8 kilometers of link road expressway was constructectas on'i-the dalte"«of~--tE.li;'ig of'-0' the objection statement. Ay_TVh'e._constrtictionfis made whenever land has njafde '4ay'ai'lab_le. Only small extent of 77, acre.s...y'_eame to'; handed over subsequent;_'to"'t;th'e d._ispos'al"'oA:f'«t'i*ie....matter before the Apex Court. Thevijefore, the directions of the Aoex '_'C'oe.rtfl to implemented. Project proponent' yha's.V_.aAll:relad..y:"out in 1,000 crores into the proj.e«::tL. u('3n,V =e'?arl'i'er'""occasion, when they had avp'proa"chedA thilsvvlfiovurt the Division Bench dismissed J A' I' ~ .
tn_eir:f~;§etitioi.:s on 18.11.2005 in terms of Some of the petitioners have not challenged the said order of the Court and others had aoo'roached the Apex Court. The issues raised by these petitioners have reached finality and the matter is no longer res-Entegrat it 109
19. when the State Government modified the alignment of the peripherai road near (3ottigere_]i:a_nk and directed the peripheral road to be straight line over the tank, it ca_me_'to "
W.P. l\lo,3S68/2007. Another 1'_'_'no'tifiic:ation 19.10.2007 wherein landsl.o°fi..oneA"'ir4Vr, ~\,{ijlay"':..§za'g»ti"avan"it were involved, was i,S§U3é(jl¢r-arttjl_:*.it"we1S aisle. diiallenged on the ground that required for the time of alignment;
However, 'took a stand that the said regarding the releaséréf' is subject to outcome of W.P;.' ~i\lo.3'56'-TV'/_2'G'O7"; Therefore, similarly the lands of arewalso required for one or the other the project. By final declaration under «V Set':'tizoi*é:AV. 2':t§(4) of the Act, lands vest with the $o'eern'n.1ent. Subsequently, possession of some of liithlellliands was taken over by KIADB and transferred the same to the project proponent' Therefore; when 110 the iands are acquired for pubiic: purpose; iands cannot be restored to theyoriiginai*=.owne're..u,_V"fl
20. So far as acqu'isii:t'ioV_n is""~Cp'n.cuei<ned;'*"aii the"
procedure for acquisition h'y"thieg'gBi;i>ard and even possession _.i'a{nds"'*-ti's::'taken over and transferred to the projehtttrgDrogponeinti"Though certain iands it was subject to the the High Court as indica.ted__ in t'hs;a«tiriictiri:;i'apan.a _._21. z"'DuVri--ng'.*-- ttsvependency of some of the writ passed an interim order on the learned Judge considered the 'eariier 'd'ejc»i.s1ions of the very project questioning the acg'1uis:ivt.ion'.of the lands and aiso the contempt petition before the Apex Court in Contempt Petition 'AA'{C')'AANo.144/2006. The iearned Judge opined that no V'"'""reasons are forthcoming for the deviation and acquisition of the lands, if the State truiy intended to 111 comply with the ALL I/vzi>1fA:ll_'%i ORGANISATIONS (AIMO;-terse. eejproteeeperacccte say-"
that the interim order given':-o_n-..earli'er.occafsion was required to be disselllied'l.l:ari_dl.tipliderpmit the project proponent to lay 'at intersection 2/7 at G0t'ti?_Qelifell. the buildings of the & 101/6 which are awayzvlllfromethellalligjnmlent otllthe road in the Road Network. i'/lapra-ndi._ai!l__ifurther developments on the properties in q'u_estioh";..»t.ll4ble subject to the decision in the_;wri.t peti"ti.o_ns without seeking equities. Aggrieved sa"id_ order, W.A.Nos.3149~150/2010, 3151- 15p2,'t2o1io,irr3153-154/2010, 3219-21/10, 3498/2010, 3p88to--389e1/12010, 3893-3895/2010, 26/2011 & 138- 1416/2Q'i1l}'& 1560-1677/2011, 1314-1321/2011 & A1683"--13#82/2011 were filed. Since the main writ petitions are also being disposed of, the decision in these writ appeals depends upon the outcome of the respective writ petitions;
112
22. The objections statement of the KIADB is to the following effect:
According to this respondent, proceedings cannot be questioned th'ese_ *matji:ers_ags the same has reached fin.ai.i__ty earlier litigation and cannot be re°--'ope.ned"'asV:i_t'hevV;same is barred by principles hostilities Though opportunity to agitate all point of time and having iiii thevivvvipetitioners cannot be permitvtedto now in these matters as theyfare lilabltffto be? dismissed on the ground of :'con"structive~._res judicata. Th.e'i::--.V.acquisition proceedings are for public =.__"-».purposeh*in furtherance of the objects of the KIAD Act. :"'-.fi'h.etefore there is no impediment whatsoever for the ....authority to follow the procedure contemplated under 113 the Act and there is no iiiegaiity or infirm.i"tiiy the acquisition notifications. According to KIADB,; the ;:5oss'ession73 the lands has been tai<ei':,_v"a_yvar<:i's Vwere..vais'o...paissed and compensation is alsovvvfthe Civii Court tinder Sectiori*'s..':"3_Othe Act. They contend that the oniy to drag on the proce.edi}ng_s .w'i.thi._aV. m,ai:afi'd'e"'i'ntention. :'iVEve'n-if"._the'[" g'rie'vance""V of fraud, coercion, suppressiion' of'ina.teri.aci--.,,fa.cts cannot be looked into as they areV'd.aispute.dAgoeistions of facts. Aiieging that thetie no it/ioi«a.t.i.o.svi of any of the provisions of the ' :ConVst--ituti'on"*of India and denying colourabie exercise respondents, has sought for dismissai ofthe v~.g;:t;.ri't"'V'petitions. 114
23. According to the proj;ect__pro_--oone:n_';f;. it i\io.3438/20 10 objection statem--.en:i_" is:
effect:
The petitioners had 'eariier 'flied'".\.é%ritV'}oeVtitioneit raising the same con_tentito'ns'V;'j'\}i;i'i=e.i_eh "ha've"jreached finality in CA. Nos£3492¥'9+<§f,?O:§t'§..v"fRefherefore the petitione.i.ua4:e.v barred judicata and 'implement the project. to be understood in c_o*nte$<~tua:i'i5ab_ekgr'ound in which the earlier judgments» With the change of Goviernirnent'-»in'"the'V'ye'ar 2004, the new Government too'i~'iV.u";5:* etandvthat Government had acquired iands requirement for the BMIC project. interest iitigation.
Co.nseouen'ti'y, a Review Committee, iater known as 'Expe";ft Committee' was constituted to enquire into the «V'_'v.a: ri"ous aiiegations. Apprehending the actions of the Government, AIMO --- a trade body filed a public So aiso one Dakshina Murthy.
115 Similarly, one Mr. LC. Madhoswamy....fii'ed'::.a'ni'othe'r._g"' public interest litigation vvhereihn stand' Government was reiterated. V",!:is"'.;3ii thieq~f:ontein=tion'Sa.L and the facts were identica.l:'a..nd st:bstaAnt_ia'i~!iv'l"'sirniiar,"' the matters came to be of "by-..a.iv'§common judgment.
24. opined that to scuttle 'vvas apparent change of Gtate Government and constitutlionl was on account of malafide act_i"on_'ofAA't_he":State. The Expert Committee a re'po----rt~on 6.4.2005. Being aware of the ' intentivaril ;ofA:"the new Government and with a View to ~pro.hib'ita".thej;'State Government and its officials from int'erfe--.;fing"l"vvith the implementation of BMICP, All India Mita__nuf'a'cturers' Organisation sought for a direction it 'ilgthiatithe project be completed in its original form and = its entirety forthwith as held in the case of /:3» 116 Somashekare Reoioiy. Therefore project as conceived originaiiy, reiate oniy to the efforts made by therfitete Government to reduce the quantum ~'i;'>._.é' provided to BMICP and thereb_y,..to_ put' 2 project, In that Context, ;'i:he1'_'_'id'iret;~i:ion"
imoiement the pro;ie<:t",:e'e_g Therefore the interp,re.tation'*un'ov\i'-songht"t.o~t3e made by the petitioners ,A'_nn'i's_conceived and miSi€adii'19- jtidgjgrnents according to them e.fi~d"'i'rettion to restore the execL;ti5fi gpoeiition of implementation. fer__eAe_veh:éi'nge of alignment of peripherai ._Conte'ine.ti.«' in the ODP, according to this specificaiiy raised in J.C. case and the same came to be rejected V'--and said opinion came to be affirmed by the ."'.,.iio.rt'?oie Supreme Court; co'r¢::__ei've'di: ''''.o'r'i'gvinaiiy.'* ' 117
26. So far as circulation of maps and Vi-ist of survey numbers, they contend that the the project necessitated the pre.p_a"i*atio'_n"i' circulation of myriad maps:;'Jandcl'«.Vli'sts'--o:t'--_so'r%{e§f numbers. Selective reliance b--y_the p.e--i:iti'onerEs some of these documents lissiwhollg}'-niiséoneeived is the contention. In--..._the Madhuswamy, ODP was placed arid.-amvsprecifie_p'ra_yer,."i1"as been made to quash o.i?VE}l\'/'lIuC'A"F5.i\ and its action. The sVa.mve""w'as1.:;__re3e_¢'te"dg' «.._.Therefore the change of alignrii1en--t'orv'the alignment is no longer res intetjiza sarhe is confirmed by the Apex its Jiodgment dated 20.4.2006. ' further contend that the challenge to ac«;_rLiisitiori'3«.V.proceedings was exhaustively considered in thegndgment of this Court in WA. NO.72/2004 and Vi,tiv'i.etjodicial opinion was that whether the land is ..._required for a public purpose or not was entirely 5".
"tare J, <~Vxy e 118 within the arena ef polEcy~making and"'detjerrnin'aVtégn'*= thereof.
28. They further contend that 'even='ac%::iuii.S§tienvAof:i* the lands falling away fromthe alignrheinltll offithe road cannot be consideredes thei--Co'ts._r't.:'t3n_ earlier occasion upheld the acquisition Volf._ian'_dsf: £n'«..lt's--'.i'er}'tirety as it was for an integrated"project.-T7 of lands and excess lands; in? the earlier Public Interest Litigatiorn have brought on record certai"i":,chan'g.e_s'that have been necessitated due to dexgelobrnents and after noticing all these acquisition of lands was held valid no consequential directions to revert any Change. With reference to 317.1997 circular, contend that it was nothing but exchange of rnaps, survey numbers etc. between the parties to lawlthe FWA and other authorities including the officials; 119 Even this circular was before the Apex Court which lead to the judgment dated 20.4.2006. QuestVi'e:n's_V_of excess lands were directly before this Court?r"'*lV»'.' --'--
30. Then coming documents alleged to haVve_4beelnoiatained.i,,i"n€:ler3 Act, they contend State;Goligerlnment continues to maintainjits malllatide stand against BMICP. noting but reflection in i 2' ilwtiontem pt Petition came _to_ complaining the 'land specific acts of the officials.uW..Ti":ve given an undertaking before on 4.2.2009 to implement the a matter of fact on 3.11.2009 in C.P. c/w C.P. 96/2007 the Hon'bie Supreme Court' directed the State Government to implement project as per opp 2004 dated 122.2004. t:'» i.
120
31. B1 ere. 3438/2o1o;~22"ereeeéndent tghve' Infosys. In W. P. Nos, "
respondent is l,/elani<anni';*r7:forrnatioi7 They"? contend that in the earlier Vroufid ::>fLAliti.gja't--iiQ_n ife. in the case of All India M'e.n'ufa>r:_tt§,rers'Vi'v';_f§Vrgariisation case, neither 12"' res.pond:e'rit:..ri'or=th»e_of lands were pa rties. 1: t._t:hx<3 __:i;»\rjrit"V.' ndamus which reached them as they were not partie;s"'to_'ithe __t;roceve'd'l_ngsi'WAccording to them, in 1997 itself of Konappana Agrahara cert_ai.vn lands we.re"vproposed for Infosys and later on ~ Plagi£i%"Vrelianc)ea~6 on AIR 19€a.0§C 1649
7)2'sec 1996 sec 405, 3)1 scc %Vh.iai?~e sought for dismissal of the petitions Co'n__tenciinvo_i'.r*tVhat the present petitioners have no locus standi.iHto Challenge. Therefore the petitions have to be "Edi_s.riA.:issed. They also contend that in the earlier round litigation, acquisition in favour of these respondents was never questioned and the tends given to them is 121 nothing to do with the lands notified for BMIC project, The lands acquired by these respondents arei..arl¥».rffieraVdy improved. The original land owners questioned the acquisition. __yTherefore""--:t'he"=sarn-ed"
cannot be questioned in these \}r.rit1'oetitions'._."»
32. The learned Holla and Mr. Naganand;::._._o~n_' vlilpetitioners, contend that systemati~c..fr'audfi:has"v_he:e,.r'i'V'.committed by the as the Apex Court _b_yv irnportant documents "the fact that many lands were notlxatyllavll they were not falling within
-'*.__theyeligllnnjentiiareaset out in the PTR. According to "a;t'ltihlve:'irjstance of Nandi Infrastructure Corridor tfimited CNICEL' for short), the change in the a'ii.g_nment came into existence as per ODP~2004 is quite contrary to PTR, which was the basis for it ....terms and conditions agreed upon between the parties 122 as per FWA. After the Judgments the year 2006, the iandstef theAbetétioner_:<s,"o«u have been deteted as they were not part and») FWA is the contention betitioners. In this context; the learned~-._§:ani'»sr;eo§u~--h's.e"!'~tMrt Udaya Holia and Mr. Nagananda have's..t.ai;;entrvusthrough several documents, vj4t;fdgn1e;nts:' egrrevspofttdence between the instrtzrn"e.4nta:Ii*;tiea_:§__o1"--..._th.e the project propone__nt"'tVof:'co.:j;:tenz»d"that respondents have failed to executetthe--«wbrojeet"'a_s~conceived originally and as upheldtttint T. Somashekara Raddy by impie'm.enti.Vng__the project in ietter and spirit as per the tertIr1e:,.,"(;,f"b'F\/VA. the senior counse! brought to our the PTR in order to convince the Court that thve.'a§3.§_gt:nment of the periphera! road as per PTR has t~oxt;E,:n on the southern side of Beretena Agrahara A aVnd"~«_with the change, it is running on the northern sideeg V. téifiiage of the petitioners as per ODPQGG4. Therefore they contend that there is an obiégatioh on 123 the part of the respondents to acquire the accordance with PTR which was.__4cori'fir'n'ie.d»'V"by_'_i,th-ei"
Government Order dated 20.1i_.19'9S:"arid' this Court and the Apex f;iouurt In this context, they took Hu"sV',v:thVVrou'g'i: details of survey numbers ndatter of various correspondenloevisob.s_equeh:t'AAto'._2~~9.7.1997. We have gone ;_~it'i'ri'ro.'ugh:=A._ tlfigerireeo'rd--s..'...$§ubrnitted by the Governme%nt"::asd\}v':e.iit idoounfients relied upon by the pert'itirori§:ifs. "
took us through the coryr;fesp.onden<:e'" to indicate that several Sands b.eliong'ing_""'«t.o simiiarly placed persons have been acquisition by notification, but they have n__ot-djienotified the lands of the petitioners though theirula.-nds are not required for any of the components tithe BMIC project as envisaged under FWA. 124 Therefore according to therrigt:iiAe'"inot--if'i'caVtion{s'for acquisition of iand deserve-._to-...be cit;ashed.v
34. Learned further contend that most of the area required for pelrip{h'e.rai«..i're.adv"__a'Vnd they are fully deveiopeo" acquisition for the benefii: NICEL cannot be termed as the acquisition is not bonafide'r.._4becaVuse'i_i"t.:':_""..ir's' an outcome of coiourabie ex'e;rc'is.e of power. ' according to the petitioners, though the iand .rei.Iq_uired'*_~..,vfowif-t'he entire project was time and again u""o it edras 20,193 agree, the] G v rnment (ijands ante 'over or propose to be an e over an the "iaindsvv"where preliminary and final notifications are "issued wouid indicate there is excess of iand proposed " be handed over or acquired to benefit a commerciai venture at the cost of the owners of the iands though 125 their lands are not required for any of t_he"v_'2;.{3rr':§onente_y of the project. According and until what exactly wouldA:"be'*.Vthe Government land or the '~pri~2,i'ateV'lan'dscj*_act3'u'ire'd or"
proposed to be acquired byhivdieaiting the facility or compone'ntA'.of"-r_i;E'§r.(;:i. envisaged under scheduie:_4 of "joint venture entered with third party and the project proponent for would only indicate that the excessllianndy is for the real estate venture of the pr"oje'ct.V',provpoi'ient and not for any of the C0-ij:1':'ipo'n:en.ts en"vis~e~g'ed under Schedule-«=4 of the FWA.
" 3'6V."."_v»Aceo"rding to the learned senior counsel Mr. Ud"aya=!:Hoviika and Mr. Nagananda; no doubt the project inctrquezttion is for a public purpose. Therefore purpose "'irVof--e{cquisit§on being public purpose; there has to be ..._eppiication of mind by the Government while issuing 126 iand acquisition notifications. The various correspondence between FWD and meetings of the empowered committee, survey numbers, deviation of_a.l.ig_nme'nt'"tithev'_i*oavd,°'» acquisition of excess land, Z"-hain_Ad'inghovelyr Government land and acqt.::vi't'~i.ng lanot-.:a's:vindibated"V by the project proponent by' la-u_thorit'ies Concerned without applying the land acquisition in the present situationf that if there is no applicjatliohi' land acquisition notificvetiwons the complicity of the grnaotter; the"acqluis.ition deserves to be quashed as of fraud played by the respondents at the"..poor farmers of the State. The petitioners' counsel have also brought to V."V'.,.ou.rrnotice several judgments of the Apex Court and tké 9%;
....x§arious High Courts to substantiate how fraud and gm 1.27 misrepresentation can be dealt and according to ___thern, if earlier judgment and decree was obtained it has to be treated as nullity and the sa--.trreve:o'oflo questioned in collateral pro<:eed'i'n'gs.A to V' them, not brining to the Vnotioe.__otV_Athep'Coort'~ correspondence and withho'lvo:VE'zw.g ot v~é.t_al«rloclurnlelnlts by' the respondents is Holayed on the Court as well Therefore the earlier' fraud by the respondents rah not be El hat to be tut by the principles .0?"r«es._judic«ata...__ -- ' __38. m.alaf»id'ets in the acquisition of lands xgltiialteistr. the vlerywlacquisitlon. Therefore a policy eleelllsio:Vt:«..l%§N4l%t'lr%.regard to the release of the lands must be'*-«t.imolern7ented fairly and uniformly is the argument ""»jhaadressea.
