Karnataka High Court
Sri.C.Jayaram vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 July, 2022
Bench: Acting Chief Justice, J.M.Khazi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M. KHAZI
W.A. NO.381 OF 2022 (LA-KIADB)
IN
W.P.NO.11615 OF 2022 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. C. JAYARAM,
S/O. LATE. CHIKKA MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/AT BELLANDURU VILLAGE &
POST,
VARTHUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE EAST - 560 034.
2. SRI. M. LAKSHMAPPA
S/O. LATE. CHIKKA MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT NO.133,
BELLANDUR VILLAGE & POST,
VARTHUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE EAST - 560 034.
3. SRI. C. LAKSHMANA,
S/O. LATE. CHIKKA MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/AT BELLANDURU VILLAGE & POST
VARTHUR HOBLI,
2
BANGALORE EAST - 560 034.
4. SRI. C. MUNIRAJU,
S/O LATE. CHIKKA MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT BELLANDUR VILLAGE & POST,
VARTHUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE EAST - 560 034.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. RAMESH BABU .R., ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY & COMMERCE,
(INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT) M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
2ND FLOOR, RASTROTHANA
PARISHAT BUILDING
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER.
3. M/S SSSN PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,
(PREVIOUSLY NAMED M/S SRI. SATHYA
SAI NARAYANA HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.)
NO.31, 3RD CROSS, RMV 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 094
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR
SRI. SHAILESH KUMAR.
... RESPONDENTS
3
(BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. RAMU .S., ADV. FOR C/R3
SRI. VIJAY KUMAR A PATIL, AGA FOR R1
SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR ADV., FOR R2)
---
WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.02.2022 PASSED IN WP NO-
11615/2020 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN SO FOR
AS IT REJECTS THE PRAYER OF THE APPELLANTS - TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO-1 AND 2 WITHDRAW THE
ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS, ISSUED VIDE
NOTIFICATION-1 NO.VA.KAI/82/SPQ/2004 DATED
06.03.2004 VIDE ANNEXURE-B NOTIFICATION -11
NO.VA.KAI/82/SPQ/2004 DATED 08.03.2004 DATED
06.03.2004 VIDE ANNEXURE-D NOTIFICATION
NO.C1/241/SPQ/2004 DATED 20.05.2004 VIDE
ANNEXURE-E ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DECLARING THEM AS NOT FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE AND AS
IMPERMISSIBLE IN LAW.
THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
4
JUDGMENT
Sri.Vikram Huilgol, learned Senior Counsel for
Sri.Ramesh Babu R., learned counsel for the
appellants.
Sri. D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel for
Sri.Ramu S., learned counsel for Caveator/respondent
No.3.
Sri. Vijay Kumar A. Patil, learned Additional
Government Advocate for respondent No.1.
Sri. P.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for
respondent No.2.
This intra Court appeal has been filed against
the order dated 25.02.2022 passed by the learned
Single Judge by which the writ petition preferred by
the appellants has been disposed of.
2. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal
briefly stated are that the appellants were the owners
of the property bearing Sy.No.30/8P situated at
Bellanduru Village, Bengaluru East Taluk. A
notification under Section 1(3) of the Karnataka
Industrial Area Development Act (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Act' for short) was published on 06.03.2004,
which was followed by a preliminary notification
which was issued on the same date. Thereafter, a final
notification under Section 28(4) of the Act was issued
on 20.05.2004.
3. The appellants had challenged the validity
of the aforesaid acquisition proceedings in writ
petition, namely, W.P.No.21404/2004, which was
dismissed by a Bench of this Court by an order dated
13.08.2007. The other owners of the land had also
challenged the land acquisition proceedings in a
separate writ petition, which was also dismissed by a
common order dated 13.08.2007.
4. The owners of the other land did not
challenge the common order dated 13.08.2007 passed
by the learned Single Judge. However, the appellants
have challenged the orders passed in the writ petition
in a writ appeal, namely, W.A.No.1735/2007. The
Division Bench of this Court by an order dated
22.11.2012 inter alia upheld the validity of the
acquisition proceedings. However, a direction was
issued that respondent No.3 shall utilize the entire
extent of land only for the purpose of setting up of the
Hospital project and if there is any violation,
Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board shall
cancel the lease.
5. Thereafter, a Special Leave Petition,
namely, SLP No.9662/2013 was filed before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the aforesaid Special Leave
Petition, an interim order of status quo was passed on
18.03.2013. However, eventually, the Special Leave
Petition was dismissed on 28.01.2020, reserving
liberty to the petitioners to pursue such other
remedies as may be available to them in law in respect
of issues other than the issues which had attained
finality on account of dismissal of the Special Leave
Petition.
6. The appellant, thereafter again initiated a
second round of litigation on the ground that the
property in question has been diverted for a purpose
other than setting up of the Hospital. Learned Single
Judge by an order dated 25.02.2022 has partly
allowed the writ petition and has directed the
Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board to
comply and implement the directions issued by the
Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1735/2007
dated 22.11.2012 against respondent No.3 by taking
necessary steps within a period of three months. In
the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has
been filed.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
submitted that the land in question is being sought to
be utilized for the construction of an IT Park, contrary
to the directions issued by the Division Bench of this
Court by the order dated 22.11.2012 in
W.A.No.1735/2007 and thereafter, the State
Government be directed to withdraw the land
acquisition proceedings.
8. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel
for respondent No.3 has invited the attention of this
Court that the land in question was only to be utilized
for the purpose of the Hospital project. In this
connection, learned Senior Counsel for respondent
No.3 has invited the attention of this Court to an
affidavit of the Director of respondent No.3 which has
been filed on 12.07.2022, in which it is categorically
stated that the land in question shall be utilized only
for the purpose of the Hospital project.
9. We have heard learned Senior Counsel for
the parties. The grievance of the appellants is only
with regard to the use of the land in contravention of
the directions issued by the Division Bench in the
order dated 22.11.2012 in W.A.No.1735/2007. The
Director of respondent No.3 in the affidavit has
categorically stated before this Court that the land in
question was only to be utilized for the purpose of the
Hospital project and not for any other purposes. We
are, therefore, inclined to accept the affidavit filed by
the Director of respondent No.3 by placing the
undertaking so furnished in the form of an affidavit on
record.
10. The Karnataka Industrial Area
Development Board is directed to ensure that the land
in question is utilized only for the Hospital project in
question and not for any other purpose. Needless to
state that the minutes of meeting dated 15.06.2018,
being contrary to the directions contained in the order
dated 22.11.2022 in W.A.No.1735/2007, is quashed.
To the aforesaid extent, the order passed by the
learned Single Judge is modified. In the result, appeal
is disposed of.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Mds/-
