Karnataka High Court
Smt C Shashikala vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 December, 2021
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.48591 OF 2016 (LA-KIADB)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.59693 OF 2016 (LA-KIADB),
WRIT PETITION NO.1997 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB),
WRIT PETITION NO.2267 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB),
WRIT PETITION NO.11542 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB)
IN W.P.NO.48591/2016
BETWEEN:
SMT. C SHASHIKALA,
W/O M JAYARAM,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/O ATTIBELE HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 106.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M B RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
RASHTROTHANA BUILDING,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER.
2
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
NO.3/2, ARAVIND BHAVAN,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
4. M/S PALRECHA INFRASTRUCTURE AND
DEVELOPERS.
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
OFFICE NO.203, 2ND FLOOR,
BATAVIA CHAMBERS, KUMAR PARK ROAD,
KUMAR PARK EAST, BANGALORE - 560 001.
REP BY ITS PARTNER
PRAVEEN SHAH,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O P H SHAH,
RESIDING AT NO.286, 17TH CROSS,
8TH MAIN, UPPER PALACE ORCHID,
SADASHIVANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 080.
AMENDED V.C.O DATED 19.02.2019
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SRIDHAR HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B B PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3;
SRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PAVAN G N, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
R-1 TO DE-NOTIFY THE LAND OF THE PETITIONER IN
SY.NO.83/4, MEASURING 1 ACRE AND 36 GUNTAS, SITAUTED
AT IGGALUR VILLAGE, ANEKALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT FROM THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AT
ANNEXS-G & H AND ETC.,
IN W.P.NO.59693/2016
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. BALARAJ,
S/O LATE V MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/O IGGALUR, CHANDAPURA TALUK,
3
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 103.
2. SRI. LOKESH,
S/O SRI NARAYNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/O IGGALUR, CHANDAPURA POST,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 106.
3. SRI. LAKSHMAIAH,
S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/O IGGALUR CHANDAPURA POST,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 106.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M B RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE,
BY ITS SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
RASHTROTHANA BUILDING,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
NO.3/2, ARAVIND BHAVAN,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
4. M/S PALRECHA INFRASTRUCTURE AND
DEVELOPERS.
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
OFFICE NO.203, 2ND FLOOR,
4
BATAVIA CHAMBERS, KUMAR PARK ROAD,
KUMAR PARK EAST, BANGALORE - 560 001.
REP BY ITS PARTNER
PRAVEEN SHAH,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O P H SHAH,
RESIDING AT NO.286, 17TH CROSS,
8TH MAIN, UPPER PALACE ORCHID,
SADASHIVANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 080.
AMENDED V.C.O DATED 19.02.2019
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SRIDHAR HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B B PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3;
SRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PAVAN G N, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
R-1 TO 3 DE-NOTIFY THE LAND OF THE PETITIONERS IN
SY.NO.83/1, MEASURING 1 ACRE AND 3 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT
IGGALUR VILLAGE, ANEKAL TQ., BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
FROM THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AT ANNX-C
& D DATED 16/4/97 AND ETC.,
IN W.P.NO.1997/2017
BETWEEN:
SRI. KRISHNAPPA,
S/O LATE MUNIYALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/O IGGALUR, CHANDAPURA POST,
ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU
URBAN DISTRICT - 562 106.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M B RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES
AND COMMERCE,
REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
5
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR AMBEDKJAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
KANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REP BY ITS C E O & EXECUTIVE MEMBER.
3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO 3/2, ARAVIND BHAVAN,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. M/S PALRECHA INFRASTRUCTURE AND
DEVELOPERS.
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
OFFICE NO.203, 2ND FLOOR,
BATAVIA CHAMBERS, KUMAR PARK ROAD,
KUMAR PARK EAST, BANGALORE - 560 001.
REP BY ITS PARTNER
PRAVEEN SHAH,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O P H SHAH,
RESIDING AT NO.286, 17TH CROSS,
8TH MAIN, UPPER PALACE ORCHID,
SADASHIVANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 080.
