Sri. V. Lakshminarayan vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 11403 Kant

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

       WRIT PETITION NO.11190 OF 2022 (LA-KIADB)

BETWEEN:

SRI V. LAKSHMINARAYAN
S/O LATE H VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
MANAGING DIRECTOR OF
NIRMAN SHELTERS BANGALORE PVT. LTD
NO.140 NN
NISARGA-NANDAN LAYOUT
HARAPPANAHALLI NEAR KOPPA GATE
BENGALURU-560 083.
                                              ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL
 FOR SRI AJAY J NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

  1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
     COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT
     VIKASA SOUDHA
     BENGALURU-560 001.

  2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAL
     DEVELOPMENT BOARD
     4TH AND 5TH EAST WING
     V FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN
     RACE COURSE ROAD
     BENGALURU-560 001.
     REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE
     OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER.
                              2




  3. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAL DEVELOPMENT
     BOARD, 4TH AND 5TH EAST WING
     V FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN
     RACE COURSE ROAD
     BENGALURU-560 001.

  4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
     KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
     DEVELOPMENT BOARD
     KHANIJA BHAVAN
     RACE COURSE ROAD
     BENGALURU-560 001.

                                               ....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NITYANANDA K R., AGA FOR R1;
 SRI PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, ADVOCATE GENERAL
 FOR SRI B B PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO 4)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 TO EXTEND THE BENEFIT OF
ALTERNATE DEVELOPED LAND IN THE VERY LAYOUT AS
CONTEMPLATED IN TERMS OF GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED
23.02.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE- G2 IN LIEU OF THE ACQUIRED LAND OF
THE PETITIONERS I.E., 6 ACRES 37 GUNTAS IN SURVEY.NO.68/1,
235, 236 AND 237 OF RAJAPURA VILLAGE, JIGINI HOBLI, ANEKAL
TALUK AMOUNTING TO APPROXIMATELY 75000 SQ.FT. IN THE VERY
SAME LAYOUT IN TERMS OF THE SKETCH PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE- J
WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN DEVELOPED AND SOLD BY THE
PETITIONER TO THIRD PARTIES; AND ETC.,

     IN THIS WRIT PETITION ARGUMENTS BEING HEARD,
JUDGMENT RESERVED, COMING ON FOR "PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS", THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                   3




                             ORDER

Petitioner herein has sought for writ of mandamus

directing the respondent-Karnataka Industrial Areas

Development Board to extend the benefit of allotment of

alternative developed land as per the Government Order dated

23rd February, 2021 in lieu of acquired land, belonging to the

petitioner to an extent of 75,000 square feet, and such other

reliefs.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent-

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (for short

hereinafter referred to as "Board") has initiated acquisition

proceedings for acquisition of 988 acres 6 guntas of land

including the land bearing survey No.68/1, 235 to 237 of

Rajapura village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk and as such, issued

preliminary notification dated 19.04.1997 under Section 28(1) of

the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966, (for short

hereinafter referred to "KIAD Act"). The petitioner herein, has

purchased the land bearing survey No.235, 236, 237 and Survey

No.68/1, notified in the Preliminary Notification on 07th August,

1997. Thereafter, the respondent-Board issued Final Notification

20th July, 1999 under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act acquiring

476.38.5 acres of land excluding the land belonging to the

petitioner. In furtherance of the same, the petitioner got

converted the land from agriculture to non-

agriculture/residential purposes to develop layout, after

obtaining plan sanction from BMRDA. In the meanwhile, the

respondent-Government issued one more Final Notification dated

26th April, 2002 under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act, notifying

the land belonging to the petitioner to an extent of 6.37 acres as

per Annexure-C. The petitioner has challenged the

aforementioned acquisition proceedings in Writ Petitions

No.26821-24 of 2003 before this Court, and this Court, by order

dated 06th June, 2003 dismissed the petitions. The respondent-

Board had taken possession of the land in question as per

Section 28(6) and (7) of the KIAD Act. Thereafter, the petitioner

made a representation to the respondent-Board, seeking

reconveyance of the land and same was accepted by the

respondent-Board as per the Resolution dated 30th January,

2006. In the meanwhile, the general award was passed on 30th

March, 2006 and same was approved by the Government on 06th

December, 2006. Reference before the Civil Court was made in

LAC No.5 of 2018 for disbursement of the compensation. In the

meanwhile, the challenge made to the acquisition proceedings

has reached finality in view of order passed by this Court, which

came to be confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in appeal. The

grievance of the petitioner that the request made by the

petitioner for extending the benefit for grant of developed land in

terms of Government Order dated 23rd February, 2021

(Annexure-G2) is yet to be considered by the respondent-Board

and as such, presented this Writ Petition seeking writ of

mandamus against the respondent-Board for consideration of

the same.

3. The Respondent-Board has filed statement of objection,

contending that the representation made by the petitioner

cannot be considered, as the Government Order dated 23rd

February, 2021 is applicable only to running/ongoing industrial

areas and the land sharing scheme by the respondent-Board was

introduced only during 2007 and therefore, the said benefit

cannot be extended to the petitioner and accordingly sought for

dismissal of the petition.

