Karnataka Industrial Area ... vs K.H. Shivanna
2022 Latest Caselaw 5256 Kant

                             1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2022

                          PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                           AND

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY

            W.A. NO.557 OF 2021 (LA-KIADB)
                          IN
            W.P.No.13139 OF 2019 (LA-KIADB)

BETWEEN:

1.     KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD
       5TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN
       BENGALURU 560001
       REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

2.     SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2
       KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT
       BOARD, 5TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN
       BENGALURU 560001.

                                         ... APPELLANTS

(BY MR. BASAVARAJ V. SABARD, SR. COUNSEL FOR
    MR. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADV.,)

AND:

1.     K.H. SHIVANNA
       S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS.

2.     G. ARUNA
       W/O B. ANJANAPPA
                             2



     AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.

3.   PADMAMMA
     W/O LATE B. VENKATEGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS

     R1 TO R3 ARE
     R/AT NO. KOLIPURA, JALA HOBLI
     BK HALLI POST, YELAHANKA TALUK
     BENGALURU 562149.

4.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     VIDHANA SOUDHA
     AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGLAORE 560001
     REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.

5.   DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE
     VIKASA SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDI
     BANGALORE 560001
     REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

6.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
      K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE 560009.

7.   THE TAHASILDAR
     BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) TALUK
     YELAHANKA, BENGLAURU 560064.

                                          ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. ADITYA SONDHI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
    MR. CHANDAN S. RAO, ADV., FOR C/R1 TO R3
  MRS. VANI H, AGA FOR R4, R5, R6 & R7)
                            ---

      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
02/03/2021 IN WP NO.13139/2019 (LA-KIADB) PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION WITH
COSTS THROUGHOUT.
                               3




     THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                           JUDGMENT

Heard on the question of admission.

This intra court appeal has been filed against the order

dated 02.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, by

which learned Single judge has quashed the preliminary

notification dated 07.08.2006 issued by the appellant under

Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development

Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short)

insofar as it pertains to the property of respondents 1 to 3

and has allowed the writ petition.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly

stated are that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the owners of land

bearing Survey No.7 measuring 6 acres of B.K.Palya Village,

Jala Hobli, Bangalore. A notification under Section 28(1) of

the Act was issued by the appellant on 07.08.2006.

Thereafter, a public notice was issued inviting for objections

from the land owners in respect of the land, which were

notified under the under Section 28(1) of the Act. The

Respondents No.1 to 3 filed their objections. The Special

Land Acquisition Officer by an order dated 26.11.2007

passed an order under Section 28(3) of the Act by which the

objections preferred by respondents 1 to 3 as well as other

land owners were rejected . Thereafter, no steps in the

acquisition proceedings were taken. The Respondent No.1 to

3 on or about 21.03.2019 filed a writ petition, in which a writ

of certiorari was sought for quashment of preliminary

notification dated 07.08.2006 issued under Section 28(1) of

the Act was sought on the ground that the proceedings of

acquisition are vitiated in law on account of efflux of time.

The learned Single judge by an order dated 02.03.2021 has

allowed the writ petition. In the aforesaid factual background,

this appeal has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

the learned Single judge grossly erred in quashing the

preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the Act and it

ought to have been appreciated by the learned Single judge

that no timeline are fixed for completion of the land

acquisition proceedings under the Act. It is also submitted

that a proposal was submitted by the appellant to the State

Government in 2016 for issuing the final notification

however, the same was returned to the appellant by the

State Government seeking clarifications and therefore, the

final notification could not be issued.

4. We have considered the submissions made by

learned Senior counsel for the appellant and have perused

the record. In 'RAM CHAND AND OTHERS V. UNION OF

INDIA AND OTHERS', (1994) 1 SCC 44, the Supreme

Court was dealing with situations prevalent prior to

amendment to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by Land

Acquisition Act Amendment in 1984. In the aforesaid case,

the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and

declarations under Section 6(1) of the Act were issued on

23.01.1959, 24.10.1961 and 16.05.1966 and 13.01.1969

respectively. However, the awards were not passed. The

Supreme Court held that in view of decision in 'AFLATOON

V LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI', (1975) 4 SCC 285, there

was no justification for not passing the award and by placing

reliance on the aforesaid decision, it was held that two years

period would be a reasonable time for making an award, as

for when the statute does not prescribe a time limit for

performing an Act, the same has to be performed within

reasonable time.

5. However, a division bench of this court in 'H.N.

SHIVANNA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA

AND ANOTHER', W.A.NOS.3189-3201/2010 DATED

28.11.2012, held that issuance of successive declarations

are permissible and by placing reliance on decision of

Supreme Court in Ram Chand and others supra, held that 2

years time would be a reasonable time for issuance of

declaration under Section 28(4) of the Act. However it is

pertinent to note that the division bench in SHIVANNA's case

also held that provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

cannot be read into the Act and though no time limit is

prescribed under the Act, the acquisition is to be completed

within a reasonable time, say within 2 years, and still what is

the reasonable time has to be decided in the facts of

particular case. The Supreme Court in 'M.NAGABHUSHANA

VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA', (2011) 3 SCC 408,

negatived the contention that since, the award was not

passed within a period of 2 years from the date of declaration

under Section 28(4) of the Act, the acquisition would not

stand vitiated in view of the fact that Section 11(A) of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are not applicable to proceedings

under the Act. Therefore, different time frames prescribed

under the Land Acquisition Act and consequences of default

thereof including lapsing of acqusition proceedings cannot be

read into the Act.

6. The right to hold the property is a constitutional

right which is guaranteed under Article 300-A of the

Constitution of India and no citizen can be deprived of his

property without following the due process of law. It is well

settled legal proposition that where a statute does not

provide for time limit for doing an Act, such an Act has to be

done within a reasonable time, and what would be

reasonable time has to be decided in the facts and

circumstances of the Act. [See: 'MEHER RUSI DALAL V

UNION OF INDIA', (2004) 7 SCC 362, 'P.K.

SREEKANTAN V P. SREEKUMARAN NAIR', (2006) 13

SCC 574 AND 'K.B NAGUR V UNION OF INDIA', (2012)

4 SCC 483]. Therefore, in the facts of the case, we have to

ascertain whether the Notification under Section 28(1) of the

Act stands vitiated in law on account of the delay caused in

issuing the final notification under Section 28(4) of the Act

within reasonable time, in the light of submission made by

learned senior counsel for respondent no. 2.

7. In the instant case, the preliminary notification

was issued on 07.08.2006. It is pertinent to mention here

that the appellants did not file objections before the learned

Single Judge to explain the delay caused in land acquisition

proceeding. In the absence of any explanation on behalf of

the appellant, the learned Single judge has rightly held that

there was an inordinate delay in completion of the

proceedings and even after a lapse of 14 years, neither final

notification has been issued nor any steps were taken to

complete the land acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the

learned Single judge in the facts of the case and in the

absence of any explanation on behalf of the appellant about

the delay in concluding the land acquisition proceeding has

rightly held that the notification dated 07.08.2006 issued

under Section 28(1) of the Act insofar as it pertains to the

land of Respondents 1 to 3 stood lapsed on account of efflux

of time and has rightly quashed the same. For the

aforementioned reasons, we do not find any ground to differ

with the view taken by learned Single Judge.

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

SS