Karnataka High Court
C Basavaraja vs State Of Karnataka on 16 January, 2021
Author: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No. 45675 OF 2018 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN :
C. BASAVARAJA
S/O LATE CHIKKAVEERANNA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
R/AT NO.478, I FLOOR
11TH CROSS, UPPER PALACE ORCHARDS
SADASHIVANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 080 ... PETITIONER
(BY SHRI. UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SHRI. ASWIN PRABHU, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AND INDUSTRIES
VIKAS SOUDHA
BANGALORE-01
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
14/3, II FLOOR, RASHTROTHANA
PARISHAT BUILDING
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE-01
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SPL. LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER-1(BMICP)
2
3. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR
KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SRUTHI CHAGANTI, SPECIAL
GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE ACQUISITION
PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER R-1 NOTIFICATION DTD.30.03.2004
VIDE ANNEXURE-G ISSUED UNDER S.28[1] OF THE KIAD ACT TO
HAVE BEEN ABANDONED INSOFAR AS SCHEDULED LAND BELONGING
TO THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 12.01.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Heard Shri. Udaya Holla, learned Senior Advocate,
learned Advocate for petitioner, Smt. Sruthi Chaganti,
learned Special Government Advocate for respondent No.1
and Shri. Aswin Prabhu, learned Advocate for respondents
No. 2 and 3.
2. Shri.Udaya Holla submitted that petitioner is the
owner of 3 acres 25 guntas of land in Sy. No.24 of
Kommaghatta village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South
Taluk. Petitioner was also owning 2 acres 3 guntas of land
adjacent to the land in question and the same has been
acquired by Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board
('KIADB' for short).
3. State Government vide Notification dated March
30, 2004 issued under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka
Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 ('KIAD Act' for
short) sought to acquire the subject land. Petitioner filed
his objections. He also unsuccessfully challenged acquisition
of his adjacent land bearing Sy. No. 140/2 and the subject
land in Writ Petition No.44890/2004. Subsequently,
petitioner filed another Writ Petition No.27788/2009. This
Court vide order dated June 15, 2011 dismissed the said
writ petition by observing that what was proposed to be
acquired was petitioner's adjacent land bearing Sy.
No.140/2 and not the subject land.
4. So far as subject land is concerned, respondents
have not taken any further action pursuant to notification
under Section 28(1) of the Act. This Court, in several
identical cases has quashed similar preliminary Notifications
on the ground of delay.
5. With these submissions, Shri. Holla prayed for
allowing this Writ Petition.
6. Smt. Sruti Changanti, learned Special
Government Advocate for State submitted that acquisition
of subject land is for the purpose of NICE project. There
were several litigations pending in the Supreme Court of
India and the last contempt petition bearing CCC
No.96/2007 has been dismissed by the Apex Court on July
18, 2019. The State Government have not abandoned the
proceedings but the delay is due to pendency of
proceedings in the Apex Court. She prayed for dismissal of
the writ petition.
7. I have carefully considered rival contentions and
perused the records.
8. Undisputed facts of the case are, Notification
under Section 28(1) is dated March 30, 2004. As on date,
nearly 17 years have elapsed. No material is placed before
the Court to show that State Government were restrained
from completing the acquisition proceedings. Shri. Holla
has filed a list of 13 judgments passed by this Court to
support his contention that the State Government have
abandoned the acquisition proposal.
9. Though Shri. Holla relied upon all the judgments,
he made special reference to paragraph No.3 in the case of
KIADB and others Vs. H.S. Ramachandraiah and
another1. In the said case, it was urged on behalf of the
State Government that final Notification could not be issued
as connected matters were pending before the Apex Court.
This contention has not been accepted by the Division
Bench of this Court and the appeals filed by KIADB have
W.As. No.2590 & 2966-2968 of 2018 decided on January 30, 2019
been dismissed by taking note of other identical matters
dealt in different writ appeals. This Court has recorded that
the question in the said cases was also delay in issuing final
Notification.
10. On facts, 17 years have elapsed from the date of
preliminary notification. This court has taken consistent
view in similar matters and quashed the preliminary
notification. Hence, this petition merits consideration.
11. In the result, the following:
ORDER
(a) Writ Petition is allowed.
(b) Preliminary Notification bearing No.
CI:196:SPQ:98 (Part - 3) dated March 30, 2004
vide Annexure-G is quashed.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SPS
