The Special Land Acquisition vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 12702 Kant

                              1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

                        PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                             AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

       WRIT APPEAL NO.3856/2013(LA-KIADB)

BETWEEN:

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER, THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB)
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001.                     ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI ASHOK N NAYAK, ADV.)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
       DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES &
       COMMERCE, VIDHANA SOUDHA
       BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.     HANUMAIAH
       SINCE DEAD HIS LRS.

2(A). SHIVAKUMAR H
      S/O LATE HANUMAIAH
      SINCE DIED ON 21.04.2019
      SHIVAKUMAR DECEASED BY HIS LRS

2A(1). SMT. SUNANDA
      W/O SHIVAKUMAR H
      AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

2A(2). DR. S. MANJUNATH
       S/O LATE SHIVAKUMAR H
                            2

     AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.

2A(3). SMT. PAVITHARA
       D/O LATE SHIVAKUMAR H
       AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.

2(B). RAJANNA H
      S/O LATE HANUAMAIAH
      SINCE DIED ABOUT 25 YEARS BACK

RAJANNA H DECEASED BY HIS LRS

2B(1). SMT. SHANTHAMMA
       W/O LATE RAJANNA H
       AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

2(C). SRI HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
      S/O LATE HANUMAIAH
      AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

2(D). SRI H.V. PRAKASH
      S/O LATE HANUMAIAH
      AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

2(E). SRI G.H. KRISHANAMURTY
      S/O LATE HANUMAIAH
      AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

2(F). SMT. ANASUYA
      S/O LATE HANUMAIAH
      AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

2(G). SMT. GIRIJA
      D/O LATE HANUMAIAH
      AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.            ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI LAXMI NARAYANA, AGA FOR R-1;
 SRI R. BHADRINATH, ADV., FOR R-2(A) (1-3)
 R-2(B) (1) & R-2(C-G))

      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 45396/11 DATED
9/11/12.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                             3


                    JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal takes an exception to the

order dated 09.11.2012 passed by the learned Single

Judge, by which the writ petition preferred by the

respondent has been allowed and the State Government

is directed to consider the case of the respondent for

deletion of the land from the acquisition proceedings

under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas

Development Act, 1966 (for short, 'the Act').

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal

briefly stated are, that the State Government had issued

a preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the Act

for acquisition of the lands situated at Govenahalli,

Nelamangala Taluk, measuring 18 acres 33 guntas. The

aforesaid notification included the land belonging to the

respondent measuring 3 acres 30 guntas of Sy. No.16

situated at Govenahalli, Nelamangala Taluk.

3. Out of the aforesaid lands, the owners of the

lands measuring 15 acres 3 guntas voluntarily handed

over the possession of the lands to Karnataka Industrial

Areas Development Board (for short, 'KIADB'). However,

the respondent who was the owner of land measuring 3

acres 30 guntas objected to the acquisition of the land.

Thereupon, a notice dated 21.05.2004 was issued to the

respondent under Section 28(2) of the Act. The Land

Acquisition Officer passed the order under Section 28(3)

of the Act on 25.06.2004. The State Government,

thereafter, issued the final notification under Section

28(4) of the Act on 26.07.2004. The possession of the

land was taken on 18.08.2004.

4. After a period of more than seven years, a writ

petition was filed by the respondent in which the

quashment of final notification dated 26.07.2004 issued

under Section 28(4) of the Act was sought in respect of

the land belonging to the respondent. The learned Single

Judge, by order dated 09.11.2012 has held that the land

measuring 3 acres 30 guntas belonging to the

respondent has not been utilized, and therefore, the

same has to be deleted either in exercise of powers

under Section 4 of the Act or under Section 21 of the

Karnataka General Clauses Act, 1897. The writ petition

was, therefore, allowed and the State Government was

directed to consider the case of the respondent for

deletion of the land belonging to the respondent. In the

aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant while inviting

the attention of this Court to the mahazar, submitted

that the possession of the land in question was taken on

18.08.2004 and an award was passed by the Land

Acquisition Officer. It is further submitted that after the

proceedings in the land acquisition case had concluded,

after a period of seven years, a writ petition was filed

which suffered from delay and latches, and therefore, the

same ought not to have been entertained. However, the

aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been appreciated

by the learned Single Judge. On the other hand, learned

Counsel for the respondent submitted that the

respondent had submitted a representation in the year

2005 to de-notify the land in question on the ground that

the beneficiary was not interested in the acquisition of

the land. It is further submitted that since the possession

of the land in question was never taken, the land had not

vested in the KIADB. It is therefore urged that no

interference is called for with the order passed by the

learned Single Judge.

6. We have considered the rival submissions made

on both the sides and have perused the records.

Admittedly, the preliminary notification in the instant

case was issued on 20.05.2004, whereas final notification

was issued on 26.07.2004. An award was passed by the

Special Land Acquisition Officer on 18.08.2004. The writ

petition was filed after an inordinate delay of seven years

on 07.02.2011, for which no plausible explanation was

offered.

7. It is well settled in law that when there is an

inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and when all

the steps are taken in the acquisition proceedings, which

have become final, the court should be lath to quash the

notifications. It has further been held that though this

court had discretionary powers under Article 226 of the

constitution of India but the said powers have to be

exercised taking into account all relevant factors into

pragmatic consideration. It has further been held that

when the award has been passed and the possession is

taken the court should not exercise its power to quash

the award which is material factor to be taken into

consideration before exercising the powers under Article

226 of the Constitution of India. [SEE: 'MUNICIPAL

CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY VS.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT CO. PVT.

LTD & ORS.', (1996) 11 SCC 501, 'MUNICIPAL

CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY VS. SHAH

HYDER BEIG & ORS.', (2000) 2 SCC 48, 'SWAIKA

PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. AND ORS. VS. STATE OF

RAJASTHAN AND ORS.', AIR 2008 SC 1494 AND

'JASVEER SIGH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF UTTAR

PRADESH AND ORS.', (2017) 6 SCC 787.

8. In the backdrop of the aforesaid well settled law,

it is axiomatic that no explanation had been offered by

the respondent in approaching this Court after an

inordinate delay of seven years and in making a

challenge to the final notification dated 26.07.2004. It is

also pertinent to mention that the validity of the award

dated 18.08.2004 passed by the Special Land Acquisition

Officer was not questioned by the respondent. The writ

petition suffered from inordinate delay and latches, and

therefore, ought to have been dismissed on the ground of

delay and latches alone. However, the aforesaid vital

aspect of the matter was not appreciated by the learned

Single Judge while passing the impugned order.

9. For the aforementioned reasons, the order dated

09.11.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in the

writ petition cannot be sustained in the eye of law and

the same is accordingly quashed. In the result, the

appeal is allowed.

SD/-

JUDGE

SD/-

JUDGE KK