Karnataka High Court
Chandrashekar Reddy H N vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 December, 2023
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:46599
WP No. 24256 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 24256 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY H.N.,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
S/O NANJA REDDY,
R/A HOSAHUDYA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK-561 207,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHETHAN A.C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE,
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
REP. HEREIN ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
4TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
Digitally signed by
GEETHAKUMARI 3. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
PARLATTAYA S KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
Location: High DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
Court of Karnataka 4TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
4. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD, 4TH FLOOR,
KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MANJUNATH V. RAYAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI GOPAL V. BILALMANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:46599
WP No. 24256 of 2023
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION
ISSUED BY R1 BEARING NO.C1 532 SPQ 2009, BENGALURU DATED
11.12.2009 ISSUED U/S 3(1), 1(3) AND 28(1) OF THE KARNATAKA
INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966 IN SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONERS 4 ACRES 8 GUNTAS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN
SY.NO.228/1A OF HOSAHUDYA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, BAGEPALLI
TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT IS CONCERNED, ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed for following reliefs:
i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing
notification issued by Respondent no.1 bearing
no.CL 532 SPQ 2009, Bengaluru dated
11.12.2009 issued under Sections 3(1), 1(3) as
petitioners 4 acres 8 guntas of agricultural land
in Sy.no.228/1A of Hosahudya village, Kasaba
HObli, Bagepalli taluk, Chikkaballapur district is
concerned (Annexure-A) and etc.
2. Sri Chetan A.C., learned counsel for petitioner
submitted that petitioner was owner of land bearing
Sy.no.228/1A, measuring 4 acres 8 guntas of Hosahudya
village, Kasaba Hobli, Bagepalli taluk, Chikkaballapur district,
notified for acquisition under Section 1(3), 3(1) and 28(1) of
Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act),
under Preliminary Notification dated 11.12.2009. It was
submitted that despite lapse of 14 years since issuance of
Preliminary notification, no enquiry conducted and further steps
under Section 28(3), 28(4) and 28(6) of KIAD Act. It was
NC: 2023:KHC:46599
submitted that this Court in W.P.no.10139/2021 disposed of on
25.06.2021 had quashed Preliminary Notification on ground of
acquisition having been abandoned and therefore sought for
allowing writ petition.
3. On other hand, learned AGA for respondent no.1 and
Sri Gopal V. Bilalmane, learned counsel for respondents no.2 to
4 opposed writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for respondents no.2 to 4 referring
to statement of objections and additional statement of
objections filed contended that against order passed in
W.P.no.10139/2021, respondent-Board had preferred W.A.
no.1290/2023 and connected matters, before this Court and
same was pending. In view of above, writ petition was liable to
be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition
record.
6. From above submission, it is not in dispute that
petitioner's land was proposed to be acquired by KIADB under
Preliminary Notification dated 11.12.2009. It is also not
disputed that thereafter no further steps were taken for
completing acquisition under Section 28 of KIAD Act. Under
NC: 2023:KHC:46599
similar circumstances, this Court, in decision relied upon,
arrived at conclusion that acquisition stood abandoned and
lapsed. Said finding would bind respondent-Board even if
appeal was filed against any one of judgments unless any
interim order has been granted. Thus mere filing of appeal
would not come in way of this Court following law declared, to
hold acquisition as having lapsed. Admittedly, despite lapse of
14 years, no further steps for acquisition have been taken
place.
Therefore, following ratio/findings of this Court in
W.P.no.10139/2021 and W.P.no.48060/2019, Writ petition
stands allowed, acquisition in respect of petitioner's lands in
pursuance of notification Annexure-A dated 11.12.2009 is
declared as lapsed.
Cost imposed vide order of this Court on 29.11.2023 is
made part of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PSG