A 39. As against this, the learned senior counsel Mr. Dash';/ant Dave as wetl as Mr. DLN, Rao were 128 heard. According to them, aii the 3.F.Ci:Umentsl'<_ raised by the respondents werzemthe' several litigation between. the ip-arti.es rTi'gi.i.t.v"fr"on§'thex case of H.T. Somashekarafléeddy.virh_i_Chi:"wa's4V'VdVecidedVV by this Court and th'e..V_Ape>{"'C'oIort"ti_ll thevvjudvgment in the case of Governm'en"t_o'f_ Karna--tal§ai ._.vs. AIMO dated 20.4.2006. AThey ft;rth.errVsVu:bni'i~t}"soblsequent to the decision of the project as well as ol'wd':iii'fze'relntjparcels of land in C./-\. co'.<i'n'ect'evdV'appeals, the petitioners who earlier proceedings cannot raise the s'ar_nei.i'vssij'es"'.as such contentions are hit by ' prirncip'ires"i*of resijfidicata and constructive res judicata. 4th.e_j..writ petitions have to be dismissed on the'facelbiofriilsuch contentions. According to them, without':.explaining enormous delay, the owners of the 'Court by these petitioners; A fiiing writ petitions after writ petitions would only indicate there is systematic abuse of process of According to them, the 129 GDP-2004, PTR and FWA were all part of the judgment of this Court and also the Apex..VV'C:o;g_rt, therefore once again it is not open to contentions. They further _to.o,i_<_ us.'ll'ti'i:ro.tigih'_'_theK"
different portions of the judgments of this Court tite saAnte"':~;j:a"i*ties as"? well as the judgment dated 20.4.2006 to now raised were§.vde.aglji: occasion by the Courts. Vgurgtyhat 'Resvjudicata' is _o.tM"V'ovrinciples of estoppel. Therefoi'e""battle based on a particular cau:ie'i of at:ti»on"\1/vhit:h..' has attained the finality, now sought by the petitioners cannot be granted. senior counsel took us through Civil Apoeavl.V__ANo.1215/2011 (M. Nagabhushana .vs. State of V."V'--..Karn:ataka) in which one of the owners of the land had
-«eome in the third round of litigation and how the Apex 130 Court has deait with the matter heidirfig decision er' the Apex Court in State of"Ka'rn'.a.ta'i<a'_nvvsy.it"
Ail India Manufacturers' reported in (2ooe)4 sccrtiyeaa Waiteotieaaa rat judicata.
41. The iearned Mr. Ashok Harnahaiii r.a'rgdm'erk;ts narrating how the project 1995 and how on an earlier «««« iiiti-gvation reached finality. Accord_i_ng' éovernment is ready to implemerrtiithew' and contends that PTR has menged~withV'Ot§i§f_2fi04. In other words, according to a proposai and the ODP-2004 is the of the road. Therefore there is no deyaiati-on'vof any of the terms and conditions of the nro__ject"as conceived originaiiy. According to him, the éitjrejrect has to be irnpiemented and the State would ....a§iways abide by the directions of the Court whiie 3?
131 impierneriting the project. He also took usvtl'é,:r'c.o.gh the various decisions of this Court arid the_5apej>f:.'._{_3o;_iVrtl to contend how the controversies ooyv_"_'i*a.ised l'4were__*~ dealt on an earlier occasion.
42. From the above'lV_p--!.eadin-gs and'V:'siib4mViVssions«.1* made across the Bar, the folio,ifxiin_g po'int_s'wofuid arise for our consideration--:.._'"j;~ L
1) What iithie I in All India M a n ufact"i'i«reAAits~'7'*_V__ ni saltioln ca se "execute the project_""ias " and upheld in SornasheRt--:ra_::'f?edolyf's «case and implement Frame Wori<VV_Agre'eiode:rztlfol/etter and spirit" would mean ?
th'e~©DP-2004 is in violation of alignment .env_Vis.ag.e'd___in Project Technical Report and Frame "5'.fy'\§io'i'l€"_~i¢x_gree'ment ? W'ii.ether the respondents were justified in notifying the lands outside or away from the aiigoment of 'peripheral road etc. ?
'*3 > w...
132
4) Whether there is an attempt to acquire exc.ess:'ia_nd on the part of the respondents ? i I' V
5) Whether non-application -ljbthve V' Government while issuing1'_'_'l'§ano~.""
notification vitiates the'iVa'eguisi't-ion '2
6) Whether there is:'firautlh'"ant:l__rnisyreprevsenvtation on the part of the relshpondeantsvcroyneealing various documentsarld factfis'§¥,{l1i.chV:woijId?tiltlmately vitiate the acq.si§*i..sitto:nr_ an_d__1th:er.eVfor'e Vlyylhlether the present petitions principles of res juflicavtla Conystrétietive res' judicata ?
a proposal was made to con2;3tru.ct Ba'n.gV_V'al'ore' ~ Mysore Express Highway Project co_rripr"lsfin_Vg\.of expressways, peripheral road, link road This was at the instance of a consortium c:o'rnprvising~=of Kalyani Group and 2 others In the month of more', 1995, a high level committee came to be V"*V'.AAcVo_nistitutecl to review the progress of the project and the tiovernment directed the consortium to conduct detailed 2 -5». w: . .
133 ground survey. In August 1995,. the Repert known as 'the PTR' ef .t'hle'Bl.'«'l_IC projeetV:ce'me*'.toi'. be submitted to the Goverhmeh'tV__ol5.A_l_{erneteke of design details, technlilcejlli'"~~._repol*t,._.'alAiohmeVh't 'pf the roads, etc. including th.e--~uV..'t:ow*h_shl.p§,-_ ...tfigh level committee observed"requ~§.rve3--meh't.l:_ottphe land for the road portion 4o'fV__the.l'ptojejct" 7 townships. Subject to... level committee conside_r';3:d--...V.vthe the same. Except from 7 to 5, virtually Govern'm_e'nt accepted the PTR in its enttrety.
4.4l';l.S{.l:b~sequently, on 3.4.1997 the Frame Work A.c.;"reeh"ie.hit Vlkihown as FWA was entered into between the Go§'e.rh.me'nt of Karnetaka and Nahcli Infrastructure Cor_ridet' Enterprises Ltd. (NICE). The NICE came into ";e>'<*;steh<:e for implementing the BMIC project. The «details how the project has to be developed. éncludlng 134 the outer peripheral road as implementation of the project igienveraiiyrr:iesVe.ri'b'edvi~ih the scheduie were centempiated"%.n:ih.e * ' V POINT NOS 1 81 2 :
Project as originaI|y_.eo'nc'eivecl "-A Pfrkiand cop-2004:
45. v..cor;;tVeVnd_:ed.:V'o'n--.._Vbei:iaVif of the writ __
(i) Order sanctioning the project has Condition No.10 specifies that theVV'ipreject__ be developed exclusively as cont;en1i'piated "iinct_Hhe_project technicai report.
' frif Sonnashekhara Reddy"s case court has come based on PTR, FWA and on the fact that su'r\?'e_y..a1' has been conduced and iands for the pro4je.ctihai.re been identified. In AIMO case, this Court specificaiiy directed
-that project to be impiemented as originaiiy conceived 135 a nd U pheld in H. 7". Somashekhara-. fa n7d 11 1' FWA be implemented in letter of this direction in PTR ari'd_V"F3/VA to A"t_re--ateid final.
(iv) In the latest order' Court dated 18.01.2011 the v.Hon:'blVe§upreim.e V'Ce'tiVrt accepted the statement of tlfie'coti.nsel='for'the'l\l.I_CEL as well as the State Goii/erVti~-rnei1i--t:thjat"'--th"e"'v.:NICEL will not claim anythipnge. what is due in the FWA 'aha'htiftitierirtehia£ievvA will be implemented in letter to the petitioners, it means that t'l1..eV'landis; as specified in FWA alone will be thewproject and the project will be in The implication is that, it is the PTR wt:-i_ch be implemented:
1' PTR alignment which was surveyed, specifies alignment runs south of Konappana Agrahara. 136
(vi) On 25.10.1992 after seven executed, NICEL submitted revised and write up showing alignment running north of Konapparia Agrahawra.
(vii) There is a man.i.festAV.e-rVroj*. indecl'a't'a.ti.e:h of the local planning area oi' Exercise if power in coristitutiioly.loft"his manifestly erroneous... planning area of BMIcAPA itsér:r;tii;;g sglii siaiuie and it is vitiated.
opp al_so\}'i..tVia,teid.~.;'~«.s,__
(viii) Whlenhtil1is',.Ce_urt":and Hon'ble Supreme Court directed' that the project as originally ' <:o'iiceive'dfa:"nd. upheld in Somashekhara Reddy's case be"'Vi'imvpl'eh"iehted, it means that the project as ehxrisasgedvéliat the time of filling the writ petition of V' Somashekhara Reo'dy's was to be implemented. At time GDP was not even in existence. 1317
(ix) The ODP has comeinto it-;>;i's=tenceg',.";_ri'A'the 2004. In view of the direlctiop of"tihisevctizulrtgilland the Hon'ble Supreme Cpprt dii-rtectinlgv-.tA_impie'mentation of the project as originailly cannot be implemented._f V' V it i (X) In Waé placed before the covet-nmiente; tnigiigitetaitilafiiiigh Court directed that projecthepVimVp'l'eji'nleh.te'd'V-'as originally conceived or upheld in'"'So'rnaShAekh'a"ra Reddy"s case which means (2_o:ur.tArejhected'ODP. No res-justicata applies. h'e2".'iv»rnp;;l'i'c.ation of the direction in Somashekhara Relcfdyiel 'case is the alignment of peripheral road shall bet__as*indicated in the project technical report and 'Vth'erefore, ODP of 2004 has to be ignored by " ....necessary impiication. :38
(xii) The direction of this court to implement the project as conceived in FWA or PTR has been vvlolaxtead.
46. Sri.Dave, the learned Senior "{'.ounsel"lfo'_r NICE submitted as follows:
1. GDP has been approved Go\re.;*nrnent..a'hd'=.L has become final.
2. GDP has been confirmed}.
3. The writ petitionlergs s'a.rl7not_:reA.5'rag"itate the matter as the alirlelady Senior Counsel for ODP has been upheld. The petitionelrsal~:ahn_ot;_"re:_¥tagltate the matter. He also lni<3_jl'l:ed._lAV'our att'en.ti.r3vn to the judgements reported in <(.V?."_{)Q.€$:)v.:_fV/Jr;.SC:C."683 (page 485), 2009 (5) KAR L] page and'1:*laVE1:;201O KAR page 4265.
48. The learned Advo"eaVt'e GenVera'l"i.eonVterided as' fO"OWl'5he matter hale...alre.a'dyfl'bee.n colncludved. The direction to execute alsievvoi-dgiinally conceived tfileisiiao %>ilat%afela.®.?ivi6ll.e;EiiiValcai.iaiitiigl tatrrtsiluta that implement the project He also invited our attenfiodnlv Madhuswamy and alignment was finalised as per_QvDP'land' the has considered it and it has "final. AA is no merit in the contention that 2 » s.ho.u'l«Cl"'*b__e followed. The ODP is in accordance wl-thothe"'_.€3__owi}:'ti.""order dated 12.2.2004 and it has been <:on_firrfnedVl'.4i'.= 'The order dated 4.11.2006 modifying the allgnrrient in the ODP has been quashed. PTR was broad proposal. Planning Authority has come i with final details in the form of ope. The alignment in GDP has to be followed. The planning Y. authority was constituted as Vbbe»r Fviixiv~ejjncj'~~:it'--AVhee'= worked out the detaiis and preparr-eidl been approved. *
49. We have carefully c}e.n'sidered* the submission made by the learnedA..e'b.un:.§ei§.fQ'r**«the"*parties.
50. In, 's case, the frame wori§?.egrje~e_m.ent1has been upihei . It has been heid the 4i"s':i.'ivifzei'th'er°»§iiiegai nor opposed to p U bl iCv.7v i"Cyi;',» 'V "ii ' 51;" and other connected writ apbeeis, the Bench of this Court has heid, t_he.%a:eq.u_isition for establishing and deveiopment bf'i'..ir«idt,i§t_ri__a'i.i';"area by the KIADB is iegai and valid, There ..__'isl-rreiference to ODP and in para 31 of the juedgertnent, it is observed as follows:
"In View of the fact that the State Government intended the area failing within the project sheuid be deveiobeci in \m 142 Chairman. The said planning authority.._tiad*a:";..V""«V. issued a notification under Sectionf:10voft-'""
the aforesaid Act declarin__g...i.ts in_'ten't'ioj*. prepare an Outline Deveii-epfénent-..'"'Pl'a'n=-..__ (GDP) for the nevvxeplanéninlg are»a7;nV':'_In'i'; pursuance thereof, an"'vQ:i.iltline [>e$Jeilo=pnn_enVt Plan for wholesoif the"alfeallecoming"-iuwrivder the project had'ltbeenv§.§re'pgi:§d.and had approvedby th.e...StateA {3o"v'errin;--e"nt. The land For =ii:l':é prcfje'ct...b.bth for road and otltv.--both land and ae«riva.l:"~s'.L1rtriey,"--pi'=e'par'evd..vthe alignment of :t_he~.expresslzfiilasj/;lw.:pe..ri'pheral road, link road, service roiada,' i.n"t--e"rchanges and ramps has Sgfanlune--'?AA[Jfil{/l3Q?s case referred to supra the co_'nten'tion"regarding change of alignment has been C{3'V.F.ii'SEd@;?€fi and it is observed in para 33 as follows;
-ilA47~"'}'5inother grievance projected by the "petitioner is that Nandi in order to favour some politicians had changed the original alignment of roads thereby destroying the Gotegere lake which would adversely affect I 42%' Corridor Area State Government as 141 orderly and disciplined manner, it was considered necessary that a separate"-_ planning area compromising of the the area falling in the project ' declared as a planning __are_a t:'nderT'_':t'h'eV'~.V if Karnataka Town and Couhatry...l?AAlannin.g 1961. Acc:ordingly,, on 4t3..lO.7.19§.§,.':v"thev A State Government i'svsVi;i'ed a'-«ynotificationl under Section,-~...4A(A1)**"the s'aid declaring B'ari'galo_re,'; ' Mysore Infrastructure _.iiCo_rridor~i.gg "l5laVn'n.gi'ri'g Area (BMICl?fA)';:jgooVm[§:rom"i'sing_:w--ho«l.e: of the area falling of the project.
The --. _;Sgtate§:.; G*oyernrri'ent: constituted a v:jep'a'rawteu';i'iagnn,i:n'g:_:authority for the BMICPA cailiedy the B"'aAriga"'io4re-Mysore Infrastructure Planning Authority A if (,.E}.MiCAPA)Vfiiihich came into being on The Additional chief Secretary anal bevelopment Commissioner was as the Chairman with several other Srecretaries and Commissioners to the members.
Subsequently, the Minister for Urban Development has been appointed as the 144 of roads through the areawit!keep'E'n::'xgtée'v:v'_'_A.V the directions issued 'C.ou'r't' Suresh Hebiikafis <:ase.__"'
53. This court has d.ifeC§ted'V'the._§t:ate"""'a's'1d its"? Enstrumentalities ine_!.udingp_...th'e_ 'Boar.d'*to_A 'forthwith, execute the projectvat;'con'*c.e§~yed"'*tj;-tgihaHy and upheid in Somashekhata Re:dd'§'.*é"Aca*se»a,_an.d vi:f:h.»p'f.ement to FWA in ietter court in AIMO and othertases'h:aeTfb.eeh_:V'tuphelhd by the Hon'b|e Supreme Court invxhfitavteptthotA*'K"ann'ataka & another Vs All India Marf{ofan'cturing w..C5t_g_at:isation & others. Sivfig'4Vin,:.1~i-{.\/.\/ijaya Raghavan & another Vs. Maaa1a:n2ttp_atsth%& others reported in 2009 (5) KAR L3 page <37: NICEL has chaiienged the order dated :1.-;14_1.ZE)..()6 passed by the State modifying the 'Val":'g'nment of peripherai road proposed near Gottigere 145 Taluk in the approved GDP of BMICAPA. In paras 37,, 38 and 39 it is observed as follows:
"37. In view of the fact alignment as per ODP approve_dV~~»byj~.athe I Government dated 12.2;.20£_)"4haclwbe.en_""'h challenged before complainant in the"._c'e.ntenfi'pt_' Gottigere \i_/illage in W.P.No.15973'--..__'"jnf 2oioi5,,ryywhich was dismissed on has become«?iplna.l and made in pa ra the decision of thi..S_ _ ""Co'ui?t;_:_ " Manufacturers ivQrg_a.AnAiVsati.o_n*s 'case__, would also show that they'alignrnentt.»'asl:_:'p'e'r ODP approved by the V._Gove'rnV_rn€-mt 4.11.2006 did not in A __wa'y""affe.c't the observations made in $:u«re«sVh'=tleblikar's case and the same has Vilaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme C§o'u.rt" Al in All India Manufacturers "Q__rganisation's case. Therefore, when the alignment which has been approved by the Government on 12.2.2004 by holding that it was in public interest, the Planning 146 Authority ought to have satisfied itself about the conditions to be satisfied before"; recommending for change in the appro_\?e'd:.f"gj'*.:."-. alignment dated 12.2.2004, which been confirmed by the Division this Court and the Hon'bl_e as referred to abovej' _ "38. It is__unnecessa_ry'.._»_to the contentions _th_e Couhsel appearing for 4 that:
NICEL there'aV~!.iVg_'nhnent of the periphe"f=31llii\,[email protected]_ald:[\:aé.,,,.lQe_r:r_thVe» alignment in " Government on the proposed per_iph%er'a.l_'roa.d"'to°'th'e alignment meant for _form"avtiVon@C~f i='oa'd} by BDA, the peripheral as AApev......t.he FWA was to pass 2 kms. a_way._i'rom the Gottigere lake and would near the Gottigere lake; in the a__bseriCe of amendment of FWA, the said "aViE'ghment could not have been approved by the Government by order dated 12.2.2004 and the same is illegal and wherefore; the petitioners cannot challenge 147 the order passed by the Government under Section Zt4~A of the KTCP Act as they are"---_ not interested parties, as it is Clear the material referred to above that question cannot be pergrnitted' 0' agitated at this stage by the the writ petition filged by7--t_he pet,\i.tiio'n'e'rs 0 challenging the imp't1:g'n,ed 0. o.njie~r 4.11.2006 and vie;~""€i>.f_:'tliesA.faet"i:h«at./the challenge to the--xorder_ i5;l'ate'dfj3;2.«.2.2004 on similar grounds.ii--has- bveen in the writ fii--ed§_ Gottigere village 15973 of 2005 .da;ted'*--.2'4l006120055, as referred to ia.bo«v'e.i"
0"'i'3_9.._It also unnecessary to CF§ns3.eiderAA"'th.e....«contentions of the learned ::_o'upri«sVe'ii___for the impleading applicants above, in View of the finding thatfthe impugned order dated 4.11.2006 "changing the alignment approved on 122.2004 would revive, in which case, there wouid not be any topographical or environmental damage to the Gottigere Ma§fhuswamy's case, AIMO's case, 4_ an other connected cases, the |earn.e.d__jJ_ud.ge'_ nas._ observed in paragraphs 38 and;"l39Ca's foi_lo'ws.§_': * V V 149
57.
