Sri. H A Suhail vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 8070 Kant

                                                -1-




                                                           WP No. 23228 of 2021


                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                           DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                                             BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
                        WRIT PETITION NO.23228 OF 2021 (LA-KIADB)
                   BETWEEN:
                   SRI. H.A. SUHAIL
                   S/O H. INUS SAHEB
                   AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
                   R/AT SILVER WAVES ROYAL APARTMENTS
                   NO.FF20, 4TH FLOOR, 8TH MAIN ROAD
                   4TH CROSS, KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN
                   BENGALURU-560 060
                                                                   ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI. A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                         DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE
                         VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
                         BENGALURU-560 001
                         REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

                   2.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                         DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS (BMICP)
Digitally signed
                         VIKASA SOUDHA, DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
by POORNIMA
SHIVANNA
                         BENGALURU-560 001
Location: HIGH           REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                   3.    THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
                         KIADB (BMICP)
                         1ST FLOOR, ARAVINDA BHAVAN
                         NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
                         BENGALURU 560 001

                   4.    THE PROJECT COORDINATOR BMICP (PWD)
                         3RD FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA
                         DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
                         BENGALURU-560 001
                               -2-




                                           WP No. 23228 of 2021


5.    THE BENGALURU MYSORE
      INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR AREA
      PLANNING AUTHORITY
      NO.5, 2ND FLOOR, LOOPLNAE
      RACE COURSE ROAD
      BENGALURU-560 009
      REP BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY

6.    THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
      RAMANAGARA
      RAMANAGARA TALUK
      RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 109

7.    THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
      KIADB (BMICP)
      1ST FLOOR, MAHARSHI ARVINDA BHAVAN
      NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001

8.    THE BANNIKUPPE GRAM PANCHAYATH
      REP BY ITS ADYAKSHA
      BANNIKUPPE, BEDADI HOBLI
      RAMANAGARA TALUK
      RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 109

                                                 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.   NITHYANANDA.K.R, AGA FOR R1, 2 & 6;
    SRI.   YOGESH D.NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R4-5;
    SRI.   MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5;
    SRI.   DEVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R8;
    SRI.   VIJAY KUMAR A.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R7)

       THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER OR
ORDERS OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI
QUASHING THE COMMUNICATION DATED 19.11.2021 ISSUED BY
THE    BMICAPA-5TH     RESPONDENT     IN    NO.BMICAP/BHOPANE-
02/129/2019-20/796 MARKED      AT   ANNEXURE-F AND    ALSO TO
QUASH THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R8 PANCHAYATH
MARKED AT ANNEXURE-G.

       THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                -3-




                                               WP No. 23228 of 2021


                            ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

following reliefs:

a. Issue an order or orders or writ in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the communication dated 19.11.2021 Issued by the BMICAPA-5th respondent in No.BMICAP/BHOPANE- 02/129/2019-20/796 marked at Annexure-F and also to quash the show cause notice issued by the 8th respondent-Panchayath marked at Annexure- G.

b. Issue any order or orders as deems fit and proper, including the cost of the proceedings in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land

measuring an extent of 1 acre 7 guntas in

Sy.No.29/1 (Old Sy.No.29), Katha No.76A at

Vajarhalli Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramnagar Taluk and

District.

3. The vendor of the petitioner Smt.Lakshmamma had

filed a Writ Petition before this Court in

W.P.No.8070/2020 against the State and KIADB

challenging the notification issued under Section

28(1) of the KIADB Act and this Court vide order

WP No. 23228 of 2021

dated 01.07.2020 was pleased to allow the said Writ

Petition and quashed the notification.

4. Sri.Nagarajappa, learned counsel for the petitioner

would submit that the Writ Appeal filed challenging

the order passed in W.P.No.11839/2014 wherein the

same notification impugned herein was challenged in

W.A.No.2402/2014 also stood dismissed vide order

dated 12.04.2016. He, therefore, submits that there

being no acquisition proceedings in respect of

aforesaid land, the petitioner had applied for

conversion of the land in terms of Section 95 of the

Karnataka Land Revenue Act by submitting

necessary application to respondent No.6-Deputy

Commissioner. While the application was pending,

respondent No.5 Bengaluru-Mysore Infrastructure

Corridor Area Planning Authority (BMICAPA) has

issued a letter dated 19.11.2021 contending that the

said land is part of the framework agreement entered

into and reserved for the purpose of formation of the

WP No. 23228 of 2021

township and therefore, the application submitted by

the petitioner may not be considered. It is on that

basis that the endorsement has been issued at

Annexure-G. It is on that background that the

application filed by the petitioner has not been

considered and as such, he submits that no

communication could have been issued by

respondent No.5 after this Court had quashed the

acquisition notification. The land being free of

acquisition, no such claim could have been made by

respondent No.5.