AMENDED V.C.O DATED 19.02.2019
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SRIDHAR HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B B PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3;
SRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PAVAN G N, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-1
TO DE-NOTIFY THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.82, MEASURING 0-28
GUNTAS AND LAND BEARING SY.NO.93, MEASURING 0-01
GUNTAS, BOTH SITUATED AT IGGALUR VILLAGE, ANEKAL
6
TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT FROM THE ACQUISITION
PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AT ANNEX-D & E;
IN W.P.NO.2267/2017
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MUNIRAJU,
S/O LATE SRI DODDABETTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/O IGGALUR, CHANDAPURA POST,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 102.
2. SRI.B.UMESH,
S/O LATE SRI.CHIKKABETTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/O IGGALUR, CHANDRAPURA POST,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 106.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.M.B.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
VIKASA SOUDHA
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
KANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS C.E.O & EXECUTIVE MEMBER.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
NO.3/2, ARAVIND BHAVAN,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
7
4. M/S PALRECHA INFRASTRUCTURE AND
DEVELOPERS.
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
OFFICE NO.203, 2ND FLOOR,
BATAVIA CHAMBERS, KUMAR PARK ROAD,
KUMAR PARK EAST, BANGALORE - 560 001.
REP BY ITS PARTNER
PRAVEEN SHAH,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O P H SHAH,
RESIDING AT NO.286, 17TH CROSS,
8TH MAIN, UPPER PALACE ORCHID,
SADASHIVANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 080.
AMENDED V.C.O DATED 19.02.2019
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SRIDHAR HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI.SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PAVAN G N, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
R-1 TO 3 DE-NOTIFY THE LAND OF THE PETITIONERS IN
SY.NO.83/2, MEASURING 1 ACRE, SITUATED AT IGGALUR
VILLAGE, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, FROM
THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AT ANNEXS-H
PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DTD.13.2.1996 & J FINAL
NOTIFICATION VIDE DTD.16.4.1997.
IN W.P.NO.11542/2017
BETWEEN:
SRI P MUNISHAMAIAH
S/O OF PILLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 102 YEARS,
SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED
R/O RAMAKRISHNAPURA,
CHANDAPURA POST, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562 106.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M N VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
8
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE
REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
KANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS C.E.O. & EXECUTIVE MEMBER.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
NO. 3/2, ARAVIND BHAVAN,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SRIDHAR HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI.SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B B PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
R-1 TO DE-NOTIFY THE LAND OF THE PETITIONER IN SURVEY
NO.81/2A, MEASURING 20 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT IGGALUR
VILLAGE, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, FROM
THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AT ANNX-C
PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DTD 13.02.1996 AND ANNX-D
FINAL NOTIFICATION DTD 16.04.1997 AND ETC.,
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
In all these Writ Petitions, a challenge is laid to the
acquisition of lands in question by the State Government
under the provisions of Section 28 of the Karnataka Industrial
Area Development Act, 1966 for the benefit of the respondent-
KIADB; the challenge is essentially structured on Section 24 of
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement, Act, 2013;
petitioners also seek denotification of their lands from the fray
of acquisition.
2. The respondents having entered appearance
through their advocates vehemently resist the Writ Petitions
making submission in justification of the acquisition and the
allotment of the subject industrial sites in favour of the private
respondent beneficiary; their essential contentions are that the
acquisition being under 1966 Act, the provisions of section 24
of the 2013 Act are not invocable; even otherwise, the
substratum for the invocation of said provision is lacking; the
petitions are barred by delay & latches; cause of justice would
be served more by dismissing the petitions than by allowing
them; they also contend that the petitioners have not
approached the court with clean hands, clean head & clean
heart; they also submit that in more or less comparable fact
matrix, two Division Bench judgments have denied relief to the
litigants and therefore, these petitions also need to be
accordingly disposed off; so contending, they seek dismissal of
the Writ Petitions.
