Karnataka High Court
Sri A Nanjundappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 March, 2023
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
-1-
WP No. 38311 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 38311 OF 2014 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
SRI. A NANJUNDAPPA.,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS,
SMT. LEELAVATHI,
W/O SRI. A NANJUNDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/AT SULEKERE PALYA, KODIGEHALLI HOBLI,
TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT -562 227.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.MITHUN G A.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
by SHARADA
VANI B INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE DEPARTMENT,
Location: VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE.
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUSITION OFFICER
K.I.A.D.B., NO.3/2, 1ST CROSS, III FLOOR,
KENI BUILDING, GANDHI NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 009.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
K.I.A.D.B., NO.3/2, 1ST CROSS, III FLOOR,
KENI BUILDING, GANDHI NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R SRINIVASA GOWDA., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. P V CHANDRASHEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
-2-
WP No. 38311 of 2014
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DTD.15.5.2007 PUBLISHED
AT KARNATAKA GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DTD.17.5.2007 VIDE
ANNEX-A WHICH HAS LAPSED THE ACQUISITION
PROCEEDINGS AS THE RESPONDENTS FAILED TO PASS
AWARD AS WELL AS DEPOSIT OF THE COMPENSATION
AMOUNT IN THE COURT AND ALSO AS NO NOTICE WAS
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER AS CONTENDED EARLIER U/S
28(2) OF THE L.A.ACT ON ACCOUNT OF LEGAL FICTION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner is knocking at the doors of the Writ Court
seeking to lay a challenge to the 2007 acquisition done
under the provisions of Section 28 of the Karnataka
Industries Area Development Act, 1966. Learned counsel
appearing for the Petitioner vehemently argues that his
client was not notified of the Preliminary Notification nor
his objections thereto were considered, nor any award has
been passed nor any compensation paid. He banks upon a
decision of this Court in W.P.No.61426/2016 between M V
GURUPRASAD & ANOTHER VS. STATE& OTHERS, disposed
off by this Court vide judgment dated 10.02.2023 whereby
some relief in addition to statutory grantables have been
awarded by this Court and therefore, the same should be
WP No. 38311 of 2014
extended to his clients too. He also submits that land in
excess of what is notified for acquisition is being taken by
the KIADB unjustifiably.
2. The Respondent - State is represented by the
learned AGA and the Respondent - KIADB speaks through
its Sr. Panel Counsel by filing the Statement of Objections
on 21.03.2016. Both they make submission in justification
of the impugned acquisition pointing out that as on the
date, the Preliminary Notification was issued, the name of
the Petitioner had not figured in the property Records and
therefore, name of his predecessors in title was shown in
the acquisition Notifications; the Objections were filed by
the Petitioner but only on 24.02.2007 and that was time
barred. They also contend that the scheme of acquisition
under Section 28 of the 1966 Act is in variance with the
one that is envisaged under the erstwhile Land Acquisition
Act, 1894. In the former, land vests in the State once the
Final Notification is issued, whether the award is passed or
not. They seek dismissal of the Petition pointing out
Petitioner's representation dated 06.08.2013 wherein he
WP No. 38311 of 2014
has sought for payment of compensation for the acquired
land on the basis of his 2006 sale deed.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the Petition papers, this Court is
inclined to grant very limited indulgence in the matter as
under and for the following reasons:
(a) The Preliminary Notification was issued under
Section 28(1) of the 1966 Act on 09.01.2007; the
Objections were filed by the Petitioner on 15.02.2007 i.e.,
beyond 30 days, prescribed by the law; the Final
Notification under Section 28(4) came to be issued on
15.05.2007; the Possession Notice was issued and later
the land was taken on 11.11.2007 itself. The Price
Determination Committee of the KIADB has determined
the compensation at the rate of Rs.55,00,000/- per acre.
The Section 29(2) notice was issued on 03.07.2014 vide
Annexure-R2 asking the Petitioner to come and take the
compensation. However, Petitioner did not avail the offer.
Petitioner himself had in writing asked the KIADB to pay
WP No. 38311 of 2014
the compensation as is reflected in Annexure R1 to the
KIADB Statement of Objections. Therefore, at this length
of time, he cannot turn around and complain against
acquisition as rightly contended by the Respondents. His
objection to Preliminary Notification was also time barred
and therefore, its non-consideration cannot invalidate the
acquisition process. No fault can be found in mentioning
Petitioner's vendors name in the acquisition notification
since he had not got his name entered in the revenue
records pursuant to 2006 Sale Deed.
(b) The above being the position emerging from the
records, still there is force in the submission of learned
counsel for the Petitioner that since vesting of the land
takes palace pursuant to notification issued under Section
28(4), the extent of land acquired has to accord with the
extent mentioned in the said Notification notwithstanding
what was shown in the Preliminary Notification. The
extent of land mentioned in the Preliminary Notification
was 12 Acres; however, the extent shown in the Final
Notification is only 10 Acres. That being the position, the
WP No. 38311 of 2014
land beyond 10 Acres as described in the Schedule to the
Final Notification cannot be touched by the Respondent -
KIADB.
(c) Learned counsel for the Petitioner having argued
the mater at length vociferously, now graciously that the
subject acquisition be treated as the one done with
agreement as provided under Section 29(2) of the 1966
Act consistent with the catena of decision of this Court so
that the land losers will have more solace. There is a
sense of justice in the said submission and therefore, the
request cannot be negatived by the KIADB, more
particularly when day in & day out such relief is being
granted to the land losers more than often who happen to
be agriculturists as is the case here too. Learned counsel
for the Petitioner is also right in seeking liberty to his
client to make a representation to the KIADB for securing
the reasonable pathway for the ingress & aggress to his
remaining land.
WP No. 38311 of 2014
(d) Petitioner cannot much bank upon a decision of
this Court in GURUPRASAD case, supra inasmuch as he did
not go and take the compensation offered by the KIADB as
already mentioned above. In fact, it was expected of the
petitioner to disclose his written representation wherein he
had requested for the payment of compensation to which
the KIADB had acceded to, of course subject to
establishing his credentials by producing the documents as
enlisted in the Notice itself.
In view of the above, I make the following direction:
(i) this Writ Petition is allowed in part. The
acquisition is confined to only 10 Acres of
land as described in the Final Notification
dated 15.05.2007 and therefore, the
remaining 2 Acres of land continues with the
Petitioner, who can make a representation to
the KIADB for working out a reasonable
pathway for ingress & egress for his land;
(ii) the acquisition of subject land shall be
treated as having been done with agreement
of the Petitioner and the Respondent -
KIADB is directed to accomplish said
proceedings & pay compensation within
three months subject to Petitioner
establishing his credentials in accordance
with law; delay shall carry interest at the
rate of 2% per mensum, in addition to the
usual;
WP No. 38311 of 2014
(iii) If there is any rival claim, the compensation
amount shall be deposited in the
jurisdictional Court immediately so that the
disputants can have redressal to their
grievance, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Bsv