4. I have heard Sri K. Shashikiran Shetty, learned Senior

Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Ajay J. Nandalike, for the

petitioner and Sri Prabhuling K. Navadgi, learned Advocate

General for Sri B.B. Patil for the respondent-Board; and Shri K.

Nityanand, learned Additional Government Advocate for the

respondent-State.

5. Sri K. Shashikiran Shetty, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of the Court to

the Government Order dated 23rd February, 2021, particularly

with regard to Clause (4) of the said Government Order and

argued that there is no impediment for the respondent-Board to

extend the same to the case of the petitioner. He further

contended that the respondent-Board in its resolution dated 30th

January, 2006 had recognized the development made by the

petitioner and therefore, non-consideration of representation

made by the petitioner is illegal, which requires to be considered

in this Writ Petition.

6. Per contra, Sri Prabhuling K. Navadgi, learned Advocate

General for the respondent-Board contended that the

Government Order dated 23rd February, 2021 is prospective in

nature and cannot be extended to the acquisition made prior to

2007 and he further contended that the said benefit could be

extended to persons who voluntarily acceded for consent award

and therefore, he submitted that the petitioner has no legal right

seeking consideration of the representation.

7. In the light of the submission made by the learned

counsel appearing of the parties, I have carefully examined the

writ papers. It is not in dispute that the respondent-Board

initiated acquisition of land as per Preliminary Notification dated

19th April, 1997 under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act, including

the land belonging to the vendors of the petitioner and

thereafter, issued Final Notification on 28th July, 1999 under

Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act. In the meanwhile, the petitioner

had purchased the subject land as per the registered Sale Deed

dated 17th August, 1999. Though while passing the Final

Notification dated 20th July, 1999, land belonging to the

petitioner was excluded, however one more Final Notification

was issued on 26th April, 2002 notifying the land belonging to

the petitioner. The said acquisition proceedings was challenged

by the petitioner in Writ Petitions No.26821-24 of 2003 before

this Court and this Court by order dated 06th June, 2003

dismissed the petition on the ground that since the petitioner is

a subsequent purchaser of the land in question, after the

issuance of preliminary notification, the petitioner is entitled for

compensation before the Reference Court. In the meanwhile,

the respondent-Board has issued order dated 23rd June, 2007

and same was questioned in Writ Petition No.10650 of 2007 and

this Court by order dated 03rd February, 2014, quashed the

resolution and the matter was remitted to the respondent-Board

to reconsider the case of the petitioner. The said order was

challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in Writ

Appeals No.1610 and 1756-58 of 2014 and the Division Bench of

this Court allowed the appeals in part, observing thus:

5. Accordingly, the appeals are partly allowed

with the order that the impugned direction shall now

be read as under:

"Accordingly, Writ Petitions are partly allowed. The resolution dated 24.05.2007 is quashed and the matter is remitted to the respondent to afford a hearing to the petitioner and thereafter, to reconsider the matter on the basis of the decision that may be taken by the respondent, after hearing the petitioner."

8. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was called for hearing

as per Notice dated 21st November, 2014 and the request made

by the petitioner was rejected with regard to claim made by the

petitioner for reconveyance as per order dated 21st February,

2019, and the said order was challenged before this Court in

Writ Petition No.23581 of 2019 and this Court, by order dated

26th November, 2021, rejected the writ petition and being

aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein has filed Writ

Appeal No.45 of 2022 and the Division Bench of this Court, by

order dated 18th January, 2022, dismissed the appeal and being

aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C)No.1937 of 2022 and the said

petition came to be dismissed on 18th February, 2022. In that

view of the matter, not only the acquisition proceedings with

regard to the subject land, but also the request made by the

petitioner for reconveyance of the land had reached finality. In

the backdrop of these aspects, I have carefully considered the

Government Order dated 23rd February, 2021 produced at

Annexure-G2. In the said Government Order Annexure-G2,

reference was made to the earlier Government Order dated 13th

August, 2007 (Annexure-G). Government Order dated 23rd

February, 2021 is the extended Government Order dated 13th

August, 2007 and on perusal of the Government Order dated

13th August, 2007, it is clearly stated that the extension of the

benefit is conferred to the land losers who have voluntarily come

forward to settle the dispute by way of consent award and

further, it is reflected in the said Government dated 13th August,

2007 that such benefit would be extended to the claimant/land

owners where the possession of the land in question has not

been taken under Section 28(7) of the KIAD Act. In that view of

the matter, as the possession of the land belonging to the

petitioner was taken as per order dated 16th July, 2002

(Anneure-R6), the petitioner herein has no legal right to claim

extending the benefit conferred under Government Order dated

23rd February, 2021. For the reasons stated above, writ petition

fails and is accordingly dismissed, as the petitioner has no legal

right to claim extension of benefit, as sought for in the writ

petition.

Sd/-

JUDGE

lnn