Karnataka High Court
Sri G Y Munivenkatappa vs The Under Secretary To Government on 13 January, 2023
Bench: Alok Aradhe, S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
WA No.1095 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT APPEAL NO.1095 OF 2013 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. G.Y. MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O LATE YELLAPPA
R/O AREHALLI - GUDDADAHALI
BASHETTIHALLI POST
Digitally signed DODDABALLAPUR TALUK 561 203
by RUPA V BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE
VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560 001.
2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
3RD FLOOR, NO.3, KHENY BUILDING
1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN, GANDHINAGAR
BANGALORE 560 009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. RAJENDRA PRASAD, HCGP FOR R1
SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADV., FOR R2)
-2-
WA No.1095 of 2013
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.27312/2012(LA-KIADB)
DATED 29/01/2013.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra Court appeal has been filed against
order dated 29.01.2013 passed by the learned Single
Judge by which writ petition preferred by the appellant
has been dismissed in which challenge was made to the
final notification dated 01.03.2006 as well as award
notice dated 29.06.2012.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly
stated are that the appellant was owner of land bearing
Sy.No.151 measuring 29 guntas situated of Arehalli-
Guddedahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapur
Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. The aforesaid land in
addition to land measuring approximately about 265
acres, was required by the Karnataka Industrial Areas
WA No.1095 of 2013
Development Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Board') for setting up of an industrial area.
3. Thereupon, a preliminary notification under
Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')
was issued on 22.02.2005. The appellant was asked to
appear for an enquiry before the Land Acquisition
Officer on 19.04.2005. After hearing the appellant, the
objection preferred by the appellant was adjudicated
and an order under Section 28(3) of the Act was passed
on 19.04.2005. Thereafter, final notification was issued
on 01.03.2006. Eventually, an award was passed on
27.11.2007 which was approved by the appropriate
Government on 29.06.2012.
4. After a period of one month after the award was
passed, the appellant filed a writ petition in which
challenge was made to the final notification dated
WA No.1095 of 2013
01.03.2006 and the award notice dated 29.06.2012 inter
alia on the ground that in view of Circular dated
03.03.2007 issued by the State Government since the
land held by the appellant is situated within 100 meters
from the village, the same cannot be acquired. The
learned Single Judge, by an order dated 29.01.2013,
has dismissed the writ petition. In the aforesaid factual
background, this appeal has been filed.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties at length. The writ appeal deserves to be
dismissed for the following reasons:
(1) The challenge to the preliminary
notification dated 22.02.2005 as well as final
notification dated 01.03.2006 is belated inasmuch
as the writ petition was filed for a period of
approximately 7 years from the date of issuance of
preliminary notification.
WA No.1095 of 2013
(2) The sole ground of challenge to the
acquisition proceedings is that the land of the
appellant is situated within 100 meters from the
village and the same therefore cannot be acquired
in view of Circular dated 03.03.2007 issued by the
State Government. It is pertinent to mention here
that the preliminary as well as final notifications
were issued on 22.02.2005 and 01.03.2006 but the
circular has been issued on 03.03.2007 which
clearly provides that it is prospective in nature.
The appellant is therefore not entitled to the benefit
of aforesaid circular. Even otherwise, in
pursuance of an interim order passed by this
Court, a survey report dated 06.01.2015 was
submitted by the land surveyor from which it is
evident that the land in question is not situated
within 100 meters of the village but is beyond it.
WA No.1095 of 2013
6. In view of preceding analysis, we do not find any
ground to differ with the view taken by the learned
Single Judge.
In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby
dismissed.
Consequently, pending interlocutory application, if
any, is also dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RV
