Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka Industrial Area vs Smt Dyavamma on 4 April, 2022
Bench: Alok Aradhe, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A. No.514 OF 2021 (LA-KIADB)
IN
W.P. No.50771 OF 2019 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
4TH & 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING
KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACECOURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-01
REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-II
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR
EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-01.
... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. B.B. PATIL, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SMT. DYAVAMMA
W/O YALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
R/AT NAGANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE
CHANNARAYAPATANA HOBLI
2
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DIST-562110.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES
VIKAS SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. C.M. NAGABUSHANA, ADV., FOR R1
MRS. VANI H, AGA FOR R2)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11/12/2020 PASSED BY LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.50771/2019 ALLOWING THE
PETITIONS OF RESPONDENT NO.1 AND THEREBY SETTING ASIDE
THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS.
THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal has been filed against the order
dated 11.12.2020 passed by learned Single Judge preferred
by respondent No.1 has been allowed and the impugned
order dated 05.03.2018 as well as the notification under
Section 28(4) of KIADB Act dated 15.11.2018 insofar as it
pertains to property of respondent No.1 has been quashed.
The learned Single Judge has granted the liberty to the
Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Board' for short) to consider the objection
preferred by respondent No.1 afresh and to pass a speaking
order within a period of three months.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly
stated are that the appellant is the owner of the land bearing
Sy.No.37/3 measuring 1 acres 11 gunta of
Naganayakanahalli, Channarayapatna Hobli, Devenahalli
Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. The aforesaid land as well as
the other lands were acquired for formation of Industrial
area. Thereupon, the Board issued a preliminary notification
under Section 28(1) of the KIADB Act on 06.11.2014 in
respect of the property in question. The respondent No.1
thereupon submitted the detailed objections on 02.02.2015.
However, the objections preferred by respondent No.1 were
rejected and a final notification dated 15.11.2018 was issued
under Section 28(4) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid notification was challenged by
respondent No.1 in a writ petition inter alia on the ground
that the objection preferred by respondent No.1 has been
rejected in a mechanical manner. The learned single Judge
by a judgment dated 11.12.2020 allowed the writ petition
and granted the liberty to pass a fresh enquiry under Section
28(3) of the Act in respect of land in question after affording
an opportunity of hearing to respondent No.1. In the
aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
order passed by the Board is a detailed and speaking order
and therefore, the learned single Judge grossly erred in
interfering with the enquiry.
5. We have considered the submissions made by
learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the
record. The relevant extract of the order passed by Special
Land Acquisition Officer of the Board reads as under:
3 37-3 1-11 Dyavamma Case called on Heard
07.02.2015, objection,
W/o Ellappa Shivakumar S/o undertook
Ellappa who is son spot
of khathedar inspection.
Dyavamma W/o. The said
Ellappa, appeared land is
on 02.02.2015 and found to be
filed objection required for
against the Industrial
acquisition, in his Area and
request he has suitable
sought that they price has
are cultivating been fixed
grapes crop by to trees,
installing borewells crops
and expended standing in
lakhs of rupees to the land
the same and and hence
hence sought for the
denotification of objection
the land, Case refused and
called on ordered for
05.03.2018, acquisition.
Sonnegowda S/o.
Ellappa, who is son
of khathedar
appeared and
requested for
construction of
house if agreed for
acquisition.
6. Thus, it is evident that no reasons have been
assigned by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for rejecting
the objections preferred by respondent No.1. The order only
contains the conclusion and has been passed in a cryptic and
cavalier manner. The learned Single Judge has therefore,
rightly held that the order is non speaking and cryptic. The
learned Single Judge therefore, in the facts of the case has
rightly remitted the matter to the Board to consider the
objections preferred by respondent No.1 and to pass a fresh
order in accordance with the law laid down by division bench
of this court in H.M. VENKATASWAMY VS. STATE OF
KARNATAKA vide judgment dated 21.06.2012 passed in
W.P.No.15514/2008. For the aforementioned reasons, no
ground for interference with the order passed by learned
Single Judge is made out.
In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