"38. Thus what _emerges is fact that change of 'arl:i'g.nmeV'nt.rn.ad:eVV°wa?a'sit the subject brpught 3it.ou:'tvhe'~--...notice-- of this Court in the pre'v..i:ouAs'l--.ro%un.d'*--of'litigation and as also before th.ev:'i2\.pe'XVACo:'j'r*t'isfpvborne out. The fact'«i._th.at gthe .,ODVP'~ .yrrra_§_jalso placed before bornie out from the pl_e_ad"i'n:_cj's'V«:.;Zr; _a vfDivision Bench very owners of the lands pacq.uirred>'w_ere"parties. If this Court _ _inten"de_d tOT~dAi'saVp'prove the deviation made the origi.._n_a«i alignment then the Court 2Aro:Jid:"'*~have made it clear that such was impermissible. If there was a.__ny--cCAi1"eAlCement of fraud in making such "deviation or in placing before the Court A changed alignment including different or A excess lands or by producing an illegally . '\g'«»% prepared ODP, such documents allegedly After referring to judgern.e'nt's'lla:'"'V;~in. 150 prepared frauduientiy couid have not been ignored by this Court and the reiiefs sought. by Madhuswamy couid not have rejected. it the contention of the pe--.ti:tioner:"
is correct, then this Court wo'u'iti"Ciifiai/Ve'_'..V certainly come disapproved the action of th_é"'--State'7and its'; authorities in that regard. The*fa'eta"thVaVt nothing adverse. is gs-tathegdiueiboutfiithe«said documents respondent and on the filed opposis_hg"jA:the irngpi€ei'hen'taVtion--Hot the project were rejected. costs and the p'e'tiit.ip:ns "i'i§i;ed"'~for irn'pirernentation of the project V'\Aie~tge »a'i--!.o"wed' by issuing specific directiiovns_"1cie'a"ijh/V shows that the grcognstru-ct_ion now' sought to be put: on the it r2iatu'ire Ofiitheiivdirection issued stating that ifcovurt intended that no change couid be ipjercrnitted in the FWA and the Technical ,,\\f% .re.:po'rt and that the project is required to be Cornpieted only on the basis of the originai aiignment without changing the alignment cannot be permitted to be agitated. The judgements reiied by the respondents down :-.hefiav*iiy amp 11"' t\gg\£N% 151 regarding the operation of' bar of res judicata are very much appiicable to thef instant case."
"39. Sri.Dave has further.._.'v_"f'i~gVhtll:y brought to the notice of C;"dtvrt._an' Dassed by the Apex CoLi.F_t:"A--A_iV_n' Petition No.144/2O'O.€§_:"'~»..V_in No.3492~9-4/ZOQS, wh_eVf'e:ir1'i._g_»it .i's«-.di_reci:ed after recordinigttehe made by the learned Adygogcahte State that all. taken to imple'ml_e.ni:~-v-~':'*t_hie«.I_V:...g;§roj_e'ct:r_: and to act in ,wi.tji'..3the...._judgement of this Courti State Government shall conV_s'tituteV_."aff2Co"min1ittee to be headed by the VM'.i--niAste'r't"'of the State of Karnataka the uo'ur,o.ose of implementation of the question which will submit a 22.11.2009 as to allotment and pjosse'ssion of lands for completion of the "project and such steps can be taken within the time that may be mentioned in the report and project shall be allowed to be completed as per the alignment specified in "*has hbeen ;§2o1o, 472-478/2010, 3846-3847'/2010. 152 the Outline Development Plan dated 12.02.2004 issued by the BMICAPA as pet?"-.g the Town and Country Planning Based on this order, it is contended A learned Senior Counsel S_r.LD_ave_--"th'at'_jVth'i'sV'_'.aV Court cannot now exarnagine-..v}:ihelthe.r"*- project shall be allowed to 'be"'eompVI.e~i:ed est."
per the alignment s'peVti.fiedv. 'i~n_V_ 'the it dated 12.o2.20l~oe4. Tt'1'ie.."g_Co"u»r_t, cainnetf by undertaking an «examining whether there ie'~dvelg'ialtion_ invali"gv,r'.n1ent and the go against the the Apex Court :i*ega*rding e'><eeutio'n"'o'f: the project." 5A8t.V_The 'chAaAn'ge"'of:"ai'ignment has been upheld by the glee. rned Si Jtidge.
of the learned single Judge in Wk.No...i:3:8t3~817/2001 and other connected cases challenged in W.A.No.6S0-654 and i~i_i753}*2o1o, W.A.l\io.1050~1QS4/2810,. WlA.l\i0.470/ The writ Goexreriniment onVi'2'.'2.2OO4. 153 appeals have been atiismissed §:o.nf_irmi_i'i"g""th7_e.order' the learned single Judge.
60. Even with regaro"i'e.:to theV"a,l_igrn:tne.'ivi:t'VVof the road component, it.i"s~...a m'attevt'j4el>Eclusively' left to the answering respondent; afte_r~.Ta:,oe_tailed analysis and survey,or-theigirloalolf of the BMICP. The nodal --. PWQ ga__ve~ ,tlie"necessa ry approval as BMICAPA following the prepared the GDP in accordiante withA:~j.'i:~:§é._/i:_:i{'a'rnataka Town and Country Plaijningg A'VCT.T'Eifltli thelsame has the approval of the All this was subject to in the earlier round of litigation. The <fo_n'sequenlg_:e of direction to implement the project as originali~y conceived cannot mean to call into question "gag: _ a tehefiesign and aiignment of the road component of _E.si\.Ia,P ' 154
61. GDP has been considered end change of alignment has been accepted. Therefore, the:*ej:'-ée-he merit in the contention that GDP has and the project hae to be imptEe»men%;'etf_v"e.:;;pet'_j;thh'e terms of FWA and PTR Accordingiy, it is rejected.' POINT No.3:
Notification of away from the augnmeneeef peapuera:hroaa issue that tends outsieEe_ the road or away from the eiighthent road came to be raised in..f €"*N;>:.i§».2§9h§?Sv5{«O3. The iearned smgte Judge matter by his order dated 18.12.2003 2004 Kar. 593. According to the Eand V"'».e.oy~;here§'t' petitioners, though they have no objection acquisition of tend in so far as the tends
-»v--1-rieqoired for the purpose of formation on' peripheral New _ 156 concerned officers who have passedzfthe"'i.e:"'fin.aiél'v notification under section 28 (<--'.i~)~ applied their mind to the object'i:on;éj_'oiil and proceeded to orders Therefore, the notification ashltheliplapnlds which fall outside the area "req.ui'«ifeci.»'folrrthpe'formation of the road deserve to be setiasiidei. proceeded to say that acquire the land for the opinion of the land was required for industrliailLjpurposerland'*~--:u'l'ti.mately based on the details _ furr;ji's'l"ied project proponent how much land :Vu~t'_i._lised"tor laying the road, proceeded to say which is required for the purpose of road is confirmed and 40% of the land Arequired for townships, construction of conventional ' and to allot alternate sites to the iand owners! the matter requires reconsideration, after affording " opportunity to the land owners to file objections and 160 failed to note that the road was only components of the entire Ehfr'a'structu..re_;.pAro'j_ect~-7an'd the project by its very hature7;je'cg_u'i'lredl"co'his;t,de.lfa.hlle._V extent oi' land which tot' accommodate by ac.quis'igtE~oVh"g_:~.and coils.idei§*ing the mutual obligations 'b_oVi:h '4."th':e:'g'V:'p_arties to the agreement, the 'Jfacilitating the acquisitiop«*'of__la.hd_s'vfo_rA_:iithic_ii iflftlllcitillswlhas to pay at the incidentally considered whether--.notvilficatiijonls'Vl.iiisisu'ed under section 28 suffer from procedure, especially affogrdingg an'-»o:pport'un..lty of being heard to the land Diyision Bench further held that looking to;-_their'h..a'tuV'r*e:'.1~~of contentions raised before the Court, 'Ei"l€:T:_VDQS;S'i:b§l.--eV;objection that could have been raised by the laneis owners before the competent authority was their lands were situate beyond the peripheral 'road and they are not in alignment with Mysore Bangalore road, But then; it is not in dispute that the 161 lands beyond the peripheral read also had been intended to be acquired by the State Gevernnf}e.nti._for infrastructural facilities relating to an industirielj~a_i$e-al'_ Therefore, the contention sought behalf of the lancl--0wners was;":ineit_"e'f ain.y"s'ubsta--~nEe; besides this, it is not supp'erted"'byvaVn§{A"s:u'ppujrtive"'i' material. Thereforefltheiriiii "he--l.d.-that the contentions urged were of no substance. the Act is permissibiei may be with an intentipniiv infrastructural facilities which the Act and the same is alsogthe. and object of the Act, i.e. to promote orderly development of the industrial area. Ultimately their Lo'rdsh'~iVps"'bpined that the learned single Judge was net._at"'all justified in quashing the notifications in higespect of the iands which are situated beyond the uperipherai read, tnereever when they term part ef the i'if~s.im: g it 162 integrated project. They aiso opined entire area was deciared as an_ind_ustri-a'i"'ai;eathe"
whole of the project for which i:s:'ifi<i.ai'oie is for the development of ':'nd--uzstria'iv- ar'ea,i"thezre...was no-' justification in the contenti_oinfs.:_o--f_the"virit petitioners that some of the beyond the peripheral roadand set the orders of the learned it related to quashing tind'er section 28 (4) of the situated beyond the peripheral'~ roadie:not'o~th"eri~*'incidental and consequential directions°iss:ued'.=inA'thVa'tx behalf. 'I.n"'*y_et another public interest litigation, this question, Le. in W.P.-45386/O4 filed by one Madhuswamy. In this writ petition at para 19 it e.eis_peVc'itic contention was taken that vast tracks of "'~._la'na"'A which fails beyond the agreed area was u....purported to be acquired and the FWA and the 164 these averments they had sought for S(~;'.t_§l'Vl"'"l§':J. aisiidne the_ acquisition made beyond the perlEAph'e«ral*«.ro-add"
65. The Court con'sicl"e.r_ingA"th_eV_co-nt'e;n'tions in'-V detail rejected the content.iori~__of,__'the "pevtitiAo§ner LC. Maclhuswamy to made beyond the peripheraltoad:-"'a'rot{nd' according to them thieiiiproject as illegal. Their Vdirectéid the KIAD Board to execute originally and upheld by this"Court A:*ll§l~.;lf;"*«..flSomashekar Reddy's case and Nangdi yyasilia-lso"clire'cted to implement the project as ' it ex"pedi~.tioL'lslAy as Vpossible. it matter was taken up in Civil Appeal 34§7/€§5..dZln the wri ten submissions, before the Apex Court.,V_lv~ir. J.C. Mad uswamy and others contended as per the PTR, utilities have been specifically 'identified and they are part of the corridor and adjacent to the expressway (not the peripheral road), 165 Therefore, according to them, construction of utilities, transmission lines for telecommunications._7-water supply and electricity power was contemp.la't'ed~~'.'i'e._fth.$', infrastructure corridor so as__,t.o__ prai/ide:i'_';V transmission of utilities to the;"new'itowiris_hip's as the transmission util'it.i:esV_% tOA'"3_angAavgVQ,;é_,.._,.,.They"? further contended that the"*c'o'mVr'n.ercial"actil/ity was available to Nandi to townships. They relating to various and the extent of Somashekar Reddy"s judgment? Government of Karnataka and;Vthe. Detit.io_ne"rs..'V' Their Lordships in the Judgment "case considered the said contention with lands being acquired away from V «V alitj"iim"ent"'as well, at paras 76, 177, 79 & 81 which re'a~dA as under:
"76. The next contention urged on behalf of the landowners is that the 166 lands were not being acquired for public purpose. The counsel who landowners _;'ha:;V'e.____' 5 _.__ é argued for the expatiated in their contention i that land in e><ces's'"" or jgy'yhatjAlV"~itaS.._i',V required under the had"
acquired ,: land far "away iiromth'e'ar;t«uaVl alignment of the and periphfery had been is urged that evenitiflathe__.iirnoie'r'nentation of 'the -highyyVay:}pr:oj~eCtV iV's:aVssumed to pu_l3.l_ic.__pu4rpioseV,:'Hatquisition of Vla.nd_}far" aw'ayi_'tl*ierefrom would not Vam{o_vunt'fV4'to:':a».oV;pLiblliempurpose nor would i' it 'beV'oovieredi..y:ljj,{ the provisions of the il4_<IiAD'*Acft.,' . i 7?." in our yiew, this was an entirely 'n1iscon'Ce'i'yed argument. As we have out in the earlier part of our .v"'--'V.'jtid=gment, the project is an integrated . "infrastructure development project and s not merely a highway project. The project as it had been styled, conceived and implemented was the Bangalore - Mysore Infrastructure Cdrridor Prdject; 167 which conceived of the development of---.__ roads between Bangalore and for which there were se:i}?e'r'la'iV1-g:.:__". interchanges in and aroi,i.n.d_:ff.VVt:h:e it periphery of the together with t''n__e"; .
developmental ili--f_l?a.$tFUCiLll'€ _aeti'v..i_i:'ies along with the 'at-«_:sAe\reral points. 7_V:inl;_egi'a_te'd.lproject, it may require' ._the a'ogu~'iI'silt'i'--on and transfer from the * T' lea»r:nedASi'ng'le Judge erred in "assu_ni~i'iig% 'rth:at':tlj}e' lands acquired from "*p4laces' ,a2wa'ys:_'f;'om the main alignment of road were not a part of the proje<':Vt"a'h'd that is the reason he was n"e.rs'tiaded to hold that only 60% of the V' --".'igjanidVacquisition was justified because it "pertained to the land acquired for the s main alignment of the highway. This, in the view of the Division Bench, and in our view, was entirely erroneous. The Divisien Bench was right in taking nu"I'_"e"r0us"
2/ 'xi 168 the View that the project was an integrated project intended for publitfkg purpose and, irrespective of whereth'e.7j.a:"'vv. land was situated, so long as from the terms of thefl/_l/A; it no question of cha=.ifacteijifsiung':'._it--.élasv-ii,_'_r~.«it unconnected with a iipgublic pu.~pos'ei We are, therefore--,,V""i'--n agreeri'ienta'wi'th the finding of Hig h'-.__Court' on this issue. "Vd.',egidn"fl"
.....