3. Since these petitions comprise of common
questions of law & facts, they are taken up for final hearing
with the concurrence of the Bar; having heard the learned
counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers,
this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter for the
following reasons:
(a) The Preliminary Notification for acquisition was
issued by the Government u/s 28(1) of the 1966 Act on
13.2.1996; notice u/s 28(2) followed on 29.2.1996 and
objections were filed by the land owners to the proposed
acquisition and seeking dropping of the proceedings on
1.5.1996; Final Notification came to be issued on 16.4.1997
u/s 28(4); general award came to be made u/s 29(3) of the
1966 Act r/w section 11 of the erstwhile Land Acquisition, Act,
1894 on 16.11.1999; the Govt. approved the award in time;
deposit of compensation was made before the learned Principal
Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn), Bangalore Rural District, on 30.6.2005
u/ss 30 & 31 of the LA Act, 1894; possession came to be taken
on 1.7.2014; these are the foundational facts emerging from
the records.
(b) Added to the above, the land in question came to be
allotted to the private respondent beneficiary vide allotment
letters dated 18.12.2012 & 5.1.2013 for a consideration of
Rs.21 Crore plus; the conveyance in the form of Lease cum
Sale came to be executed on 16.12.2013 and possession came
to be delivered to it on 1.7.2014; the beneficiary has put up
construction of huge warehouses in the subject land with the
sanction plan of the KIADB; NOC has been issued by the Fire
Department and the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board;
Completion Certificate has also been issued to him; what all
the developments are made in the subject land is fairly
depicted in the photographs produced in its Objection
Statement; these petitions have been filed in the years 2016 &
2017; absolutely, no explanation is offered for brooking
enormous delay in laying challenge to the acquisition;
therefore, the petitions are liable to be dismissed only on that
ground itself.
(c) The second contention of the petitioners that the
possession of the land is retained by them even to this day and
that the revenue records reflect the crops being grown there
and further that even the photographs produced by them along
with the petition vouch the same, are neither factually correct
nor legally tenable, assuming that they are true; there is a
wealth of material loaded to the record which prima facie
establishes the possession of the land having been taken by
the KIADB long ago, a mahazar also has been drawn; this is in
addition to its allotment to the private respondent beneficiaries
who has developed the land as mentioned in the preceding
paragraphs; the presumptive value attaching to the entries in
the revenue records u/s 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue
Act, 1964 being rebuttable, stand rebutted the course of events
mentioned supra; this apart, much value cannot be attached
to these entries since they are continued casually by the
revenue officials without visiting the spot and ascertaining the
factuals, as is being noticed by this court in umpteen number
of cases.
(d) The contention of the petitioners for voiding of the
acquisition in question cannot be entertained by banking upon
section 24 of the 2013 Act inasmuch as the identical
contentions have been considered and rejected by a Division
Bench of this Court in W.A.No.3348/2018 (LA-KIADB) between
K.Srinivas Murthy & Another Vs. State & others, disposed off
on 17.8.2020; another Division Bench in W.A.No.1451/2018
(LA-KIADB) between Ananthaswamy Vs. State & others,
disposed off on 2.3.2021; these judgments have extensively
considered several decisions of the Apex Court including BDA
Vs. State of Karnataka, (2018) 9 SCC 122, M/s Premakala
Prabhakara Reddy Vs. State & others, (2019) 3 AKR 657,
Indore Development Authority Vs. Monoharlal AIR 2020 SC
1426; what has been observed therein in all fours applies to
these cases as well, nothing different having been
demonstrated.
4. All other contentions urged do not merit much
consideration in view of what has been discussed above.
In the light of above facts & circumstances, these Writ
Petitions being devoid of merits, are liable to be dismissed and
accordingly, they are, costs having been made easy.
It is open to the erstwhile land owners to seek release of
the compensation amount from the jurisdictional Civil Court in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
cbc
