Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(i) On 03.04.1997, FWA was entered into between petitioners and 1st respondent - State for implementation of the BMIC Project; subsequently, on 14.10.1998, petitioners have entered into an Agreement in this regard with the KIADB.

(ii) During the period from 19.12.1998 to 23.03.2009, preliminary notifications were issued by the State under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act in an extent of 344 acres.

(iii) Between 18.02.2003 and 02.06.2009, final notifications under Section 28(4) of KIAD Act were issued.

POINT NO. 1:

19. I.A.Nos.1/2013, 2/2013 & 3/2013 have been filed by the applicants who are the land owners to implead them as parties to the proceedings. I.A.No.4/2013 has been filed by the respondents 2 and 3 to implead PWD as party to the proceedings. The applicant in I.A.No.1/2013 is the owner of Sy.No.64/1 measuring 3 acres 1 gunta of Gottigere village. The applicant in I.A.No.2/2013 is the owner of Sy.No.44/1 measuring 2 acres 23 guntas of Madavara village. The applicant in I.A.No.3/2013 is the owner of Sy.No.34/3 measuring 1 acre 18 guntas of Doddathogur village. The lands of the applicants have been acquired for BMIC project. Possession has been handed over. The applicant in I.A.No.1/2013 has preferred Civil Appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.761/2013. However, there is no stay or any other interim order restraining not to pass any award. The land has been acquired and acquisition proceedings have been upheld and there is no stay restraining not to pass any award. Therefore, in our considered view, the presence of the applicants is not required to consider the relief claimed in the writ petitions. Therefore, I.A.Nos.1/2013, 2/2013 & 3 /2013 are hereby rejected. Similarly, PWD is not a necessary party to the proceedings. Accordingly, I.A.No.4/2013 is hereby rejected.

POINT NO.2:

20. Insofar as the question as to whether the respondents-3 & 4 can to be directed to pass the awards is concerned, it is not in dispute that 344 acres of land mentioned in Annexure-A has been acquired for BMIC project. It is also not in dispute that possession of the land has been handed over to the petitioners. The acquisition proceedings have been concluded upto the Apex Court.

21. It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that Secretary, PWD department has filed an affidavit before the Hon'ble Supreme Court stating that excess of land has been handed over. The contention regarding excess of land has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.NAGABHUSHANA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in 2011(3) SCC page 408.

• The covenants in the aforesaid Agreements that lands would be acquired for the purpose of the BMIC project of the petitioners.

• The various Government Orders including the orders dated 18.01.1997, 30.04.1997 and 04.07.1998, whereby various posts were created comprising of the Special Deputy Commissioners, SLAOs, Staff etc., exclusively dedicated and appointed for the purpose of BMIC project.

• The acquired land were handed over solely and exclusively to the petitioners and not any one else; in other words, the entire extent of land acquired under the subject acquisition was handed over only to the petitioners and no portion of acquired land was handed over or given / granted in favour of any one else. • Except issuing possession certificates thereby handing over possession of the acquired lands to the petitioners, no allotment letter, lease-cum-sale agreement etc., which created right in favour of the petitioners, post agreements were executed thereby indicating that the entire acquisition was for the benefit of the petitioners. • Reference to BMIC Project in the preliminary and final notifications as well as the awards also indicate that the land was acquired for the benefit of the petitioners. • The mutual conduct of the petitioners, State Government and KIADB pre- acquisition and post - acquisition also indicate that both the State Government and KIADB have throughout held and represented that the lands were acquired for the benefit of the petitioners. 15.4 In the case of Himalayan Tiles (supra), the Apex Court held as under:-