Karnataka High Court
The Special Land Acquisition ... vs Sri. Venkateshappa on 6 May, 2022
Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar, M G Uma
W.A No.461/2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MAY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA
WRIT APPEAL No.461 OF 2016 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN :
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.14/3, ARVIND BHAVAN
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001 ... APPELLANT
(BY SHRI. B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. SRI. VENKATESHAPPA
S/O ERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/A MINDAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101
2. SRI. MUNISHAMAPPA
S/O EEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/A MINDAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101
W.A No.461/2016
2
3. SRI. GOVINDAPPA
S/O EEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/A MINDAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101
4. SRI. GOPALAPPA
S/O EERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/A MINDAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101
5. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BANGALORE-560 001
6. THE UNDER SECRETARY
INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT
M.S.BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. K. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE
FOR SHRI. K.H. SOMASHEKHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R4
- THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE;
SHRI. BHOJEGOUDA T. KOLLER, AGA FOR R5 & R6)
....
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITIONS NO.17836/2013 &
19607-19608/2013 DATED 30/11/2015.
THIS WRIT APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 18.04.2022 COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH
KUMAR J, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
W.A No.461/2016
3
JUDGMENT
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB1
has presented this petition challenging the common
order dated November 30, 2015 in W.P.
No.17836/2013 and W.Ps. No.19607-19608/2013.
2. We have heard Shri. B.B. Patil, learned
Advocate for appellant, Shri. K. Shashi Kiran
Shetty, learned Senior Advocate for respondents
No. 1 to 4 and Shri. Bhojegouda T.Koller, learned
AGA for respondents No. 5 and 6.
3. Brief facts of the case are, respondents
approached this Court with the instant writ petitions
contending inter alia that they are the joint owners
of properties measuring 5 acres 29 guntas in Sy.
No.46; 5 acre 17 guntas in Sy. No.48; and 5 acres
Malur Taluk, Kolar District. A preliminary
Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board
W.A No.461/2016
Notification dated March 13, 2012, was issued by
the State Government proposing to acquire the said
lands for KIADB. Land owners filed their objections
stating that 4 acres each in Sy. No.46 and Sy.
No.52, were permitted to be diverted for non-
agricultural purpose by the Deputy Commissioner
vide order dated August 13, 2007 and they had
established a brick industry. It was also stated in
the objections that there were residential houses
and other buildings in Sy. No.48.
4. Respondents approached this Court with
the instant writ petition contending inter alia that
their objections were not considered. The Hon'ble
Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and
quashed the preliminary and final Notifications.
Hence, this writ appeal.
5. Shri. B.B. Patil, learned Advocate for the
appellant, KIADB, assailing the impugned order,
W.A No.461/2016
urged two grounds. Firstly, that Section 47 of the
KIAD Act2, has an overriding effect and secondly
that the Circular based on which the Hon'ble Single
Judge has allowed the writ petition, has no
statutory flavour. It is submitted that the lands are
required for industrial purpose and prayed for
allowing this writ appeal.
6. Shri. Shashi Kiran Shetty, for the private
respondents submitted that Circular dated March 3,
2007 has been issued by the State Government to
exclude the lands which have been diverted for
non-agriculture purposes and the garden lands. He
argued that the Hon'ble Single Judge has rightly
held that the acquiring authority has not considered
the relevant material and prayed for dismissal of
the writ appeal.
Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966
W.A No.461/2016
7. We have carefully considered rival
contentions and perused the records.
8. It is recorded by the Hon'ble Single
Judge in para 2 of the impugned order that the
SLAO3 had conducted a spot inspection on June 14,
2012 and submitted a Report stating that 30 guntas
in Sy. No.46 and 1 acre in Sy. No.52 were put to
use for non-agricultural activity; 20 guntas in Sy.
No.48 consisted of house, temple etc. He had
recommended for acquisition of 30 guntas in Sy.
No.46 out of 5 acres 29 guntas; 20 guntas in Sy.
No.48 out of 5 acre 17 guntas ; and 1 acre in Sy.
No.52 out of 5 acres 29 guntas for deletion. The
State Government have issued a Notification dated
December 4, 2012 for acquisition of the remaining
area. The Hon'ble Single Judge has further recorded
in para 5 that as per Circular dated March 3, 2007,
lands having been put to use for non-agriculture
Special Land Acquisition Officer
W.A No.461/2016
and garden purpose must be excluded from
acquisition.
9. The Hon'ble Single Judge has also
recorded in para 7 that to a specific question posed
by the Court as to why the SLAO had failed to
consider petitioner's request, it was replied by the
learned Government Advocate that when KIAD Act
does not provide such exclusion, there was no
necessity to consider petitioners' grievance.
10. It is not in dispute that the State
Government have issued Circular dated March 3,
2007. The Hon'ble Single Judge has extracted
paras 3 and 6 of the Circular which provides for
exclusion of lands which have been diverted for
non-agricultural purpose and the garden land. It is
also not in dispute that 4 acres each out of 5 acres
converted for non-agricultural industrial purpose.
W.A No.461/2016
The Report of the SLAO dated June 14, 2012 shows
that there existed residential houses, Temple etc.,
in 20 guntas in Sy. No.48.
11. The stand taken by the State
Government before the Hon'ble Single Judge is that
KIAD Act does not provide for exclusion of lands
based on the Circular. Admittedly, acquisition is
made by the State Government for the KIADB and
State Government are duty-bound to apply the
Circular uniformly while proposing acquisition of
land. Therefore, the first argument of
Shri. B.B. Patil that the Circular is not applicable, is
untenable. The second argument that the Circular
has no statutory flavour is also untenable because,
it is settled that the Circulars issued by the State
Government, bind their Officers. The vires of the
Circular is not under challenge. Thus, both grounds
canvassed by the appellant fail. Hence, this appeal
W.A No.461/2016
does not merit any consideration and it is
accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SPS