'_suhjinj_aty,'j_"h:a'§}ingfperused the ii/vel_:l?c<5n's.«id .':;ii-udvgrnent of the " DiA:v';isior§i: "Be"n.c'h wh"i"ch"is under appeal in = the 'Contentions advanced it iatltvhe« not satisfied that the acq.ui_sit'ionVs were, in any way, liable to be interfered with by the High Court, to the extent as held by the "iv-V'leatl'ned Single Judge. We agree with the decision of the Division Bench that ii the acquisition of the entire land for the project was carried out in consonance with the provisions of the KIAD Act for a public project of great f .
consider one 169 importance for the deveiopment of the State of Karnataka. We do not thinit<:"'*.t. that a project of this magnitude.A.._a':n'df'if'~i..V"i- urgency can be held up by indi.yidnaiVs:.e:"""i raising frivolous __a.nd_ . i V objections thereto; The A it the KIAD Act represeni:--y_t'he of eminent domain 'vested it which may ,.--need_.t'o "exercised-. eyen to the .:'V'i~n_dividuais' property righ--ts'.so achieves a iargje'i'*'jy:'.i§db.ii3: p_u'i5po_'se'.':~"'"Looking at the satisfied that """ to represent the V of the State and entered into and infip-ienientediaii along." :VV6iA7i«.'S:ti«b_sequently, in another batch of writ peemoiisTmitem. \/IJAYARAGHAVAN AND ANR. v. mare; torts AND oas. reported in 2009 (5) KL} ":if".§7:S';~«_.the Division Bench of this Court had occasion to with reference to the aiiegation of 1--d'n'te~nebiie K' 170 encroaching upon the Gottigere tank. Ultimately, it held that the direction of the Apex Court case was to be implemented. Snbsequeyntlyyt:'s'efv«er'el'. writ petitions again came up bef.o.r.e4the"l'e'arned"si_ngi-euh' Judge in W.P.13813~817/2009 :'aino:'.A_Aot'her'--nfia:ifiteVrs'i_:i7§.led_ by K. Karehanumaiah ancl*~.othersw__ whevrei~n"V"'sin1ilart"
challenge was raised.~allegi.n'g land beyond or away from the perip'he.ral'i'vro'a:Vd be acquired. Their were already covered the Division Bench of this and made a detailed note at'p_a'raV and opined that the /-\pe4>;_:"Co.urt.V ha_s"alread'y held that the acquisition of outside the periphery or alignment of be questioned as long as it arises out of the'iyynteiqrated infrastructure project which is a "..J.igj'u'p*f.i.c purpose. By referring to various judgments of theWDivision Bench, the Apex Court held that the 1171 contentions raised before the learned single Jtidge were hit by the principles of res judicata. ea. In the case or M. NAGABHUSt.lAl"§..::ye;'w:§"i€!3\'ii§_,r or KARNATAKA reported in i<ar.%eizestgtheilr Lordships referred to the wri4_t peltiti-ans owners challenging the learned single judge who to the extent of 40%. pf of 60% of by us. In second. dif;;::A:li.tig.a eery said Nagabhushan in contended that the acquisitienjer lVan_ds_vim'~.h~i'ch fell outside the purview of to be'"de--l--e«ted, was considered by the learned "tgvhich was rejected. In the reported j'u€l4gme.nt:i':i:ei'erred to above, the appellant reiterated the cevntentions of the co-ordinate Bench bf this Court
--..ir:--»thA'e above Case. Their Lordships held that the claim the appellant that his land is outside the purview of Mme 172 l'-"WA dated 3.4.1997 and therefore, it is beyond the requirement of the project cannot be COflSiCI§3l"-éCi._Vfl8S the same is barred by principles of res any event, by constructive __res_ juf:i'ic'atia_;i""v. vvhivii,e""
narrating the facts, the appellant1'_cdntend'ecl land of the appellant d0esl._r_ie.i;% fall."W_l'th_ifll'-.'§AHe'i"f€q'tJil'€d"'ll extent of 20,193 acres. ije*vvi:egy'--er;»s__by refeirr.ipg to the various judgments the earlier judgments, rejected as already by principles of res judicajtavv referred to writ appeals at same appellant and proc;eeded.'to__'sa"y that all contentions were earlier cdnsidiered'abeforemthe Co--ordinate Bench. As stated faivl'egation was, they were able to get all the'de"taii's":including the maps relating to the Droiect urmieryythe RTI which indicated all the lands belonging Aitpllthe petitioner and he became aware of the fact that their iaricl has riot been used even after eompletion of .,m§W 1173 the peripheral road and the ramp. Therefere; he sought for deietion of his land from acquisitie.ri'i:.:""'The Coprdinate Bench held that the _ though appears to be innevativge >cann~0t'v*h1evi:a'cceptecl'* it as in substance only the prayergapp'ee'rs'iitp'-he difiereint but the entire foundation the-L' very same relief is the very««--:s:a'}me--~..con.tentip-n.iEurged in the earlier round fmv""!T'.herefore, the documents reiied_ of which have been v"Cj'O'j"I:gni?<)'rmation Act will not providlellltreshv since in the earlier petition. unl--l from the inception of the projgectggbaasedflontthie agreement were examined which . has ':reEa:chjerd_._finalitiki Their Lordships were justified in sa-iyfing'v4:s«u'ch'.:'ctintentions even if urged, in any case can"not:I:.b'e""'re-examined since the earlier round of it iiitrigativoln has attained finality before the Apex Court «lg eh is of binding nature on this Court. Ultimately it "they dismissed the appeai. 174
69. Some 01' the writ petitioners in l<arihariumaiah's case challenged the 0rder_s.,V"e.f'.the learned single Judge dated 11.2.2010 Nos. 650-S4 & 753/2010. The_writ_4appeais:'haVV'ev'_'bee,h"" i dismissed as cleevoid of merits.' 1050-54/2010 challehgin§--..:t'h.e orde__rs~ gt'-.:the"""iea:rned"'it single Judge dated51.}..2.2G"1u..'Vs_jt:a'me 'tilled. The said appeals were view of the orders in on 6.10.2010.
writ appeals came to be connected appeals.
They on 23.11.2010 as devoid of _:her_its4.Vin___'v'iew.'"oi; dismissal of the appeals in % w.A.1eiS0}s4/201i0.
'' 7Ci,"t1f;riziew of the above discussion and reasons, most" e__F1~ these petitieners have approached this Court there than one occasion. Though they have sought a different prayer, in substance whatever was the 175 chailenge made in the earlier reund ef*'i.'i§.tiget:i"e"nl their behest once again is raise:cl'Ai'n"lthesge \.a:riiVt'45;_et'iti'0ns contending that the land of these all required for the project..:Vg:ar3d it"is__ away"? from the peripheral,.roadVgia«n:dg'v«.th~e_ al'ig'i1rneVn:t of the road. The said issue1.ha_sf{--.'r.e'a'ehegd--. finality as the highest Court_ef_the.r'i'ah«d"Ahagf_Qia'i'né:§liriihat as long as the lands_4in./is the integrated infrastructu.re.."eirogiiecgtgitvheVsltuvatiion of the land away or ou:::sid_e'_A or the alignment of the road to scuttle the project.
There.fore,a"th_:iVs'contention is negatived. r Agl'iegaVt'ié3;1 efivlacquisition of excess land 1?_1.'v"'V'According to the learned counsel for the V iaetitioners, on account of non--application of mind on it 'rrthetaart of the officials of the State Government and KIADB, excess lands came to be acquired as well 1376 as excess land of the Government was handed over to the project proponent company and it vxrotilid-.f"t:oiniy result in real estate venture on the part contention of the respondente a'il.e_'gia_tic)'ri7hat V excess land was raised in the case of. H.T,,vSo:mashi*el<ar'=.t Reddy and subsequent publllvieiiinterestV.litidjationWwhich reached finality before«-- in each attempt on the and probono public, said contention of the..p_etAi'tiohe1:'§ the minimum land required indicated and therefore, there in th'e~.ca.se of H.T. Somashekar Reddy the Clo-"o.rt:lii:_na:t'e::Bench of this Court observed that the project_bi}'3..its very nature required considerable extent of la"n,d'3~and that is why the respondent State had to provide the land available with it and as ...acquire the balance and made available the same to in _tjuestjio_n".'
-iv-iands owners in W.P.289S3~55/2003. 177 the project proponent, Mutual obligation of both the parties under the impugned FWA are envisage'd:"'"'a.hd the State was only facilitating the acquisiti.<:_>h"ef;.i.a:'i9::,;ij_."«_ The project proponent has to paytompe'n'sat_ionV:ai:_th:e '* existing market rates. Para 2i3.jof;'_"th:e 'sa'idj:jtidg"mei:t refers to the actual exteh.t:""of lain-:l_ the-L' project as per the PTR anjtl-----i--'VV\'..?\iA"=~..__bot'h"comprising of Government land anldliprwavtieii'laigndfwiich had to be acquired.
'rtghvimgiipsjav --_ '1.'j',.«f.l.._9f,_.% _ATogt_:.ala ._'w.t_20_,1.93 acres Ultimat"ely",j% the did not negative the reqigireiment'-»Qf'the.'said extent of land for the project Vi next contention with regard to the alglegation of excess land being handed over was in the batch of writ petitions filed by the private As already 178 stated above, the iearned single Judge opined that the acquisition of land by the State Government in as it relates to the formation of peripheral;'_"'ro'a,j;jV..;..j:
road, service road, interchanges an:j~~»....r§3..ni"ps=_aif_e'=~ it concerned, writ petitions deservejto.--c'bec».di-sndissed the said acquisition is legai_a"n.d jus'titied_. theri"
lands acquired for other "o--i':..t;he§ land for townships, constructi'on__'ot' and to allot alternaftesites was rejected and the be quashed to that extenvt"hVol'dii.r§g acres only 600/o of the " «for the road component.
Ho\§:e~i.«gr, tlhevren/asi'a«l.so a direction that if the project complete the project, the State .G'o\(eriin*_ive_nt'V;'w'as at liberty to resume the land without pa'.~",iing':Aa'ri"\',:x compensation to the project proponent. "i'h--is 'judgment of the learned single Judge was hchalllenged both by the land---owners and also the ' project proponent and others. The Division Bench has 179 heid quashing ei' notificatien in part; on the face of it was improper and perverse. The Bench furthe'r:.:'"i*i.eici that the project being an integrated project, toii road alone is not the com'penjevnt'~»::anAd includes several other faciiities"i:4apa'ir't:'fronfi'~'tovvii§Sh«ipitsi Therefore, they opined tiiavt'~~..guest-ion.of'.:e$<ce--s.s~iand=:"
does not arise. The...BenchViiishieid-~..j_sut)'s'eq.ueVnit to the FWA in so far I stage of Government issued 28 (4) for the phase I & II in various villages comprising of 41 kms. of perigpheraiiiiroaadand'93 kms. of [ink road and service jvmterchflanges. The extent of iand required Ii of the project was approximateiy 6,§§'0Q Out of this 6,300 acres, 30 acres of iand attt_heVinterchange 757 of the peripherai road has been by NICE to the Indian Machine Toois ' Manufacturing Association for putting up state--~of--the- '\,i""it '' H 180 art conventionai centre. The above facts were placed before the Division bench. So far as this €:0{}V'tV.€S{'¥%$.".t':E'C?n! the Division Bench pointed out as under:
"So also the question asto howv~--:rni;'cih land is needed for satitsflfyincizftthe"__p'ubii.c~.._T:..._Vt' purpose is a matter,pcwhichuis"~better..".iett to l the authorities executivnfithehvhscheitie. owners of the land pr.o--posed'«~t_o be"ac.qti.ired cannot argue e.xteiitv'obf'i,,and is not actually required. ~ For which the ac_qu'ijsci1tiVon;i--_'is l':7ma.dVe. In any event; t:.here'i'i.s: to show that the purpose of Zestablishvirifqjan'di~.;§l'e.vel"oping industrial area by more than what could ;'be sallidntov."'be're"asohably required for the iintiu'strial"VpVu'rpose. Compulsory acquisition vadmittedly needed for a public it ovui§;§:Qs'eVV'vcouid not be declared to be illegal irhpermissibie only because of certain lacirninisttative instructions issued by the Government to its officers. Even if the Government has notified necessary lands in derogation of the instructions issued by it, m'(<*\i'?9§}:§§(?(g%}.m 181 it is not open to the owner to question the vaiiolity of such acquisition proceedings on"-._ that ground. As between adininistrat'if\}e..f"g:'--_:'"-_ instructions and the statutory power acquire, the latter would take pre'C'e=di:e_nce:. Administrative instructions havgefjvin.eeborcie.r ' A _ be valid to be comgpatible~.i/iri.th sgta.to:t'oryv it exercises and not the 'v.ig.é:'eg ver'sa'f'.' The Bench also pointed .'_$out_" what, is construction, implementation andA..o.perati.on_ of the--"'project which reads as un<§!,er:ff' . ' .... even at the cost on 3.4.1997, the statei:;sc$ive.rmvi'ent and NICE Limited L"en'terediA'i_nto"nVa framiework agreement for'i.h.e....construction, implementation V operation of the project which ,,.,i.,,l___oori'templates the construction of a ' .viA.?State of the art four lane expressway connecting Bangalore City and Mysore and five townships to accommodate a population of about one lakh each aiong the expressway and the project %hii"'xm 182 also envisages the construction of southern outer peripheral road approximately 4:
connecting the National Highi,eaAy:Vi.i§l'o--l.:éi. it and National I kilometer long Vlinkhroiacli' co§hhecting«::""~.. the Bangaloreéii'/lu:y':;.c;ire Aexpresls-yva.y""'to State Highway N_Q_.°17_. *i.yThe.'ept:ivreV_c7ost of the pro_j'ect cost of acquisition of acres of la.na{:s met".jy'~b.y.___V:'yi\liCE. The be operated for an _A"in:i'tiail;,;_peripdof..:3yQ.5years subject to .fuii:i:h.gvr'.e><i:e'n.sion, if mutually agreed " to :_'p--a:urtiés and thereafter to be inS'v.tranysferi:ed«...to the State Government. V Itla-lisp envisages that at the end of Uthye initial period of 30 years on hia.n~ding over the same to the State "i?'i._<§overnment, the expressway has a 'further minimum life of 30 years. The length of the expressway and outer peripheral read, link road, service roads, interchanges and ramps is approximately 164 kilpmeters and 183 cost of constructien of each kilometer is approximately Rs.8 crores. In view"*----,g of the fact that the State Governnjent:.f"gj'~.:"'-_ intended the area falling within--- ' project should be dexh/elo_ped it A and disciplined rn_vannerf;i considered neces_$ary"'th'at a se.'pa'r'aten planning area comprising of'thge'_wal-iolwle A of the area...falling~--iin'g_:~th'et__project..l:o'§be declared as under the Karnataka_.To:w:n a.nd,_C.o':.in'i:ry'V"'Planning A:;1:t,"'jg;1:9'V€31.;.i-. Ai:¢o:rdtivngiy; 13.7.1999, " A "V.Sif<?ite:"":--!:'.': rlnrnelnt issu ed a ~ --.notifiV€jat«io'n.Vgu.nder":;ection 4A(1) of the ' said ring Ba ngalore--l\/lysore Infraistr'u'ctu're4'Corridor Planning Area (BMV1CPA.)' comprising whole of the ,area' 'fa'i'i'ing within the jurisdiction of ,,li:V'{h:e-...pr0ject. The State Government A A *;_C/Gnlstituted a separate planning .'""authority for the BMICPA called, the Bangalore -- Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Area Planning Authority (BMICAPA) which came into being on 310.1999. The Additionai Chief 184 Secreta ry and Cemrnissioner was named as Chairman with several __;':5't'h--e_r..._i_'1':_.
Secretaries and CommissioneVr_sV_"tr> _ State Government_i»ii»as .'mernbvers'..__r, Subsequently, the l\4inisteé¥ for Development has been appoiVrited:'_as it the Chairman. said.' p.§'an.r'i:ind r authority had issuied noti"r"'i'ca't«ion under sectidn'-1"O__i§f th'eVf_afLoresaid Act declaring :.i't§. .§nte'r:.t.iro_n .Vl'.O.Vfi prepa re a n 4_CL:'..:L1t|«i:i"'il°e:_. pieveylapmienrt Plan (opp) for It _th--:e";ney§i' pl_anjniyn'g--i'areal In pursuance " rt.l?;igVre't%}f;' a'n,::Outli'ne" Development Plan ' fcr'VV\(%if}Qle,nV(j'f:'Ehé area coming under "gthex"p_rej'eCt:_"_.'rih'ad been prepared and lhadbbeevn approved by the State ..Gove'rn'rnSent. The land required for Droject both for road and 'S"--.V--"ij~3_tVeyynships carried out both land and . "aerial survey, prepared the alignment of the expressway, peripheral road, link road, service reads, interchanges and ramps has been identified. Public hearings stated to have been heid in Development..__ ,€ \K%«§§ £'r?<<»t 185 the districts of Bangalore Bangalore Rural, Mandya apd~~»l\§i:§/sgo*:<:e as required under the (Protection) Act, :t9_66V, i\;{'a'révpus*:.""~~ V' permissions, clearances bothf'-.fro.m .the_ State Governmvemt and 'rtrpma-.._the Central Government" __ and of the agencies :_Gover'n'ment were Sta to iii axze-:.v~beeAn"o'btiai_i . "
This issue"agga--in'-wads"re.is'edv":ji_n"'vi/\.'.i.PA5386/2004 in the pu ibi'ti§:.gat'i--obriifiledrrvbt/tone J.C. Madhusudhan COi'i'Ce:i'iCliI'ig '' empowered committee constituted' V:C.-"zovernment of Karnataka to supierx/ia*se th"e'rV..e}v<ecAi:ition of the project has recently .A and fi_vnally4vA"r<ealized excess land being acquired which is"i'bVeAy'o4n'd.n._ti9i'e"jurisdiction and authority. The Division Bench»-._of this Court referred to the allegation of excess land having been acquired for the purpose of the Afprpjiect. The Review Committee's preliminary report .....found that excess land has been acquired for the 186 project but at the same time, it did not identify the same.
74. It was seriously contended tiljegétarhtlse Government had acquired lanciJ'l5a'r"i«n 'excess'«.ofV"w'haVt was required in e><ecution_.a_nd i'mplemenj't.'at'ion' o't'the'--l.j project depriving the land'?i'oy§i'ners of"theirT:valuable land around the city__."of Ei_Van§gaio.__re:."*«.yOne of the two primary consideration.s..,.which :.,ar"o'se"for' consideration was whether la5n'c1_5.irl. excess jthlanvl/hat was required for by the State Governm.entVv"alrjidij'wrhlether 'it is open for the State Governni'entl.to a plea. Ultimately the E?;ench'=o_f.._.t~his Court held the said question eras' subject matter of challenge in H7".
