Karnataka High Court
K P Ravikumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 September, 2020
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO.9300 OF 2020 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
K.P. RAVIKUMAR
S/O LATE PUTTASIDDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/A. NO.159, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
K.K. LAYOUT,
PAPAREDDYPALYA,
BANGALORE-560072.
....PETITIONER
(BY SRI SIDDARTH B. MUCHANDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
3. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
NO.14/3, MAHARSHI ARAVINDA BHAVAN,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
2
BENGALURU-560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER.
...RESPONDENTS
(SMT. SRUTI CHAGANTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
OF PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 21.07.1999 ISSUED
BY R-2 IN U/S 28(1) OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT ACT 1966, AT ANNEXURE-A, SO FAR AS THE
LAND OF THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the preliminary notification dated 21.07.1999 issued by respondent No.2 under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short 'the Act', 1966).
2. Petitioner's Vendor namely Mr. M.V.V. Satyanarayana was the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.148 measuring 10 acres situated at Kannamangala Village, Kasaba Hobli, Channapatna Taluk .
3. Respondent No.2 issued a preliminary notification dated 21.07.1999 under Section 28(1) of 'the Act', 1966 for acquiring the land in question for Industrial purposes. 3 Thereafter, the entire extent of land measuring 10 acres in Sy.No.148 was sub divided and it was re-assigned with new Sy.No.298.
4. Petitioner states that since respondent No.2 did not issue a final notification under Section 28(4) of 'the Act', 1966, the land in question was sold in favour of the petitioner by Sri M.V.V. Satyanarayana by executing a registered sale deed dated 28.06.2012. After purchasing the land in question, the petitioner filed an application under Right to Information Act to furnish information with regard to the status of the acquisition. Even though land in question was notified for acquisition in the year 1999, respondents have not issued final notification under Section 28(4) of 'the Act' 1966 till date. Impugned Notification issued by Respondent No.2 is coming in the way of the Petitioner to enjoy the land absolutely. Hence, this writ petition.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that even though land was notified for acquisition in the year 1999, it has not been followed by issuance of final notification under Section 28(3) of 'the Act', 1966 till date. The impugned preliminary notification has lapsed by operation 4 of law since the final notification which should have been issued within a reasonable time has not been issued till date.
6. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the Division Bench decision of this court in the case of M.N.Shivanna and Others v State of Karnataka and Another reported in 2013(4) AKR 163 and the order passed in W.A.No.2402/2014. He has also referred to the order/s passed in W.P.No.51076 of 2019 connected with W.P.Nos.5210 and 5222 of 2020, wherein the very same preliminary notification has been quashed at the instance of the other land owners.
7. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that, because of genuine reasons, the preliminary notification was not followed by issuing a final notification. They further submit that the Petitioner who is a subsequent purchaser cannot maintain this writ petition. In support of this submission, Learned Counsel for KIADB has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of SHIV KUMAR & ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER reported in (2019) 10 SCC 229.
5
8. However, the Learned Counsel for Respondents concedes that the impugned notification in respect of lands belonging to other land owners have been quashed by this Court in W.P.No.51076 of 2019 connected with W.P.Nos.5210 and 5222 of 2020.
9. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties.
10. It is a fact that preliminary notification issued in 1999 has not been followed by issuing a final notification till date. There can be no explanation much ness a valid explanation for not issuing a final notification even after a lapse of 20 years. The final notification will have to be issued within reasonable time, if period of limitation is not prescribed under the KIAD Act. In the instant case, even after a lapse of twenty years, final notification has not been issued. The decisions rendered in the case of M.N.Shivanna and Others supra and W.A.No.2402/2014 are squarely applicable to the case on hand. The impugned preliminary notification as such has lapsed by operation of law since the Respondents have abandoned the land from acquisition.
6
11. On the question of maintainability of the writ petition, learned counsel for KIADB has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case SHIV KUMAR & ANOTHER supra. In the case before the Apex Court, the land was purchased after issuance of final notification and the purchaser participated in the proceedings for determination of compensation and thereafter award was passed. The purchaser therein challenged the acquisition proceedings contending that acquisition proceedings have lapsed u/s 24(2) of 2013 Act. The Apex Court has held that a sale effected after publication of Section 4 Notification of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, without prior permission of competent authority is ab initio void and the purchaser has no right to claim the land under the policy. The view taken by the Apex Court was taken in the context of Section 11(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 which is akin to Section of 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 . The said provision contains a prohibition that no person shall cause any transaction of land or create any encumbrance on the land specified in the preliminary notification without the prior permission of the competent authority.
7
12. In the present case, the impugned preliminary notification was issued in 1999 under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act. In the said Act, there is no restriction for alienating the land specified in the preliminary notification. However, The Karnataka Land (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1991 imposes certain restriction on transfer of lands which have been acquired or in respect of which acquisition proceedings have been initiated. Section 4 of the said Act specifies that no person shall without permission from the competent authority transfer any land which is proposed to be acquired in connection with the scheme and in relation to which declaration has been published under Section 19 of Bangalore Development Act, 1976 or Karnataka Urban Development Act, 1987. Even assuming that the act is applicable to the proposed acquisition under KIAD Act, it is only after publication of declaration under Section 28(3) of the Act, the land specified in said final declaration cannot be transferred without the permission from the competent authority. Further, there cannot be an indefinite embargo on the owner of the land to alienate his land. Petitioner has purchased the land in question after publication of preliminary notification and the same cannot said to be ab initio void. 8 Hence, the submission of the learned counsel for KIADB, that the Petitioner cannot maintain this writ petition is not acceptable.
13. Under the circumstances, the impugned preliminary notification issued by Respondent No.2 has lapsed since the Respondents have abandoned the land from acquisition. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed.
(ii) Impugned notification dated 21.07.1999 issued by respondent No.2 under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, at Annexure-A is hereby quashed.
In view of disposal of the Writ petition, I.A.No.1/2020 shall stand consigned to record room.
Sd/-
JUDGE HR