Karnataka High Court
Smt. Chikkamma vs Karnataka Industrial Areas on 30 March, 2023
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
-1-
WP No. 3615 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 3615 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
SMT. CHIKKAMMA,
D/O LATE DASAPPA,
W/O LATE VENAKTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
R/AT K.G.SRINIVASAPURA VILLAGE,
SOMPURA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK - 562 123.
BENGALURU.
REP BY HER SPECIAL P.A. HOLDER
SRI. RAJU V,
S/O LATE ENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
R/AT SHANTHINAGAR VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
Digitally signed
NELAMANGALA TALUK - 562 123.
by SHARADA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
VANI B (NOT CLAMING SENIOR CITIZENSHIP BENEFIT)
Location: HIGH ...PETITIONER
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. N S BHAT.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
REPTD BY ITS SPECIAL LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER.
-2-
WP No. 3615 of 2023
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY,
(ID) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AND INDUSTRIES,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. SMT. KEMPAMMA,
D/O LATE GANGAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
4. SMT. GANGAMMA
W/O LATE SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
5. SRI. HANUMANTHARAJU,
S/O SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
6. VASANTH KUMAR
S/O LATE SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NOS.2 TO 6 ARE
R/AT K.G.SRINIVASAPURA VILLAGE, SOMPURA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK - 562 123.
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
7. SMT. THIMMAKKA,
W/O LATE SIDDAGANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/AT K.G.SRINIVASAPURA VILLAGE,
SOMAPURA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK - 562 123.
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
8. SMT. SIDDAMMA,
W/O LATE MARIYAPPA,
W/O HANUMANTHARAYA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT CHANNAVEERANAHALLI VILLAGE,
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK - 561 203.
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
-3-
WP No. 3615 of 2023
9. SMT. SIDDAGANGAMMA
W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT MARALAKUNTE VILLAGE, SOMPURA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK - 562 123.
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.ASHOK N NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. R SRINIVASA GOWDA., AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION NO.CI 461 SPQ
2007 DATED 29.11.2008 ISSUED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY,
(I.D) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES FOR
KIADB-R1 AS PER ANNEXURE-P AND ALSO NOTIFICATION
NO.CI 531 SPQ 2009 BENGALURU DATED 27.05.2010 ISSUED
BY THE UNDERSECRETARY(I.D) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AND INDUSTRIES FOR KIADB-THE R1 AS PER ANNEXURE-Q
AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner claiming to be the owner of the subject
property on the basis of Assistant Commissioner's order in
RTS Appeal, disposed off on 30.06.2017 is knocking at the
doors of Writ Court complaining against the acquisition of
the subject property essentially on the ground that she
WP No. 3615 of 2023
being the true owner of the property herself, the
Notifications issued in the name of some one else are
illegal and at least, compensation ought to have been
given to her. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits
that right to property having been constitutionally
guaranteed under Article 300A, taking property without
paying compensation is not justifiable in the light of
decision of the Apex Court in K.T Plantation vs. State of
Karnataka (2011) 9 SCC 1.
2. Learned AGA appearing for the Respondent -
State and the learned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for the
Respondent - KIADB oppose the Petition contending that
the acquisition is of the year 2008; the Statutory
Notifications were issued in the name of khathedar who is
not the Petitioner; the award passed on 24.12.2011 and
compensation in all, a sum of Rs.53,60,000/- has already
been paid to the khathedars account; possession has been
taken over on 27.07.2010; in fact, Petitioner's Civil Suit in
O.S.No.572/2015 challenging the acquisition has also been
WP No. 3615 of 2023
dismissed on 19.10.2022. Therefore, they seek dismissal
of the Writ Petition.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines
indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with submission
made on behalf of the Respondents, more particularly in
the light of certain observations made by the Trial Judge in
the subject suit. In both the Preliminary Notification dated
29.01.2008 issued under Section 28(1) of the 1966 Act
and Final Notification dated 27.05.2010 issue under
Section 28(4), Petitioner's name did not figure as
khathedar in the Property Records, even thereafter i.e., at
the time of passing the award, taking of possession and
making payment of compensation too, Petitioner's name
did not figure in the Property Records. In fact, she had
filed an RTS Appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka
Land Revenue Act, 1964 only in April 2014 which came to
be favoured by the Assistant Commissioner on 30.06.2017
on the basis of which for the first time Petitioner's name
WP No. 3615 of 2023
gained entry to the Property Records. That being the
position, the acquisition process cannot be faltered even in
the least.
4. Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the KIADB
is more than justified in contending that there is absolutely
no allegation of fraud fabrication or duplicity or the like
against his client for whose benefit acquisition of property
has been accomplished under the provisions of Karnataka
Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 and therefore,
there is no cause of action against his client. The fraud
arguably is against the khatedars or the persons who have
received the compensation claiming to be the owner of the
subject property and therefore, Petitioner should proceed
against such other persons and not against the State or
the KIADB at all.
5. The vehement submission of learned counsel for
the Petitioner that even to this day his clients continues to
be in the possession of the subject property is bit difficult
to countenance especially when the admitted position is
WP No. 3615 of 2023
that the acquisition has been accomplished. There is some
observation in the judgment of the Trial Judge which
denied relief to the Petitioner in her suit in
O.S.No.572/2015 as to the possession having been taken
by the KIADB. This Court cannot readily re-examine
whether Petitioner is in possession or the KIADB has taken
the possession since there is already some finding in that
regard.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is
disposed off reserving liberty to the Petitioner to proceed
against those who have perpetrated fraud or such other
actionable grounds by filing an appropriate suit in
accordance with law.
It hardly needs to be stated that the period spent in
prosecuting the suit and also this writ petition is liable to
be discounted while computing the period of limitation for
instating the suit of the kind. In that regard, all other
contentions are kept open.
WP No. 3615 of 2023
Registry to send a copy of this judgment to all the
private Respondents by Speed Post, forthwith.
Now, no costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Bsv
