The Karnataka Industrial vs Sri Muninanjinappa
2022 Latest Caselaw 5008 Kant

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 5008 Kant
Judgement Date : 17 March, 2022

Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka Industrial vs Sri Muninanjinappa on 17 March, 2022

Bench: Alok Aradhe, S Vishwajith Shetty

                              1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2022

                         PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                            AND

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY

            W.A. NO.1268 OF 2021 (LA-KIADB)
                          IN
            W.P.No.10583 OF 2016 (LA-KIADB)

BETWEEN:

1.     THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
       AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD
       EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN
       RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-01
       REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

2.     SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2
       KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
       DEVELOPMENT BOARD
       EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN
       RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-01.

                                            ... APPELLANTS

(BY MR. SOMASHEKAR T, ADV., FOR
    MR. B.B. PATIL, ADV.,)

AND:

1.     SRI. MUNINANJINAPPA
       S/O NARAYANAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
       R/AT BANDIKODIGEHALLI VILLAGE
                                 2



     JALA HOBLI
     BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
     BENGALURU-562149.

2.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES
     VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001
     BY ITS SECRETARY.

                                              ... RESPONDENTS

(BY MR. SHRIHARI A.V. ADV., FOR C/R1)
                             ---

      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 01/04/2021 PASSED BY LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.10583/2016 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

Mr.Somashekar T., learned counsel for the appellants.

Mr.Shrihari A.V., learned counsel for the respondent

No.1.

Smt.Vani H., learned Additional Government Advocate

for the respondent No.2.

This intra Court appeal has been filed against the order

dated 01.04.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge by

which the writ petition preferred by the respondent No.1 -

land owner has been allowed and the proceeding initiated by

the appellant under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial

Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Act' for short) for acquisition of land of the petitioner bearing

Sy.No.40/360 measuring 2 acres have been held to have

been lapsed.

2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are

that respondent No.1 is the owner of land bearing

Sy.No.40/360 situated at Bandikodigehalli Village, Jalahalli

Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk measuring 2 acres. The

appellant issued a preliminary notification under Section

28(1) of the Act on 03.11.2006. Thereafter, a final

notification under Section 28(4) of the Act was issued on

07.05.2007. However, till the filing of the writ petition i.e. in

the year 2016, an award was not passed.

3. The respondent No.1 thereafter filed a writ petition

in which a challenge was made to the validity of the

notification dated 07.05.2007 issued under Section 28(4) of

the Act. The appellants filed statement of objections in the

said writ petition as well as additional statement of

objections. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge, by an order

dated 01.04.2021, held that the appellants herein have not

taken any steps to complete the acquisition proceedings in

respect of the schedule property in pursuance of the

impugned notification. The learned Single Judge accordingly

held that the proceeding initiated in respect of the land

acquisition for acquisition of land have lapsed on account of

inordinate and unreasonable delay. In the aforesaid factual

background, this appeal has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

record of the appellant is seized and was in the custody of

Lokayuktha and therefore, the appellants could not complete

the land acquisition proceeding. However, the aforesaid

aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the learned

Single Judge.

5. We have considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the

record. The averments made in paragraphs 7 and 9 of the

additional statement of objections read as under:

"7. It is submitted that during course of investigation of these cases, the Investigation Officer - IO, in Crime No.42/2010 was said to have been directed by the Superintendent of Police, Lokayuktha, to probe into the possible role of M/s. ITASCA Software Development Private Limited as regards irregularities in acquisition of land and to register a separate case. The Managing Director of ITASCA had already been named as an accused in Crime No.43/2010.

9. It is submitted that during this period the entire original records pertaining to the acquisition and grant of compensation were seized by the Lokayukta and in connection with the same the disbursal of compensation was not possible."

6. Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid averments, it is

evident that the appellants have neither disclosed the date of

seizure of record by the Lokayuktha nor have taken a stand

that on account of seizure by Lokayuktha, they were unable

to pass an award. In any case, final notification was issued

in the year 2007 and the record was alleged to have been

seized by Lokayuktha in the year 2010. There is no

explanation on record for not concluding the proceeding

pertaining to land acquisition in respect of land in question

for a period of 3 years. Admittedly, till 31.03.2021, the

award was not passed by the appellant. Therefore, the

learned Single Judge has rightly held that the acquisition