Siornas/?ei<ja:"; Reddy's case where all conceivable grourlds including the allegation of excess land being w."V'--,.ac_d:uired for the project were raised. It also observed »....that the State Government having successfully 187 defended the writ petition fiie.d~~b.\;'Hf"V"Se'irra'sfjek52r'«it'i. Raddy by taking a piea that ;'t_he§_'_'iriviniiimurn:
iand had been acquired 'fo'r*---.t.the"'project;"nevi«i:.h.er there"
State Government nor the _oe'titie.ner .c':'u--uid be aiiowed to agitate the saiVd~4._z':ii"asu.e far as the aiiegation of__fraud.......a_n.d2.rnis're.pVreis--e'ntation whiie acquiring that fraud and misrepresentiaiitliovn." ' "'viir'aIijeady answered as miscc{n"<:'evi'\_'/'e.tr_'i'v._.t observed that the partievs,ha.d acres of land as set out in the sVoh«ed'uieV-v._IVA'tothe FWA or the minimum iand ' the State reqtiired for " =the_____.project. Therefore, Gevvern-ime.nt cannot be aiiowed to urge that any been provided for the impiementation ofiithe They aiso opined that the findings recoi'~de'd in the judgment of the Division Bench in H.T. Soin*i_ashekar Reddy would aiso operate as res judicata eye far as the State is concerned. W '«.pa.:r:e~.ailowed directing the State of Karnataka
175. Expert Committee constituted by the Governifoei'itf;torjA identifying the acquisition of excess quashed issued:
(1) 188 So far as the Review Committee ar'id"»rthe and finaiiy the foii;jw'ih'g« Writ Petition Nogisc3.e6 are:%oo<irriié«arrey cg Madhuswarhy and____i:ot.he~rs is"d:is_rnisvsed with costs which._"':p«-3re'_VA i§s.50,000/-- which the pay to the Kar.na.t;a_-ka -ii,e{;i'_ai__1S'ervices Authority w'ith_i._h5~~to;ur' the' date of receipt of failing which the of the said authority will _tai<e' steps ii:-.r_ja"cc'ordahce with iaw to execute this_"0i'.d.er.'=_ writi>e:iiiiiron Nos.4533-4 and 48981 of 2004 it its instrumentaiities iriciuding the 'fioard to forthwith, execute the Project as conceived originaiiy and upheld by this Court in Somashekar Reddy's case and implement FWA in Government Orders dated 4~11-2004 and ietter and spirit. Consequentiy, 189 17--12~20€}4 constituting the Review Committee and Expert Committeefiare quashed, The reports submittedgggghigf'"these committees in pursuance to these":orders"
all subsequent actions tai<'e'n---'f'_Vin'cwi.de.ntall it thereto are also qUZ7l'_Sh€EClr.A:v 'KNa.ndi"-is-.___'a.l.so' directed to implement». the :.."_i.P'groj'ect. expeditiously as pgégsiblei 'beard their own costs in,t--he'se't~wo cases.i (3) We further d--iVr"e.ct--.th2g'; _K. Misra, Chief Secretery tomthhje of Karnataka and ""}:;S7ljri.."--.' ivgl." 'Sh:iV?--aiin.gaswamy, Under §§ec_reta"r§'--;. . rfrne-.nits* V of Industries and """ "~Coi%im'é§rce"*.he.'prosecuted as envisaged by the Code of Criminal it "~.i§roce'dur*e' . knowingly withholding importa"nt.'V'faxcts and documents from the Court a"ridVmai<ing false statements in their filed in this Court. Accordingly, v.V"i--"7R_eggiVstrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to file a complaint against them in the Court C. of competent jurisdiction. it disposing of the writ petition filed by .].C,
-~--"!;"73CfhUSW3fT7y, other two writ petitions in WP. '. r '.
' yr' / $3 32 190 l\los.4S334~48981/D4 filed by the AIMO and Dakshina l\/iurthy were also clubbed and disposed of.
76. State of Karnataka and appeals against the orders passedlliiii others, impugning the orders ohtlae E)i,'\;<'ii.siA'on' dated 3.5.2005. In the 'eras on the allegation of in the close vicinity theVV--.s'i_ty and as no township Bangalore, the question.of~a:t:ciV«t:;:l:AsVi"tiloniiof'vlaei/ond the roads does not arise." 'contended 13,235 acres of private land acquired as per FWA, the e'n'te.r.e.d into a separate agreement on iitvoeacquire 23,840 acres of land which was about V..i't?§.'3i'CO acres in excess of what was contemplated under the l'-"WA. When the actual "--,.re.<:it:':'irement as ciaimed by the consortium was only .~.----ft,SOO acres, faise claim for 2,193 acres for the i'"''\?''' 191 peripherai road was made in HIT. Somashe*i§;ar'A:F§~esjtfi--rj§;':5s' case and 3,686 acres was ac<:iu.i.ted u;iiiij'ei'rk_;th'er"finai" notifications.
77. Their Lordships Apex Coixrtfillisposedlw of the civil appeal 0ii~..20.4*;'2U't'§.I5 rei'e'rent:e to the challenge of excess l--.a_n~:l_, at :,f2ar'a._s»,41p,_ A3, 44, 45,, 46, 47, 49; 51, 52553, iévh.iChja~i*e re-produced hereunder: _ principles in ____ H therefore, arises was sought in . (supra), how it aeaaehaby the High Court in the first"ro_u_nvd of litigation, and what has
--,:been sought in the present litigation at the instance of Mr. J.C. . 'i'}_M'adhuswamy and others. In order to V show that the issue of excess land was "directly and substantially in issue" in Somashekar Reddy (supra) we will first examine the prayers of create.. ..... ..'«'huge 192 the parties, the cause of action, the axzermehts of parties and the finciing}; ef the High Court in Somas&h.e"i%Va"r:4'tI"F2V Reddy (supra).
43. Second, the::'caVus'e g_ A both Somashekar Red__d'*,/_ and the present th'e.__F'NVA;i:
includes the prQyi"sipi:.s_v for 20,193 aces car l;_an'd~..__fQ'r«.ithe Project (comprisingV_'l-1.3,2'_3?f' pi" private la..ndt._V and 1A_6,95.:6 pf Aliievernment was stated in F{e.:d:VVVdH'y"E§VS Writ Petition __ la.nd-.,._re.quirement in Schedule the""«""FWA was "highly l""e>§agg'.era'l:ed':'V and would illegally profits" for Na ndi.
fl..fiSO[l'1aSh€l<al' Reddy thus prayed that FWA be quashed ___ this prayer '.VliwAas, however, specifically rejected. The very same FWA that was upheld earlier has new been impugned in the present case.
W3. ' "xx 193 44' Third, in both Somashekaih Reddy and Mr. petitions, the averment was.?:"th'e.'t~~.:__f' excess land than required....for.VvVth:e. it implementation of Proje-::i;. g_ A being acquired Government attiiep beiae_st_oi'{ and that the PrQ.j_iéfCi:__vv_es noithiivngvvfbut a camoufia-ge _'to_:ca._rry'~--_out a real estate bus'iness'i'vb:y:" 1\__I.g:i'r*.rZA:i'.i.tiv"""ji_'he High CoL.1irtv..reco'r'ds' fotii*i--owV'i rig "contention counsei:
i ,(K;_:--_1'r;g_t. L3 p,"2fs4,'tr piaréi 47). "477," The' ne>'_<'t"s"ubmission of the " petitioner is that GovVern"rnen't-sflof Karnataka though os.te_'ns'ibie (wsic-- ostensibly) purported to foirrriian Express Highway has in freEi'i§ty aiiowed the 2nd respondent to 'V A "7--V'ij~;_c:i.e\?eiop the townships as a developer "by conferring a huge iargess (sic~ iargesse) by way of giving 20,000 acres of iand." According to petitioner, the iand required for the construction of four iene Highway is Macihuswan:y<'sj««.._:"'--_ $2?/' \' 19% only 2775 acres! whereas the remaining land would be utilized fefrfig the purpose of development towns thereby permitting resp--onde'gn't.s:"' No. 2 to develop_Jtoyynsh'ip's~l._f?j5""av'_',V developer and on huge :p.roffits,..'"'
45. The avVe.r:rne%nt Recldy regarding__ge'Xcees lan'd~cva_njAe? to be consi«:l.e.fre_d~'__ by 'thjeydélgigh Court which recoVrdSs._VVso'_rrre rot"t«h'e._'.'--opposing con't.en.tion_s o't'..'ith'eA""i§ie.spopdent-State, r «....aprr:§ject like the 'E>ipreS.sv»'ay'«w.i_ involves ~ 'elxteritgéof,»l'a.nd---, answering respondent " (_th'e.V_St.a'te_')'---._h'a«:s" agreed to provide the considerable V7-.._mi.nim_urnexitent of land required for th-e_"p'roject partly out of the land own"e«d....by the State and by acquiring _ _the balance. Second respondent will only ""_~v..___E>§p'ressway but also link 'igperipheral road, interchanges, Service construct the proposed roads, .'"Roads, toll plazas and Maintenance area etc., in addition to the townships." (Kant. L3 p.235, para 15) "It is stated that the project by its very nature requires considerable extent of land and that is why the Egw 3:95 respondent has agreed to provide the land to the extent available with it and acquire the balance and rnaxke_';_V available the same to the reply*ingf*...'v~..
obligations on both the parties'~.__undreri' % agggrgeemeiit' --- f and " _ Respondent--l\lo. 1 5's on'iy._ 'tac-:iiita'ting""' respondent. There are the impugned the acquisition of la~.nd;'_'foi' which"
replying respondent h'as*to pa\,rTLatv"tl'le'*. "
w{_lj<'a,nt<;..:""*~t.3 existing marl<e.t_""-rates"."_ p.240 para 25) '
46. 'very striki ng findings have ibefenfV'm.ad'eA«'.i'by'.'.-the High C:ot.;f;t':- in i.Son1asi1.e'l<iajr. is y (su pra) , as ..fd3l..lo';§.'vs :Q_ __ Ej'_So.,_'Ci4t* 'of...._20.?',193 acres, land "rre5quir%ed fonthe Expressway would be '6999*..actge's.__le.avi'ng 13,000 acres for V '*developme*~nt"«."" of V"r4...Goveifnm_en.t'.."' of townships.
. _ Karnataka in its written statement has said that it has agreed...__to provide minimum extent of iand for the project partly out of the owned by the Government and i3yv"acquiring the balance. Permission .'7lhas been given to develop the five "township instead of 7,, proposed by respondent No. 2 to make the Project viable." (Kant. LJ p.256, para 52) "46. The submission that the contract was entered in a clandestine manner also cannot be accepted... 196 Respondents in their statement of objections have admitted that this, point was raised on the floor of detailed presentation on this _.<:.é__ibj'ectL"--«..f in the House". Every minute"-._det'_a.il' _ was explained including_ the"s't:ie'ntifiicv'_'i.V ' method adopted by the «,resp'o*nd'ent_"'__A for identification of"athe_A_Aii~anci'~.fot _ Project." (Kant.,L'J p.2'S4;~~oara»r;€~.)V' ' ' House and the respondent
47. All of theseVV':uvn_equivocallyy snow that the .e><cels'si land (and connected 1 was specifically raie'e;§:ly;'~ by; th.e"'i'.i_'~- pyetltlioner in 'So_mia.s--h_eka_if..__:§Red'dyi5._:(supra) and was by the State. In _ .AFact,'.._the"«.:b_'de_ci«si'on in Somashekar _ 'Reddywent further with the l"'i-li_Vg'h_CoAi:_rt"'according its imprlmatur __to'thev.....i.a'nd requirements under the l' amounting to 20,193 acres, in no small measure, resulted 'from the State's successful defence that it the "bare minimum of iand" for the Project had previded calculated by a "scientific method". The judgment also eentains ceoieus '\i'"x 197 references to the issue of land (including the acreage), the types iand te be acquired; the requirement for different asprgc*tsv.:pfe:""'i the Project, the scieruific te'chn«iq:ie'sv'_'..V involved in identifying road alignment' etch.' circumstances, that Expla.natiQVn****i.I_:'1."ta Sellctivenfll squarely Va"pxpl.ies,__ i4s'--Vc'jci.ie'a~.r_Vthat the issue of excess the FWA was'f;f*cliré--.etl€y " and "~Vs'u--bsta ntially in 4isg.§i;e.*'V' in . r'= Reddy (supra) ' i{::e-nCe,f. ' the"i~"findings recorded reached finality, l«._'<:annot"'bAereopened in this case.
" ...... ..
49;""1'n the face of such a finding the High Court, Explanation IV to i " 'admittedly, 11 squarely applies as, the Somashekar Reddy (supra) exhausted fihgafion in all possible challenges to the vaiidity ef the FWA, inciuding the issue of excess land» Merely because the iane73f-
In_»?these°}"
198
present petitieners draw semantic distinctions and claim that the excesfsvt iand net having been identified stage of the litigation in Somafshelrlafihalll Reddy (supra), the_Praject_~'sh'e'dl.:j. reviewed, the issueadoesinnit'.e:e.as-el'tL§.is,4\_A be res judieata dr._"'--coveVrve.d.i': byl'; 3 principles analogdus the*r.etd.f'.= were to V re-exa.n'i'ine'~ 'the issues that had been"raised/caLiguh"tff_tdi have been raised inI.Savn1aslhei;ar"'Re'd1d3} (supra) it" 'an'------a':buse of the pre'cbe'ss"----of:'t:hjeRC0isrt;which we cannot " --. _a'lj§'Ov\l':.:f:~: it there was considerable time _ take'ii'vuby~'the learned counsel for the '«.t'4.a'pQellants in trying to persuade us it excess land had actually been ' filelivered to Nandi under the F-'WA. A subsidiary argument was that even though the actual area of land delivered might not have been in excess, since land in prime areas had N 199 improperly been acquired for Nandfs benefit! the issue needed to be regikg examined. In our view, this argu.rn'entf"gj'*.o..V'-. too is not open to be agitatedat A point. As we haveHgaiready""pointedf_ out, the writ petition Reddy (supra) was the 'cuimin,a'.tio'n "off at! such aiiegat'i*o:n's, which had it successfuiiy refu-ted"g'e\ien enA"th.e floor of the tegigsiamreg. having failed on th--e.,'fioo'I*.Qf the Legfisiature, a P_ub'ifin-.'ingterestfLi'tigation..--§vas flied on vt_he--:vje~ was something =wi'th and that it was _ 'i.<ViVrt';.*3.i:io:5'i~,"a.i,:_:is--eii~4'out to Nandi. The Dix'/i'sio"n'A' of the High Court 'u.Cevnsi'd'erediw. every argument very A.;are;fu'i'i'y"Vand recorded findings on all 7th'e.
issues against Mr. .].C. Miaidhuswamy and others. In our view, .'"permitting the argument on excess land to be heard again to scuttle a project of this magnitude for pubtic benefit wouid encourage dishonest and ooiiticaiiy motivated iitigation 200 permit the judiciai process to be abused for political ends. The Court, therefore, has refused":V:tu:"tj"~V:.V"i- answer the first part of the question framed for,cQnsideratit§'n.iioinigg the ground that answered in _Sorna--s_hel<ar (supra) and as res.j'uvdi:Cat'a._;"iVt could not be regag Further, that since thiV§--.i..5"rgu'nje,n:.t""inyoV'l»zeVd details of AcontraQ.tu.ajl'~ Vtli's.pu.t'es;5[the High C_ou'rtt.i1'wot}--.ld intit é'xar'ni'na§it in its writ satisfied that av..th-e \i:'i%l.;igh"'«'.VCou'rt"""was wrong in so hoiaiiigj.
AT_h'e"'llVHigh Court's finding on thl§°i'SvS.i..,.:.€ only gains strength if we «were to examine the factual matrix in ' the State took its stand that ' .vlA.ie$<cess land had been acquired for the Project. As we have previously stated; pursuant to the objections raised t0 the Project by the new Minister for Public Works, an "E><pert Committee"
t .a t 'xx A iimp'ieme ' reC1ts'i'r.e'd to ' 201 was setue in 2004 to review the Project. The Expert Committee conveniently headed by i<.C. who was the Advisor to ' Works Minister. Thi;_i<},c. Ream/;wa§:s%ri.V i the same gentlernanfi'nw'iiio':4.A.'a--s4"*~.g§._:j.,.A.ii' member of the prexiious scrutinised the Project it had given ""»-green'*-sigvhal. Surprisingh/iii'Tho:/ye.ver;'*--Vfat"ithis stage, he appeavredhto 'beail"._vi{i"i--.ii.in'g to find fau'i't;siand3«_ in .th:e"vP..ro:ject and the facts' that there was , Einpo'i«ie*red"Corhmittee that was monitor the of the Project. The uaHi._qh""Co.t;ertv rightly pointed out that the E'>{p'ert Committee was constituted V"sf"\zVi'rt1,iaIiy in supersession of Clause 1 of the FWA.
53. The Expert Committee suddeniy woke up to the aileged fact that excess iahd was being acquired. Like the State Government; the 'e 'rii" Y 202 Expert Committee aise rnade fiip-fiops and came out with a report sayinrgicg that there was acquisition of iand. cmciaiiy, it left the«--..':aCtitci:a'i:a"
identification of the..excess;"'i'a'i'id's 2 the KIAD Board.