5. Sri.Murugesh V.Charati, learned counsel who has

would submit that the Apex Court has directed that

the land which have been notified for the purpose of

formation of the satellite townships and road is

required to be implemented and it is therefore that

the respondent No.5 has issued the impugned letter.

WP No. 23228 of 2021

6. Sri.Yogesh D.Naik, learned counsel also supports the

said submission and submits that respondent No.5 is

only trying to safeguard the property from being

developed.

7. Heard Sri.A.Nagarajappa, learned counsel for the

petitioner, Sri.Murugesh V. Charati, Special Counsel

for respondents No.1, 2 and 6, Sri.Yogesh D.Naik,

learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5,

Sri.Devaraj, learned counsel for respondent No.8 and

Sri.Vijaykumar A.Patil, learned counsel for

respondents No.3 and 7 and perused the papers.

8. The only contention of both respondents No.1, 2 and

6 as also respondents No.4 and 5 being that the land

of the petitioner is part of the framework agreement

and in terms of the order of Hon'ble Apex Court in

Civil Appeal Nos.2116-2128/2020, the framework

agreement has to be implemented and therefore,

WP No. 23228 of 2021

respondent No.5 has rightly objected to the

conversion.

9. The reliance by the respondents No.4 and 5 on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court would not come

to their rescue for the simple reason that in the

present case the notification in respect of land of the

petitioner which notified for acquisition has been

quashed by the Single Judge of this Court and upheld

by the Division Bench of this Court and thereafter,

there is no appeal which has been filed against the

said order. The acquisition having been quashed, it

cannot now be said that there is any acquisition

which is completed requiring implementation of the

framework agreement or otherwise in respect of land

of the petitioner.

10. The said order would apply only to the lands which

had been notified for acquisition and/or acquired and

WP No. 23228 of 2021

not as regards the lands where the notification has

been quashed.

11. The further contention of Sri.Yogesh D.Naik, learned

counsel for respondents No.4 and 5 that the

communication is an innocuous one and no challenge

could to be made to such a communication is also

liable to be rejected since it is on the basis of the

said communication that the application of the

petitioner has been kept pending. Further more, I

am of the considered opinion that the said

communication cannot be said to be innocuous when

there is a specific reference made by a Planning

Authority like respondent No.5 that the application

for conversion filed by the petitioner can be rejected.

12. Any authority while issuing any communication is

required to be careful in doing so inasmuch as any

such communication would be acted upon by the

addressee. Respondent No.5 being fully aware of the

WP No. 23228 of 2021

quashing of the acquisition notification insofar as the

land of the petitioner by Single Judge of this Court

and upheld by the Division Bench of this Court, the

concerned respondent could not have issued a letter,

though action could be taken against the author of

the letter, since the same amounts to overreach of

the orders of this Court, this Court refrains from

doing so. In view of the above, I pass the following:

ORDER i. The Writ Petition is allowed.

ii. A certiorari is issued quashing the communication

dated 19.11.2021 issued by respondent No.5 -

BMICAPA bearing No.BMICAPI/BHOPANE-

02/129/2019-20/796 at Annexure-F.

iii. The show cause notice issued by respondent No.8

- Bannikuppe Gram Panchayath at Annexure-G is

also quashed.

iv. Respondent No.6 is directed to consider the

application for conversion filed by the petitioner

strictly in accordance with law without being

- 10 -

WP No. 23228 of 2021

influenced by the communication dated

19.11.2021 issued by the respondent No.5 -

BMICAPA.

v. The time period under Section 95 of the

Karnataka Land Revenue Act being 90 days for

consideration of the application, the application

having been filed long ago, respondent No.6-

Deputy Commissioner is directed to consider and

pass necessary orders on the said application

within a period of 60 days from today.

vi. The learned Additional Government Advocate is

directed to inform the concerned Deputy

Commissioner about the same.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Prs*