State Cabinet_:in'_ its'*«i_neeting"V~i- 26.10.2004 acc'evip:te.d the reaffirmed ._its th'e"'Prej'ect and expre'sse--d'"'re_serv_ations on the .i.acquisiitiohi Cf is nds than vié'h4ai';jg.r.i-.2;/a:,:i--.necessary"'.'for--~"the Project. 'Int-""V__t'h'i:s« . the High Court is , ;cri'tic'a*§:,;iy 'coVinme"'nts"4 (vide Paragraph ='26)that.d¢d*' "By 'coii--stit'Liting this Committee the f4"'StateV'.'-Government has ensured that th'e~._Project gets stalled. It is . i.nteresting to note that Sri K.C. Reddy is the Chairman of the Expert Cenamittee was also a Member of the '--7'rj;HiI_=C which had approved the Project 'end was associated with it till the signing of the FWA which provides for 20,193 acres of iand to be made avaiiabie. Sri K.C. Reddy did not record his dissent in those proceedings and at no stage did he ever point eat that the iand that was °% % 9/y/%\&?k Jew Q g J 204 for the KIAD Board handed ever a set of documents, which purportediy identifiefdzg the specific excess iands. it 2 grievance of the KIAD Board that they A not been given the oppo_rt.uF_i_ity _foi"'oRiac'i'i".:g'_' these documents before Since the date of dgoc4ume'nt_'s'v--showe.d'..that'; they were drawn subSe:d'u.entv.to the ziatddn which the High. CoVi,:i*ti.."had-»t,_deiifveredvvfl its judgment, the""ie'arn*e_dff,'Seh--itocgAV'Counsel for KIAD Board Mgr..Ci<j5si<;s candidly admittsedffthatthis; carried out aftein t_h'eb'ifnpu'gfhed«.jucigment had been d'e'i'ivi.I.eAred."2i;t'« is--.a=. niootiii-p'xoint whether the "person;Vhwiiiiw-.o'is,wiofe~~ this affidavit on behalf ofxgthev "'KI'A:'[).. stating that no ;.--.;3p.po'ttuvnVity" hadvbeen given to the KIAD 'oard toiflbiace these documents on the the High Court, needs to be for prosecution under Section .3~%:i}V.O"i*Vead with Section 195 of the Code of Cirifminai Procedure; 19373. We strongly deprecate such misieading or faise affidavits on the part of the KIAD Board. it i c. K: g M', N, 2.06 stand with regard to the Project, nothing was heard from the KIAE3 Board abou't"'--.g lands being acquired in excess of the purposet Further, as an instrument.aiity.:égoiiI"'= the State, the KIAD Boatdg _cann_--ot"'lia'_tr.e"'iaV'_'.,V 2 case to plead different :=,from4u'xth'at.':'_Qi"i«. State of Karnataka. Vflfhus, WSBFE uggnabilpe to':
countenance the 'a.ifg--L1ment--s.' Venugopal on b.e.halfAof~-t.h'ge. KIAD Bao'avr.d,.~"F 783 It is furtherVV_obseE.\/'ed t--h.a'tAA--'.jlj:xplanation IV to Section 11 of sdtiaife'i'§/ a'p:piii'e's--..a~s, admittedly, the litigation exhausted all possible challengesAtosgtheevalVidi,ty. of the FWA, including the issue oifi-,exices'sV'i'aAiid':§"*--«..cV""Merely because the present petitioriiers d"rai.wSsen1antic distinctions and claim that .A not having been identified at the stage u"the.v in Somashekar Reddy, the Project sholuldbehvteviewed and the issue does not cease to be t.e:s"'~«_.judicata or covered by principles analogous 'hereto. If we were to reexamine the issues that had 35:
V \ 20?
been raised/ought to have been raised_gr}'v:'gi..3vni.a'sheka.i}.i Reddy it would simply be an iiiilisteaimiai--a;assAg the Court, which we cannot allow,
79. From reading ofggethxetabvoyeloarralgraibhs, it is noticed that their to the facts pertaining to the pro.j'e'c:t ._a,l_s'o.V'th.§:i.vearlier litigation ultimately ithie it Government cannot be land required to be acquired__ to be handed over the project"wa's_ in was acquired, ultimately disnfiissged'ciihvildaobeals holding no grounds were made i=out"l'to interfere with the Judgment of the High V 8_€i; ilrilllanother batch of writ petitions, the land owne'r'S_.At:hallenged the acquisition of lands in the case "Eet>_l{'arihanumaiah's case in W.P. i\los.13813--817/2009 and other connected mattersi Referring to the earlier Hujudgment, the learned single Judge opined that if 208 there was any element oi' fraud in making deviations or in placing before the Court changed a_4lvég_Vr:-tnent including different or excess lands by illegally prepared GDP, such.»lldoc&un.je'nt'ST.--'I.'aVl.l'eged'l>guVV prepared fraudulently could this Court and the relief sought by.V'lVla.dh..o$;_:mia--rn'y' could' not have been rejected. obSe'rved that if the contentions of the before the Bench on would have certainly and disapproved the regard. Holding that the allegationland was already subject mat-:e'r of eaifiegrvrouhd of litigation, the learned single the writ petitions being devoid of rnerilt. 'V ' This order of the learned single Judge dated was the subject matter of appeal in ....diifferent batch of writ appeals viz. In WA. l\lOs.65€}~ 209 S4 & ?53/2010; 1€}50~lO54/2010 and Sc)"-.,_»8lSO 470/2010. After referring to all the earlie.r__"roVu~nd.V'of litigation, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Judgments dated 6.:iOt2OI;'O, 23.11.2010 disposed of'9sid'ifI'erer_i't"i-- batciiasi Aof'i';«\i¥;r'z'it:"'t' appeals holding that the land being acquired for earlier round of litigation allegation cannot be. as it is hit by " V' V V had also approached the learn"e.d in W.P. l\lo.1028/2007 and yg:rit'Af3eit.i.ti.en came to be dismissed by the _'lear'ned..:_siin"g::l:e'*..Judge on 28.5.2007. In the said case allsog one"s{_--:r'ious challenge raised was land in excess '"-.of the requirement for FWA being acquired. Aggrieved orders of the learned single Judge, he filed an ..-aEppeal in W./-\.1l92/2007 before the Division Bench. 210
The Co~ordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the matter on 23.7.2010 and the same is reporte.dVV_'»i.h:.i_LR 2010 Kar. 4265. The contention of the the said appeal was also withregard'to".:t'ifieV""e§§eesvs""
land being acquired far beyondiigthiei7fO,:1~9_3 the same came to be rej'e--e_t'e.d asthe' .sa'-id'i:sstie":was"
the subject matter vof__earl&ie'rxiig_tig'a-»tioni "'Thig.?0rder of the Division Bench the Apex Court in Civil the allegation of excess'-yvas raised. Their Lordshvilps of excess land being matter of earlier litigation andgvthegreforeiV_'it'1wa's barred by the principles of res ari'd._vconstructive res judicata. Accordingly, to be dismissed holding that it is not'hing':!b'u't abuse of process of the Court, Hence, ""V.:i»..etvie---53 allegation of excess land is not availabie to the petitioners as it is already covered in the previous iudgmeots.
211 POINT NOS. 5 81 6:
Non-«application of gm§n.d, misrepresentation
83. The contention otfimind on the part of the issuing and acquisition n.otificat.éo.:r'y. fraud and misrepresen?s§at§.Q:rrjV oh' respondents in cohcealiné._va_urioVo's"'doti:tJ.r_he'r1.:tsureooire consideration of same,"set"*off__ thhehhhhvabove two points are interconhected:ahd'vthherefore they are considered togethers ~ ..
' 84. Learneddsevnior counsel Mr. Udaya Holia took meaning of fraud and mistake as Co;_hmend'e.gjAs:;in the 7"' edition on 'Law of Fraud and M§sta..kei. by Kerr, which reads as under:
incfudes ail acts --
Fraud omissions;
conceaiment: which invoive a breach of § % 212 legal or equitable duty, trust: or confidence which are reported and are injurious another or by which an undue...4ori'__'_r-«"V;~V". unconscientious advantage lS taken' ' another.
85. He also relied upon thed'--followlnegudgAern3entS"~~3 to contend that judgment lvobitainedlll can be questioned in collater_al-- pr--oceevdin_g.,S'*and there cannot be avoidance ofjudiclaleacts--.ifVV.fraA'uv_d;'o1r"Collusion could be
1.
199a4(13lreso:gr 1.,_j"{:Sl'.AP.'.:::vC§gH.:ENGALVARAYA NAIDU
-\_/S- JAe?ANN";ATH (2oo0)7V SCC PANCHAYAT or VILLAGE NAUl;Ala<ll.AV --.\_/S,-4 UIJAGAR SINGH) _gg.r3.lK;2Q3Q5)7 §CC..__.416 (HAMZA HAJI ----\/S--- STATE or 9Allie[':;ooi3Al<AR 3532 (ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND. ~-'LAND *SueASHcHANoRA) ACQUISITION OFFICER -=\fS-
.3T3.(2oSo4)11 SCC 353 (COMMISSIONER or cuSToMS _:4\/S» ESSAR on LTD) ILR 1991 KAR 3556 (STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
-\/S- RAMESH NARAYAN PATEL) 213 7* 1996(4) scc 522 (DELHI DEVELOVPMENT AUTHORITY ~«vs- SKIPPER CONSTRUCTI..C§'N_4i~.(P) LTD. r
8. (2oo7)2 scc 536 (MUKUND SW/{X_l§{':'tJ.:lI.>viffi.tStlR'r¥y"' ~VS~ UNION OF INDIA
86. The gist of the abgoye Judgement and decreellvlbrbltainedll' to be treated as nullity vlg:L.i_e.st'i«onedVVinixcollateral proceedings to._decla_r.e...t_he by fraud. A in order to gain wwould be guilty of playing Well as opposite party and cannot b"e.adllovy'ed'V'to" enjoy fruits of a decree obtained Frauvcl.....is deliberate act of deception to by taking unfair advantage of ano'ther..llséuioidance of a judicial act on the ground of "-fraud" collusion is effected not only by active Vb,;:';roc'eedings for rescission, but also by setting up ...fraud as defence to an action on the decision. When .. ' ""'§,; "
215
87. Learned senior counsel Mr. Holla and Naganand contend that even if there is questioning the acquisition, once the fraud as alleged in the above tos_tl'I.e'A notice of the Court, the acquis'i'tio:n_'ivxilllihoit irrespective of the delay,Vl th'e._eacohtiisitigni-._:dV'eIsé'rves to"? be quashed. For thispropeositio'nI°t.h_ey reli'ed7upon the following decisions:
1.
4%..
(2oo7)9 ~3oéI (I/\kALrIil<jAvIALIfHousi: BUILDING CO~OP.ERAuTi;\/Eh __QCIETY {jv--~VS-- v. CHANDRAPPA AND 19.8l5M(l3)ivi7scci.'lIio:ViI(coLtecToR -~vs- RAJA RAM I98o(2)s (STATE or PUNJAB -vs» fjURDIAL"iSI_l\lGH 'AND OTHERS) ,II9eee(2)»iKAR. L. J. 332 (CHICKAVEERAPPA ~vs- _ i_',IAl:\:iv.QiTF'<IT_E$ft7ll\lAL DEVANAHALLI) 318 (RAM KRISHNA BHARDWAJ -VS- ST./&TE"OF DELHI) .. 88. In a nutshell the principles iaid down in the " ....ai3ove cases is as under:
2.16 When acquisition is found te be totally malafide, acquisition is liabie to be quashed notwithistia_4rid_Ving delay. Such acquisition would be vitiatecl and can be set aside on _g.r.ounds'moi'.:'ifnaiafide.g.""» Allegations of malafides can;hot1'_'_Abe without counter. Want ofllbiona fidi.--:s__ wisllit-be':~.p'r'oi'\/ed in"?
cases where the authority,il'i'aVsls_:'hott__exerc'ised*lts mind, either because the not placed before it, Eoiribthe before it was incorrectf acted on the basis of records prod.juvceci.4by4:so'_me_ other person. 891" Thea llea_rri.ecii:'s.enior counsel appearing for the pe_f;i'tion'erVs COi'l't€.i'i_d.vthat there is abuse of power and ' apart from non--application of mind by autivtiibssillties which would vitiate the entire acqui3_itioh proceedings irrespective of earlier ""'__de_ci"sions on the very same issues of acquisition. So 21?
far as abuse of power; they rely upon the toiiowing citations:
I-s1.9 (S) scc 550 (INDIAN BANK FIBRES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.)
2. AIR 1995 Sc 2244 (H.iVi.T. 110113119: BtuILDINo -cioe( OPERATIVE SOCIETY --\/S5 SYED i<i-iADEie<:) I ' 3.1992(1) K/-\R.L.3. 589 Bi.-iH~i§O',ZE':V:§RAMYAR BATHA AND OTHERS THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFF--IC'ER,'._B;§{\1iG~1Ggic.(Q'F3EAND OTHERS)
4. (2oo7)9 Scc3o4A(wAIIi<AvAL iiiouse BUILDING CO--OPERATf~y_E SOCIETY-. CHANDRAPPA AND OTHER$f),_j. I _; V citations is as under:
Fraudiioonivmit-tetJ.v before Court amounts to abuse of Cciurt no judxgm-e«nt of Court can be aiiowed to stand by fraud. Power under Section 4(1) Kr") andi the Land Acquisition Act -- exercise for extraneous consideration, the same wiii vitiate the '*A.VINho'ie acquisition proceedings and render the Same 'I-»v---invaiid. Deprivation of iands under eminent domain and eventuaiiy Satisfying the private needs of 21.8 inciividuais tantamount to fraud on powerarioi5.i_n._:si.i.i;f_h«_ cases acquisition is to be set aside. If.fra.o':oVvo'n:: p.owe'i*--«..
is exercised in acquisition matt.ers,".c_a:c_quiésiiitivon,__is vitiated, then cieiay of 14§,«"ears i's.o'f'--no cconseqiiefgcei. 91, So far as vno_n--ap.pi'ic.a;t--ioh.of i"ni'ri'd,ii'z;iccorc¥ing to the ieamed ifiaganand and Udaya HoHa,v the oiirvojiect proponent, the officials --.Ka;r'hatakaWV'Industrial Areas acquiring the lands withoiit {mind and without verifying whether.._t"he to be notified either under seci;i'on_28'4(i~-)v_Aohunirier section 28(4) of the KIAD Act were iaonds identified for the project in the PTR as erixrisiaigieci'viniiihe FWA. For this proposition; reiiance was piacecionn the foiiowing decisions:
i[ ]»:;(;oo8) 4 scc 144 (BHIKHUBHAI VUTflABHAI "';c»PATEL & OTHERS »vs-- STATE or GUJARATH & ANOTHER) * u 219
2. AIR 1953 SC 318 (DR. RAM KRISHNA BHARDWA3 r-VS~ STATE OF DELHI AND TWO OTHERS)
3. (2005) 5 scc 181 (smre or l\iCT ori;§'i:Lrii1rryeys§* SANJ EEV ALIAS BITTOO)
92. The gist of the above citaytioin-es. Lin'cier§'-ai..__' Formation of opinion byT"'the Stalterjhfiokgerlnment should reflect intense or mlna with reference to the mateiriiall record. The Court is there has been any Government and the any, in the formation of opinionetarid! have any rational coniiijevction viiitbyvor relevant bearing on the formation The Court is entitled to examine formation of opinion is arbitrary, caoiriciotisyélor whimsical. Want of bona fides will be in cases where the authority has not exercised mind, either because the relevant material was not 220 piaced before it, or the rnateriai placed before it was incorrect, or the authority has acted on the'4.b_a._s:iis._ of records produced by some other person,-3V.E§{'ertiis.e*io:f power, whether iegisiative or_;a.d,ministra'ti~é,%e,'°wi_iii be set aside if there is manifest errrorih the"exeprcliisefioif such power or the exerciSe.._:Of_pthe."p.ower"ri:s""nfi'ar"iifest!y"
arbitrary. If the power has""i:e:en""e_xercise'd on a non- consideration or non¥applicaEtion...._o~f_';»nfiind to relevant factors, the,ex_e'rcis:e of.f~'po«vii'er_"--.wi_i:£' be regarded as manifestly? err'o.n'e'ous;"'CT'jjvvr. ; The"'Vi'e§2.rne'd"~s:e'nior counsel appearing for the petitione'is_"vvh'iiek'.'.refu.ting the contentions of the respi.Qnd'ents 't"h*at..__.t.he present petitions are barred by ' pri'nc_ipie'sLofies judicata and constructive res judicata flour notice the iaw iaid down in the foiiowi,n_§; decisions to substantiate their contentions judgment and decree obtained by fraud, it wiii V. ..._not act as res judicata. Therefore they contend that 221 the argument of the respondents that the present writ petitipns deserve to be dismissed as barrVe_<§"..V_by prénciples of res judieata and constructive_.--I{e.s'jti.t:'-.i:a't.a' has to be rejected.
1. AIR 1948 PC 168 (BELI RAM ='aRc>1fI-1:1:Rc%srh'AeReIxgfeg MOHAMMAD AFSAL AND OTHERS) 2.1979(1) scc 613 (fv1AT.H'L!RAV"PF'§VA$Ai§§ BAJOO JAIsv\/AL AND:"... OT%"i'E-Rf' poss1BAI N.B.JEEJEBHOY) -
3. AIR 1964 sc 1013-A(AMAA1gt;AAMA'Ir:s COALFIELDS LTD., -vs? 'JIANAPADA .S3AB.H'A)« .
4. (1998)9AAs9CCAA't3s8 j(39'Er"Rp'REc1csuGER COMPANY LTD.
--~VS:._SAL.ES Q:FE_I'C"E«R.,VAN5D OTHERS)
5. (2t103)8 Ascrefa19t(RAM CHANDRA SINGH ~vs- sAv1T_R1 p EVI AAN[_)"---Q"THERS) j.-- 94}. It"»xiflgwh'eld- ihhthese cases as under: obtaihhed by fraud does not act as re'sjuxd'Ii'C:ata.Rffhe previous decisions in a matter in issiie a..i:<:>he"'Es resjudicata, The reasons for the decision Is;Ap;QtvV"resjudicata. When it is said that a previous ldgecihsion is resjudicata, it means that the right 223 Government has acted arbitrarily in entering into the agreement with the project proponent, was it,ooo'esed to public policy; whether it contra.V{e'ne~svj'g*~i:__fa-ny, constitutional provisions or other e_Xist_i'ng' "enjactn1'ent.s," "
whether the agreement is whether the rights of aln_§f"~v..i_ndii)'id.ual__or oft' individuals is beingillega.il'yVVi..afféctedland the scope and extent of judiciai._"grlegzigiéi/v v"_rn"a_tters of State Policy. The. by Judgment dated negatived the It was opined that be held to be invalid just because thlei-.vS;ta'te not invite the global tenders. 4{.h'ereE""'l:y»'as«..._vno arbitrariness on the part of the Go._\;er'iiirn~vent:]a'hd nothing was done in secrecy as the ma4'tter--V_w'as discussed at various levels of the Goaaernllment including the Cabinet and Legisiaturei Bench opined that nothing was done in a clandestine manner. After referring to the various E E E 5 224 terms of agreement and the factual matrix under which the agreement came into existence op4i.ne-d;"t,hat neither the agreement is illegal nor opposed"to.[jpLtt:..i_c policy. According to them, nothing was"
the right oi' any individual or of been affected by any ill€»§.a_il~»..actA'b'g'__ their-.e>'Zec'u"tion of"? the agreement and.».§igre'e-r'ne'n't"hays not'-iresulted in depriving of any or group of persons. Thetefpre the absence of any .:nf:i'ai'ija'tide'stor'Vopposed to public policyjvcou"ld:':,n.to%:fbé vfléwas the opinion of the Division l3'ench._i_n -.l:'he'_'sa'i'd"'case. t,ater"on«...s.everal land owners approached the iea_me'd.:_:Si:,ng:l'e«Judge in W.P. Nos.28953-55/2003 and other coinneicted cases questioning the acquisition "'~.-~._'_"'-endei'section 28(1) and 28(4) of the KIAD Act after u"V'«.tiie:i'ssuance of notifications under sections 1(3) and of the KIAD Act and the said matters were 226 industrial infrastructure and the lands have been acquired for the purpose of establishirigicand developing industrial area by KIADB substantially complies with therequirerneiiti'_ol5'Se'etiovn""
28(1). Therefore notifications i§'_i_an'Vnot~__v'be'? invalid. Before the Division~V..V_Benchtwhelliv-,appe"llants land owners also raised _.g'rou_:nd"'-»that'there; was no application of mind while issuing notifi.c«atViVon and there is abuse of its power of enjiinielhifitl held that there was no"rnal%afide' or Fr"a_u'd""muchless non--application of mind --w_hile"a~cq_'u'isiti.on of lands was made by the State C3ég;ert'i'itTie:r1t._vand held that the Division Bench in the i"'ea'r.iiper":"'_"§~tlcigt;r1'i.ent was justified in rejecting the alle"gat'iVo.n"of sole object of the NICE company was to deal real estate and not to form the project. Sginwlilarly, the apprehension of the learned Single dodge that the project proponent company may A "'~«M 228 State Government and renders the so called assignment void and void ab initio. It was contended that NICEL was not entitled to claim any and no locus stancli to sustain any the'. States This was the stand of=..1thg.Q:;\re.rri-nd'eh't'ii-:1'the written statement filed b3,?_e..rie l\'?l'e-2lShivia:li'n.gvaswamy,--.i"
Under Secretary in the and Industries. The provjécthpro_pVbtil'e4nt'.fcori-t_ended that the plea of fraudédand by the writ .Got/ernment was an t"o"s'c§uttle the project only when there in the Government by the end_.o_f Ma"y---2004 avndhlhe contended that the State 'iv'~..,caiL;.not.._"rrch"a.ngel theivstand taken by it on an earlier that context, at paragraph-18 of the juo'gmen't-.iAi"hA 2005(3) Kar.l_.3 438 a specific question Ms,.~:as rramea whether the FWA entered into between 'Government of Karnataka and Nandi was a result "olf any fraud or misrepresentation as alleged by LC. Madhtiswamy 8: others and the State. referring to several contentions, the Division7.__Bu'e.nch 229 ultimateiy held in brief as under:
ft f "Normally if the g§overni'r"i'e«njtV. had-- _ been satisfied with i§£an:dAig'ha'dg pAla'yed'»iaA_"',_gj fraud on it, the firsthlthing gi:iléwouiau'i'i M have done was l\lan--difou"t:'a'n'dV' cancel the proje_c.t:'i'n_ 'i*t,s_ fax'/ooir_Aa.r.5d it could '._bra:.;ugl'2.tvv~l another entF.eDreneu_r;_-Even:ot':'hver\}iJise the plea of *'«..g:Vfraud._ g a».-nid"~ Tinisdfépresentation be raised at this 'F\.l\1./~';jV has already been ._ Court in Somashekar Redd§?"t§' and to which the a"re_fere.n(:e'- also been made in the .._yizrit'""=a~p'peals pertaining to the A '_<a:Cq._uisition proceedings referred. It is :'a"."_v»g«._observed that the plea of fraud and ' -this-representation sought to be raised is not only an afterthought but also false to the knowledge of the State Government. It is unfortunate that the petitioners and the State Later on after 230 Government have chosen to raise this bogie to defeat the public interest sube serving pubiir: interest. It is obse.r'%.re'd:;§ej':00'-. once it is heid that FWA project thereof in VMsehed;.,2i'e'~--i.:i';:,and*_ 0' findings in this regard :h4a.\jrir:g': final and concius_ive,"i..t'"is note.op:e'n"td*. the State Vfiiogiernmyhenth' 'V._n_:or":,' "to J.C.Madhdswarm/~Von--d'wotheirs' and/i not even to th'is:i"Co'oLrt%.i.»to this case once again. reistiitifthe second oarityof 7I\i'o...25A has been is not open to State=C3o.verri-m.evnt and not even to ._ to contend that exeeVss'*o:",. has been acquired for ' proje-etA.'"
The objection that 38 A v.i.acres"o'i"'iand had been unauthorizedly by Nandi to IMTMA and that the safe be declared iiiegai, the saie rvthas been upheid in writ appeais Nos. 3326-332?/2004. The Government by its order dated 18.09.2003 directed Nandi to execute the saie deed in favour of IMTMA and Nandi has l\§\~ 232 overpass without disturbing free flow of water to the tank. No material been placed on record to the alignment as made by the execution of the »P~r.ojec:i§' hv§iV'4l'i\:i'9ji's§'e'c.f_;_ the lake or will in 't'h.:e..._'<1.r_'A inflow of waterto theL_lval<e.i TtiVe;tn_ere; ipse dixie of the'i"rp:eltitione'rs "crahvnnot be accepted :*'p.artic.u"l'arly: 'When the same has been "'de_niedgVb§~' _ It is also observed ,=tl"i»a:tj N afndi making _a?l':igr;m'ent:'--oF_ roa_ds..thro'u'gh that area _wi;l"l'_l<Vee'p» in5.'jview..ithe directions issued obs; jiiourt "'i'h""Suresh Heblil<ar's *'case§)nV»' * vvT'tie'°e: petitions filed by 4j.C.,lYl'a'dhLiswamy and others, i.e., 'shrill/.P.N£:i;i" 45386/2004 has been " »v4'é:fisizjrissed with costs. Writ Petition Nos. 45334 & 48981/2004 have been directing the State of Karnataka and allowed all its instrumentalities including the Board to forthwith, execute the Project , wmww.«\«wi>wsv.w\vA4\k\\'a'¢_w»ls<\$7\X\V\\I 233 as conceived eriginaiiy and upheld by this Court in Fetter and spirsEt';'»s Consequentiy, Government dated 4.11.2004 and 17.rri2.2tiQ;?L* constituting the Rievisew _--Ceh'irh.ittee_x.V and Expert Committee'.efirefidu'a'sh'ed-L, Further, there is A'*-a_y'7diret:t7:e'n:"2 td; prosecute K1 Mt.s_r'a, Secretaryv/,----.to the" :G_:e\k't;__.0f Kairnetaka and Sri. Under Secreta ry_,r.~V-- v{§.epar*tér;n_e'hatv_ " 'industries as_hd"jA:CQmvhne%f_c'e:, 340 of ~ it Preced u re. Th e re ~~~~ td"'Nafndi to implement V as expeditiously as ' 3;.@.(),"i--fi'hetiiddginfient of the Division Bench in the % s...c:ase so aise in J. C. Madhuswarny was taken v;i'p.viinAiCivii Appeais before the Apex Court and t.he__serne: is reported in (2006)4 SCC 683. In the said 7de'ci'sien, Their Lerdships examined the third """::ententEon raised tn those Civéi Appeais vézz, fraud, uv»«vw»«v\\u1mwn\u|mItm<Mw\MVhK'AV!A')!W misrepresentation and maiafirdeS:::_¥?itiatirig' project and at paragra.;3h_s~24;._v_"25 Lordships discussed aii which 234 reads as under:
W
--a nd Misifepres'e'n.t.a.t.E'on ' on which the wjas_:"a'rg.Lied§ by the learned %tate of Karnataka " befo_re:--i:.'the"-~Q'i'\/ifsion Bench of the High wasfthat there was fraud and _ A misffreprersentation on the part of A4".[i'\i'a.ndi, which vitiated the entire tahsaction. It was contended before '-tithe High Court by the State Government that this fraud came to be noticed subsequent to the judgment in Somashekar Redciy (supra). It is pertinent to note that this point was put on record through the affidavits of KK. Misra, Chief Secretary of the Government of Karnataka, M, Shivaiingaswamy, Under Secretary, Department of 235 industries and Commerce, which suggested that bubiic interest being affected as a resuit execution of the FWA. It appears. A the main contentiongggof petitioners Mr. LC. A ;, others before the Highfieurt \_A.1as'..tiié'at"';
the FWA was vitiated asaiiiesiiiiiar fraud and/or,~~ 1..ijjnisrepresen--tation. Presumabiy; T ._ ; uCorit'eiw..t_iVon was urged in AgVet".eye"r1vg.ithe bar of res"i:;f"udi?:ata'"'x 'ari.s'i--n*~~.......1 from the Reddy ~ \i'J.h'en theirnzatter was argued 'befoifej".iuu's~,:_:""~--although Mr. Divan addressed isonie arguments on fraud, the q'uicfk|yT. abandoned them and expresflyfgave it up. Considering that ;"'th:is--..was the main thrust of the State's if'V'«7--V'tj*;_argument before the High Court and .'"has been expressly given up before us; we couid have dismissed the appeais en this narrow point alone. Nonetheiess, since Mrs Divan argued the question of res jedicata with same 522% 236 persistence, we wiii deai with it subsequenfly.
25. On the merits of the arg.s§{rhe'h'tg*«::Q:
of fraud/misrepresentation,,_...t.h..e'f.Hi'g:h 3 Court has gone intuit and has demonstrated_ the hO»iiQ.\.f\fne'ss--£\s,,, of this contentiehyt-..We a'I'e__ in.VVCen"i';f§i'ete agreement with_.iiie:__v.iews"exgregssed therein on.._"t*--h_is--'_V:issue"~«..b»ut'~\{ve wish to highlight the rACsC.i;as.pects to ili..u«st;ra.te of mala on the other ' Court has come to VV'c.at'e_gerui'cai conclusion that the f!i"p'--'w...:fi_opAv on the part of the State Government occurred oniy because of " V§?A<3*3:i.t§,cians, that the maia tides, if any, ."t:'§at3pears to be on the part of the State .V4Government for poiiticai reasons. The High Court has pointed out that the i'-'WA did not materiaiise out of the biue. The FWA was negotiated over 23?
several months; it came to be drafted by considering several points that Cabinet Stib-Cornmittee had As we have already was only thereafteryyyyvhegn""'d*ete,i'l'e:;j"~_V deliberations had taken.4ypla'ege':tat. highest Government tha'tt.:t"'l*~:ie and the ,Projec.t-~~--Rtfeport_ acoep-ted': A Governme'*ntg., (dated 20.11.199.5).:'was--.§ssu'e'd Vgr'eiqLJiring the Ru'b'lie' Wo"rl<s;Departr'n'ent.:to enter into era hamster Llnderstanding with V ._ the .;CieV'ns'o.rti.om'"oi? "three companies, ' 'Kalyani. On 9.9.1996, 9' thro't:g"h.:'th':e~;_CAA, the three members uof_"thet Consortium agreed to '~--f'...unCo'n'ditionally and irrevocably V"i:v"'tr:a*n.sfer and assign, jointly and V'«7."yj--.seyerally..." to Nandi "....all rights, .'*"interest and title granted to them..
with respect to the infrastructure GOK Order and the Memorandum of Understanding". The Corridor by under the Government levels_ or the .Sta'te"} \.e-t - V 238 CAA came to be signed by the three members of the Consortium on one hand and Nandi on the Governor of Karnataka, on A the Government of..i.Karna--'ta''i<'a%.:'.';Vviiasf.V :
shown as the "CoréAsen-ting copy of this agVr«e_emeri~t_t}v--as for';ii'.arded':'; to the State Goverhment'*--a_iV_ong.: a forwarding.' iett.e*tV:.'d*at'ed 2i'.'12.1~*3996 requesting T that .:'V'VG..o vernment approve of~--s'a.rri.e 'a'hd&:"a,d§Iise of its th:at7"'v-----twhe originai ag'r'eernent"Cftio'u«.ldi- "b:e*"given to the V --. LState:i§:.; '<3ove'rn mient "tor its consent. 'This'ff-»i:e*i:te'r'--s.:_:was' forwarded by the it Pubiie.'Wori{s'4[§epartment to the Law uD'ep;a'rtment; through a ietter dated i_22.1.'199"7 (No. PWD 155 CRM 96) "i:."'isoee-king an opinion on the issue. The 'V A Government was advised by its . "Law Department (through Opinion No. 182 OPN II/97 dated 3/4.3.1997) that since the Government was finaiising a separate agreement with Nandi, there was no need to specificaiiy consent to § § § 3 3 243 change of Government in Karnataka in 2004. In the year 2004, whiie State Governments writ stiii pending before the Bench, a statement__iw.a_s' H.D. Deve Gowcia, Minister, mai<i.ng_ sertotis ai!Ve'get§4o'ns_T; .
with regard to t'h'é{PFOj€Cf .stat.tng'°vthaVt it was nothing but *a_fch"a.rade'Ab'y-A which Nandi haor""cony¢{.,éig.ec3"*rrtipihinto a real estate busirve.s's.V=I.t'=_wa's at.v"this stage that}-3V XNo.00}g'r>vvo7E/375/2004 _Vda_4te.ci' written by the ' - r.n':c:2'w ii?-3 i\7i*i~n.'ister,S""' Public Works '-- ' De'p'ai=tgmevn'i:,,.__'"iVi_'r.' H.D. Revanna, who is_non"e.'0th_.er than the son of Mr. Gowda, to the Principal .Secretary, Public Works Department. note in terms states that iand it"taicciuisition by the State Government 'tor the Project was to cease tiii the aiiegation that Nandi was carrying out a reai estate business was enquired into. With this, the State Government snddeniy haited/sioweci aié ongoing Interim..--««' Report of the 241i activities for smooth implementation of the Project. Indeed, it is SlIl'E3flQg'E:,""'.g. that the State Government wol.<He__"--v after seven long years, and?' more strangely after...a>__cha_h'g'e :
States political lead.ers:h.ip} 1 g V U«.d/._; ., that there» _ "wa'e m isrepresentatio*nV:V't3y Na ndi orrda nyione else.
31. PuVrevUaVrit"__'t(}» e.rg,irrthe Minister of « 't.hVe. PL:l_bll€C .:'..'Worl<vej_'~«De_partment set V 'l _ mittee" (head ed ;:*--':»{.v:'_.C. go into the . a'I'll'etg«a_tions;,_o-f.excess land acquired by " the for implementation the Project. After accepting the Expert A '«..Committee, the Government withdrew it V"'47"~v_v._g_iteappeal filed before the High Court '-f7anci the reasons for the same are mentioned in a Government Order (PWD 155 CRM 95 BMICP Expert Committee/2004, dated 7.1.2005)! As we shall see later in the Bangalore 242 judgment; the constitution and functioning of this Committee alsgong ., -
illustrates the maia-- tides with the State Government A approached the Projegct.
utter irresponsibility iii-i.tihfiv iAih':ic.h'*- theory of fraud/inisreipresentation.iwaslf put forward is t'iivio:roughly---- .e'_xpo.seE:i the High--_ Court" in '"»its irnpugned J'udgment§"--'7g._ "
102. margins: tiieigr¢'uhdslqil'gled earlier is how non-appliiiati:o'n"'ot"----mi'i'i1&jvvi_a'n--.dAi--fraucl while exercising the power ghaswlresulted in acquisition of land 'r'a'r__awVayvfrolroperipheral road. According to the petiltionersgw V-lighlet entire process of acquisition after e.n_'teringé i-'WA is an outcome of colourable exercise of"paviier_~v_.lj_y:.ft'i'ie eminent domain and systematic fraud, mi's"i"ei3'tese.ntation is played which has resulted in acquisition of land far excess than what is required and Ailaciciuisition of ianci beyond and away from the peripherai road etc. According to them; the officiais of 243 the various departments have also coiiudedjj.vv.i_t'n_the project proponent for the best reaso_nf_s"""ahd__j:f-the individual benefits known to theifn.__ T_i*':'e3/'Vth'a't' . one Major Rarnesh who was the E:§_ec:i*eta.ry~ and signatory to the variotivjs'-eorresponde-nee"on behaif' of the Government thet>rVojg_eCt';-._after'retirement has joined the project and he was the cause for of inspite of the afgdieiviation from the PTR and hundreds of No Objecttiori given by KIADB to various persons to4"seH"!ia'nd's vvhich were notified by KIADB for andwmost of them are relatives of the Such of the persons who got No Ob'j'ec:t*s'on*"'"'Certifi<:ates are wife and son of Major Ratrnesh and one Mr. Rodragovvda, who was signatory the statement of objections in the above case. Vhivtccording to them, Smt. Shakuntaiamma vv/o Major Ramesh and Rajti Ramesh s/o Major Rarnesh have got 244 ,--
such certificates. Major Ramesh and Rudrago_wrj:a.._t;~Vave aEso obtained such certificates. Thereforeecpo:t.e!I':'e«j'*~tt3r.s, them, there is non-appiication.of-rninéjhhove'tI.heV"p4.a'rt"etVVf the officials of the Board apart1'«frsoA.tn'tfra'uo. 'on. of abuse of power. If the«.pe*r.nf%_isVs'évoo'e For No Objection Certificates..yg:eret"gj'itrVejn'uVh3,('.KIeDVB violation Of any D!'0C€dLU'€, the enquire into the same to" any malafides on the part Board in showing relvatives of the officials of of Major Ramesh and one MrV.4_§jR"ud.rag0wd_a§ purchase of the property is in co»:3_tra_ve'nti.--otn of any of the enactment, the concerned auLthori.t:y can preceed against them in accordance with h' Similariy, it No Objection Certificates were given "'"VtfithOL1t foiiowing the procedure contemplated, there can be an enquiry made into such aliegations. 245 However, the above allegations complained would not go to the root of the acquisition proceedings;"a:s~.._the acquisition was held to be for public mischief of officials of instru_ment.a'l'it'ieg Government cannot scuttle thelpresent meant for the public.
104. The learnedl' have also brought on like fraud with regard to' while exempting from 'theVivNICEL when sale deeds came to the parties. According to the _petitio_n'e'r's on 7.11.2000 a cabinet note was Tfi:o':r._vaccording stamp duty exemption on first in respect of 5,850 acres of saleable area i..n"*«Vtovx}nships and on 20.11.2000 cabinet accorded uni'"_j.a'p'p-r.oval for the stamp duty exemption. But NICEL sgbnnitted to PWD that exemption from payment of stamp duty is required for 14,33? acres instead of 24$ 5,850 acres and the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department prepared a note stating that th4e.VV_iC:ab_inet note stand modified. This is totally non----application of mind is the..conteritio'riiii';»i*i'ie_'r*efe_re'4. on account of playing massivei.Afrla_AudV, s'uc'h..Iyexlefiiotiilon for stamp duty for 14,33"?~.,:a'eres W35 This is followed by Governm'e'i"it:."y_C3rd-er dated 24.1.2001 according stamp duty for purchase of 14,337 that again on 21.1 1.20012 orders bifurcating the 10,126 acres in favour of acres in favour of NECEL.
Accordingéllto» learned counsel for the petitioners, the the various authorities while giving Objection Certificates to various per'son--sa to sell lands and also to various persons to buiricghalse would only indicate there was discrimination on' the part of the authorities in treating the similarly pieced persons anéforrniy. According to them, fraud 247 is piayed so as to accommodate the project proponent not to pay stamp duty in respect of huge exten't:.o'fg:i'a.ynd when the cabinet nod was oniy in BCFES.
material facts have to be tai<en"._into »'t:_onsideration--t..g This Court cannot undertake-'*i.theV. ex_erei."se'V"'otVHiookingi into the various factuai iss'u§S atmaxconciusion whether in fact had occurred in some ofAoVt':~V'tiie--VEGovernment while issuing The Government has to and make an enquiry whetherr.ts'uch'Fraud' resulting in loss to the puybiiq exchVe"qu._Ve'r'; The stamp duty paid wouid go to the the Government and the same has to be ;i§eT;;.t i;h4e""..pubiic. If there is any iiiegaiity or
--V dutSio.u"syV "process being adopted to accommodate iifaariiyoéneflifrauduientiy not to pay the stamp duty, it has dealt with stem hand, The question is whether the aiiegatiorzs of fraud; maiafides, abuse of power; he In order to arrivegat' a4.cgo'nci.usiort, 'several 7 "am 248 coiourabie exercise of power wouid go to the root of the acquisition proceedings ? As pointed oat:'-by-..vthe respondents, we note that Major Secretary, PWD becoming the..con_'sVuiVt'a'rnt4 the; project proponent was discussed co'nsi'd.ered.:i'n..vthe earlier round of iitigationi *Sta_:tectabove, is for the concerned:authoiri'tirjtoVVV"enquire"i'nt'o the said aiiegations and law. First there has to such fraud and abuse and if so, the concerned_' action against the defauiters' from setting the things right; "
doubt iong delay in chaiienging the V acgkuisi'tiohiiiiworoceedings can be condoned provided the itV'4'2..ji.:avcciuisivtiion was without authority of iaw or if it is an Zootcome of incurabie iiiegaiity. The learned senior cotinsei Mr. i-ioiia reiies upon these decisions to _-"w?T"'?A Z49 contend that on account of the fraud played, the acquisition has to be quashed.
1. ILR 1999 KAR 314 (KRISHNARAO cg:p i<AI«iiALAAI<AReVii RAG .vs. sTATE OF KARNATAKA). D I I 4
2. AIR 1993 sc 802 (DELHI I2;oHTAs Lroi-IT COMPANY LIMITED L V BHOJPUR)
3. ILR 2005 KAR I953 '{{3Vi:'.V:ivJ;4€i:\iV§l§IF9t;A'MVA REDDY .vs. sTATE OF i<ARNATAs:<AyAAiND-oTiiEfi{s) 1065 For the petitioners by decision in the case of ORIENTAL' (P) LIMITED .vs. STATE or-f4:;A:zi\iATAA:<Attreportted in (2oo7)I4 scc 73 contends Court order passed contrary to or at decision of the Supreme Court would suriifxtevii "this citation was pressed into service to contend that the entire project subsequent to AIMO ' ihjudoiment reported in (2GO6)4 SCC 683 was in biatant violation of the directions of this Court and the V:DIS'i"§{IACj_'"i*~v... E5oRD,ifr 250 Supreme Court. Therefore the petitions have to be allowed. He relies upon judgment in th_eV.tV_Vc-efsevv of MEERUT DEVELOPMENT ASSOCUUTON OF!WANAGEMENI§§flflfiESj¢podedjnsE' (2009)6 SCC 171 to contend ithgg"
'public interest' if emplog/ed:"~~i..n ah"particuj'lar"*;VsVtatute, has to be understoodend inath'e 'light of the entire scheme, purpose:a'njcl'i"'obj.ec*tn.jof_'_'the enactment. If the said it cannot be pressed right upon a person who any such right in law.
It is that public interest floats in _a"vast,'-.c_leep "ocean of ideas and 'imagined Therefore it would be unwise for the l"Courts"krehture into this unchartered minefield. .v Noriezovféwthhle proceedings before us are public interest E];fiogauoh.
AuTHoern67§»fvs, 'A N') ieno OTHERS .vs. 251
107. In the eadier round 01' iitigatien, the public interest iitigation has reached finaiity and E35,?»-'.4"§!'_"3'ia_V_t'E€3E' of fact two contempt petitions__.i'rfii"e'd*--:J Dakshinamurthy, NICEL and ot__h.erfs are":ieh7_c§§n'gi the Apex Court where vaE'i:ouE5{*~issii~eS' im iementation of the e.rao7ect,"'excese. "jbein"' 1~,_}__ ._ .v 9 handed over to the--~.projectV:..g:§ro'p»Qnent"i'ne the I 8: II phase of the proéect As a matter of fe.vc't;.e_en be flied by the the":.oi*it;iinaI correspondence petitioners. The Goveihnfent submitted the originai fiie and;"we that/_e""'go'ne" through the correspondence various departments and the ~é.né;.tw"h1e'hta~§it'i.es of the Government. ..1vQ8';£The ieamed counsei for the petitioners relies ion'-tthesdecision in the ease of SOPAN suxneeo SABLE ASSISTANT CHARITY CQMMISSIONER reperted in {2€}G4)3 SCC 13? te 252 ..
contend that one has to read the entire plead_ing_s'.j'oi..a petition and cannot pick out isola.te_du.VVniordsil"o.ij7.,. sentences. Therefore what isI_re<;1_.uirjed--_in__'la.\,£i»ist__note ' piecemeal reading of the.»t'p-l.aint,V7bu't a entirety. Similarly several judgments to judgments of this Court hay'e.__to and not as a of the decision of the all those citations in detail:-_'No_nev in previous judgments are _read°'in 'iisoVlatio_n"~~as could be observed from the ab'o'ire:,.Adiscussion;' """
1Ci9._T..he argument of the learned counsel for the petiVt«ilo'ne'_tfs__ pertaining to de-notification is a multifold arg'um'ent;": According to the petitioners, once nobficaltion under section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition is issued, lands sought to be acquired stood reverted to the owner with full bundie of rights. In W V 254 SC 12271 for the same proposition! The...V_le'aI:ned counsel has placed reliance on the decisio__n3'_:éi.n'thje:
of KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL __A.R_EAS_--'"lD'El{ifiL.'iZiF?_i'i?lEi\lV'l"'» BOARD .\/s. c. KENCHAPPA repoiéted 71 to contend that obtainEng...'clea'ian<:e_if-torn'"Poi"lution'V Control Board andv;-«the 'o'f"--Eco§logy and Environment is mandlaton/-V-.a"nid to the land acquisition places reliance on the V'E:.f5Sl€\R OIL LIMITED .vs. reppaiied in (2o04)2 scc 392 to the lay----out would set the propigectgat lnaupghllt. According to the learned counsel _iE'i::th:e.,...Derip'heral road is complete, it should be in the acquisition proceedings by abuse power is established.
'V A' In View of the above discussion, the nature alleged would not definitely scuttle the project which is meant for the utiiity of the citizens of the 255 State. Even otherwise, the project itself was upheid En the earlier round of litigation. Therefore t_4h..ei»-.;tSS_ues touching the validity of the project cannot.«E§Ae':§iofL;e"
as the same is hit by principlesof ,res~j_-LitiiiC'att;ol""~
111. The learned for illogetiltioners brought to our the decision in the case of State of-'%<e.rna.VtaAl.ea_ reported in (2006)-4 that the State Governmventf:'ah«:-zit: are entitled to e><erc:i'se rights under the FWA, but they .do"f.a'iriy, reasonably and without ThV'eyv------f--*--««i*ther held that in the event they do Court will be entitled to interfere with ':;Paragraph--61 of the above decision reads as undet:
"61. Thus, it appears that no exception could be taken to relief granted in the 256 judgment of the High Court impugned before us. All that the High Court has done reaffirm and require the State and its instrurr:entalities,_.a.s__"'St«ate'"::i'i§»nd'eri.V the Constitution, to act w;i'tgho1Qt"
and male fides, land acquisition:-;.._It toilinoltefithat the State had augre_ed' of the required V its best efforts " " and-_é' its governmental Viri-s.tV_r'u'mentalities to use their best "efforts, to exercise its and their legal H of eminent domain (or other right "of similar nature) under the laws of India to acquire the acquired land. Prior to acquiring any acquired land, GOK wiii ebtain from the Company 257 written cenfirmatiori of its wiiiihgness to purchase such acquired iand GOK at the purchase price the form of cash or..cp_mpare'i§'i"e'.'j,E.;g'hd.};_ required under the;"i§av§i.s 'acquired iand~cdrn>periVsa_ti0-riii}; shaii offerto the" e§_<fp'rdp_ria'ted"'owvhers of the iaridd package for this Project with """ the consortium Authorities in uaiccprdianice iivith the applicable ruies." ' ieamed senior cousnei Mr, Dushyanth to paragraph-62 of the decision stated "5.Tj;f~.__"--supra',-ifiihich reads as under:
62' Ire these circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the said directipns at the High Ceurt, In the future 'a; swam ' hf X Mm.W...m..Mwwu~wm 258 also; we make it clear that while the State Government and its instrumentaiities at;'ef"»l. entitled to exercise their contractual_..ti§ht_s:*;~ under the FWA, they must do reasonably and without _nfia.l_a fici'ésV§/"in. the_'_;_ it event that they do not do sci-,iiitl?ie"raf;otirt wii'li....A be entitled to interfere_ with'*.th'e it
113. When paragra_oh;s:61_»L an'd"..6j_A2_e§are read together, it is clear that.t'h_eff~.iiidi'ea_i:iAonor the direction at paragraph'-::o2.__wa_is' .l":€f€£fij§~;'l'iC€?;«'Vv'vliO the change of stand tal<e'ri"">b3/'V-th'_e.:G:o--i,i§e~rnrne'ntas noticed in the case of other public interest l iti g a tvioonls... be "eh 'e « rt.
'V114. \Nxe'v--h:a__\_(eA.'taken into consideration the above r a_vrgutn'ents, list furnished by the Government H)1,.dVocVate7cj';oVnat25.3.2011, details of the notifications isstiedfitietween 30.10.1998 and 2.9.2009 for BMIC ;:iroj'ect. The details furnished are as under: 260
115. All the above details pertain under section 3(1), 1(3), 28(1)__a.n_d 2804;' Act. As per this document, the *t_p't'al declared under section 2A9,25€>,_32 By"?
the time 1(3) notifVieation'..icaVnf§eit-:>_made; extent was reduced to time 28(1) notification reduced to 20,945.15" g;g;g;eé; nil':e8r;2.2oo3 and 2.9.2009 final ileaaiaiilorgfiinaaalpsegilonA28(4) of the KIAD Act came of 4,812.28 '/2 acres. This is apaijt fVroifn""'hariding over possession of lands i3e_long"inAg .to._the Government. ._ "._«Ai'i:§;:.ItAV~:i's"'.worth noticing the following:
there was cry of excess land proposed to bet--.a&cdVoired or intended to be handed over to the ' projlect proponent, these issues came to be considered 261 in severai rounds ef iitigation right from the case of H.T.Somasl7ei<ar Ready. By virtue of s.e'verai judgments, it is clear that after soientifi_e:'_:'"Stsr.\re§ii iands taking into account all teghpnicai.iti'eis;:'_ft.o'tai'*.iand". required for the project as per Entire toil road which c'e.rivsi.sts o'r"__exp'i<ess;way,": link-V road, peripheral road} inte*rVshangi_es,.'Atoii. piiaza and service roads is abodtV"€3;V§9v9i;'Vricreise.Aecording to the petitioners as"niej'i-I land is already handed proponent in the I & II phase? H A pending consideration beforevviiijie fact remains time and agai;n,'i_iearned"'1senior counsel Mr.Dushyant Dave project proponent has made a 'AV~i:e"fore Apex Court that they wouid not ciairn.. ainything more than 20,193 acres. But as on rpod-aypioniy 41 kms of peripheral road has come into iiieaisitence with smaii hits and pieces yet to be eempietedi A portion of the expressway abeut :2 to 262 15 kiiptneters as per the submissions of the learned counsel for the project proponent is completetl.t¢:'_"c..The project was envisaged in 1995, but peripheral road, link roads and_Jservice_--'roaol:s';v the peripheral road apart from i;<§_terche.n'ge's plaza are completed. of" of"
expressway, only 1v.2.._to A1-5*VV:l{_i'l-ometers"is. completed. Though the project interest of public facilitatiiingg. growth, creating ."lroV_l"':xi/a'rious persons of the Statetfvthelp' at the first stage of the proje:c't No particular person can be blamedgg.for.'thvi_s'tlelay. 'Delay is due to obstacles caused py:"»*ar'ipus"Utigations right from 1995 onwards and so "'alsepp«chra'r_rg_e'fin"'.the stand of successive Governments to V .V hand e§f.e'r"'V'the land. Having entered into FWA, both Stiate and project proponent owe a duty to the peeple \. A'.
" «'"\li7't Aloflliéfarnataka to see that the project is implemented. 'Qn account pf deletion of several lands belonging to wwmmwimmmwmmmhmmei 263 sirniiariy situated persons, writ;p,egt_ition's"'wesrj2'Vf'iie_df account of obtaining some infogrrriatiioniii'~w'i'th"
the correspondence betw'e_e"n..V_the"'vari'oos.: d'eVp'artn*:ents and instrumentaiitieszof th.e'é.t'ate"-dorinég'the-process of acquisition, the land' again and again chaiie.n«gi:nVg trig; V:VNo doubt, it is a poiicy to identify which iand jigi{;ii3t¢rg%rii..;;hdihiirposerui for which of the componerits As on today, preiiminary notificagtioén" and odd acres of private land apéirt:,--.§»on:ir_.handing over good number of acres of Ge}/erinrT':.ent'VV'ia"nd. The final notification is in respect of 4,000 .«._;:§md':""odd acres under section 28(4) of the Act. it i"he_ieva"rned Advocate General brought to the notice of 'Court the resistance by the farmers of the State for if "acquisition of their respective iands. If identification of these iands vis-a--vis with reference to different components of the project as envisaged under scheduie~4 of the ewe is made ie. whether it is 265 project was made, the learned sen_i.er..._:€§'eu'nse.i Dushyanth Dave submitted that need not answer the details asitis alrea--'ti§,2j'aAnsi;4yei'eti~~t' in the earlier round of iit'iiit_3jation. such identification is not H V
117. i\i%ci";iatii;i,y acquiaiiiian of huge land is bound to€tesfiu'l;t.in"' :Ci'elil'ay";; "But: this delay would lead is annehaiiiiiyiisiiiigaion aéihe land loser would be grieving a--bout_the_blCo.mpe'nsation he would be getting as per _m*a_rl<etgy.alue as on the date of the notyifiéaitionlu'n.dei9 section 28(1) of the Act. By the time aiA:iVard_:"".ii:s :b"a.ssed and the amount is deposited, if the "ivs"~_.i%noi'fei"'than 8 to 10 years, the compensation assiessvedebased on the market vaiue at the time of preliri':.iVn'3ary notification may not be of any help to them "shto__iii_urchase alternate property or to attend to their needs. This feeling of the land owners is also one of the reasons why writ petitions after writ petitions are 266 coming before this Court chaiienging the acquisit_i__on of the lands. The price fixation committee has--ijt'e:'fdo*.aa scientific and technicai survey whiie price that has to be paid as conibe':isia_ti'.ony_;v'«toivihiesiianvidcii losers towards their |and. , % scheme as envisaged in th'e'{F'i'i/A is".not:.Ves.tahiVished, 'V injustice is the resuit[:_""!Tho.iiii;;htfehavvb~--i.i.itatioVn scheme is envisaged, it appears...i_t'_Vhas._V n_ot"'~c'o'inrtVi'enced so far. The State notification is done, the ianCi;"i'*'3_Sts"""JiiiAth~.~"th'e Viéovernment. If not for this '."V"p.rfoj'ect';"i:'the land '''' "could be utilised for the other the objectives of the KIAD Act. . Api:5'arev~ntiy:finai notification is not issued in respect of it --.i:en»ti.ije iand which is notified under section 28(1) of the 26?
KIAD Act' It wotsid not be difficult for thevvg:i'r_io-stjvs instrumentaiiteis and authorities of the concerned with the project tov.--ma«i<e technicai exercise to identify needed for the project. V.therej'i_:»ii'i'ii"'be not uncertainty in the igpiuvbiicj and the iand~owners. We are the fact that contempt ate the Apex Court wherein pertaining to the impleinentetiosn 119".r..__"fhv the above discussion and re5_;:s3ohihg4,_ v:'}e"*'ere_A.vof the opinion that none of the by the petitioners are tenable and the ecgtiisitiohi.piroceedings cannot be quashed. The writ petitiothép and the writ appea/5 are /iabie to be .uunu-«warvww»«NMwh2«wr\AK\(\IxtIMA\4>W)»fl®\V!(\K%§%'&'Ik«V§£§K 268 > dismissed. Accora':';?g/y, 3!! the writ pefifians am)' the writ appeals are dismisses'. 3%