Karnataka High Court
Sri. P. Devaraj vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 April, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:14627
WP No. 48002 of 2018
C/W WP No. 27650 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 48002 OF 2018 (LA-KIADB)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 27650 OF 2019 (LA-KIADB)
IN W.P.No.48002/2018
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. A. RANGAPPA
S/O. LATE A. ANJINAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.73,
1ST FLOOR, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
HEBBAL FARM POST,
BANGALORE-560 024.
2. SRI. A. RUDRAPPA
S/O. ANJINAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
KIRAN KUMAR R RESIDING AT NO.73,
Location: HIGH 1ST FLOOR, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA HEBBAL FARM POST,
BANGALORE-560 024.
3. SRI. M. ASHWATHANARAYAN
S/O. LATE B. MARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 9, "MATHRU NILAYA", 2ND MAIN,
SADARAHALLI BAYANNA LAYOUT,
HEBBAL, BANGALORE-560 024.
4. SRI. N. KRISHNAPPA
S/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:14627
WP No. 48002 of 2018
C/W WP No. 27650 of 2019
R/AT NO. 385, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
HEBBAL, BANGALORE-560 024.
5. SRI. N. VENKATESH
S/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 385, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
HEBBAL, BANGALORE-560 024.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. THIMMEGOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AND INDUSTRY (KIADB)
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
5TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVANA,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 009.
3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
5TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVANA,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 009.
4. THE GENERAL MANAGER
LAND ACQUISITION ESTATE BMRCL
LAND SECTION, OPP GATE NO 10 ,
CHINASWAMY STADIUM,
MG ROAD, BENGALURU 560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R-1;
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:14627
WP No. 48002 of 2018
C/W WP No. 27650 of 2019
SRI.P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3;
SRI. K.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-4;
SRI. BADRI VISHAL, ADVOCATE FOR R-5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PASS AN AWARD IN RESPECT
OF THE PETITIONERS ACQUIRED LANDS, AS PER NEW LAND
ACQUISTIION ACT, I.E,. RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND
TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION REHABILITATION AND
RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013, ETC.
IN W.P.No.27650/2019
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.P.DEVARAJ,
S/O LATE PILLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT No.168, SHIVASHANKARA BLOCK,
2ND MAIN, GOWDARA PILLAPPA
COMPOUND, HEBBAL,
BANGALORE-560 024.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. THIMMEGOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AND INDUSTRY (KIADB)
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
5TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVANA,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 009.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:14627
WP No. 48002 of 2018
C/W WP No. 27650 of 2019
3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
5TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVANA,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 009.
4. LAKE VIEW TOURISM GORPORATION
No.10/1, LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX
GROUND FLOOR, PALACE ROAD,
BENGALURU-60 001.
REP. BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
OR ITS PARTNER
M/S ASHWITHA PROPERTY DEVELOPERS
PRIVATE LIMITED
SRI.CHETHAN KUMAR.S.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI. P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3;
SRI. BADRI VISHAL, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PASS AN AWARD IN RESPECT
OF THE PETITIONERS ACQUIRED LANDS, AS PER NEW LAND
ACQUISTIION ACT, I.E,. RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND
TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION REHABILITATION AND
RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013, ETC.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
IN W.P. No.48002 of 2018:
1. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition
seeking for a direction to pass an award in respect of the
NC: 2024:KHC:14627
petitioner's acquired land as per the provisions of the Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for
short, 'the 2013 Act'), or, in the alternative, quashing of
the notifications issued under Section 28(1) of the
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for
short, 'the KIAD Act') on 25.11.2002 and under Section
28(4) of the KIAD Act on 11.05.2004 in respect of the
petition schedule premises.
2. The challenge to the Notifications (in the alternative)
is on the ground that the acquisition proceedings have
been abandoned because the awards have not been
passed despite the lapse of nearly two decades.
3. It is not in dispute that a Notification under Section
28(1) of the KIAD Act was issued on 25.11.2002 and this
was followed by a declaration under Section 28(4) of the
KIAD Act on 11.05.2004.
4. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners preferred
W.P. No.17141 of 2005 in the year 2005 and the same
NC: 2024:KHC:14627
was dismissed on 01.07.2010. It is also not in dispute that
though more than 14 years have elapsed since the date of
dismissal of the writ petition, no award has been passed
by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (for
short, 'the KIADB').
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that since no award has been passed
for the past 14 years from the date of dismissal of the writ
petition, it is deemed that the acquisition proceedings
have been abandoned.
6. Reliance is placed on a Division Bench ruling of this
Court in Writ Appeal No.100219 of 2018 disposed of on
05.12.2018, and also another ruling of the Division Bench
passed in Writ Appeal No.4583 of 2011 on 01.02.2023.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the KIADB submits
that it would be impermissible for the awards to be passed
under the 2013 Act, having regard to the fact that the
acquisition is of the year 2004.
NC: 2024:KHC:14627
8. As far as non-passing of the award, the learned
counsel submits that the awards could not be passed in
view of the pendency of several writ petitions, appeals and
Special Leave Petitions in respect of the said notifications.
9. It is not in dispute that the petitioners only
challenged the acquisition in the year 2005, which ended
in dismissal in 2010. It is also not in dispute that,
thereafter, the petitioners have not preferred any appeal
and have accepted the acquisition. Despite this fact, no
awards have been passed though more than 14 years
have elapsed.
10. The argument of the learned counsel for the KIADB
that the awards could not be passed in view of the
pendency of several other litigations filed by other land-
owners cannot be accepted.
11. It is to be stated here that the awards are passed in
respect of the lands separately, and merely because
litigation is pending in respect of some other lands, the
passing of an award cannot be withheld or postponed.
NC: 2024:KHC:14627
12. The Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal
No.100219 of 2018 has held as follows:
"17. In the instant case, the facts are very
pertinent. Though the preliminary notification was
issued under Section 28(1) on 25.08.1971 and
declaration and final notification under Section 28(4)
was issued on 23.02.1972, no award had been
passed till date. Even though the possession of land
in question was taken on 26.06.1975, there has been
no development of the said land precisely because no
award had been made in respect of the land in
question. In the circumstances, even without
reference to Section 24(2) of 2013 Act, having
regard to the facts which emerge in the present case,
we hold that there is an abandonment of the
acquisition process by the State Government as well
as the appellants herein; that the acquisition has
lapsed by virtue of abandonment of the acquisition
process as for over four decades from the date of
taking possession of the lands in question no award
has been passed and no compensation has been
awarded to the land owners and hence, the writ
petitioners are entitled to possession of the lands in
question. On this aspect, there can be no legal
compiexity as the appellants of the State
Government have not taken any developmental
activities on the said lands. In the circumstances, the
NC: 2024:KHC:14627
appellants are directed to hand over possession of
the lands in question to respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt
of a certified copy of this judgment. The aforesaid
direction is being issued in order to avoid one more
round of litigation between the parties as inevitably
the appellants would not hand over possession to the
respondent Nos.2 to 4 unless a direction is issued by
the Court of law."
13. And in Writ Appeal No.4583 of 2011, has stated as
follows:
"13. In the instant case, admittedly, even after a
period of 24 years neither the land acquisition
proceedings were completed by passing the award
nor the possession of the land was taken. No
explanation has been offered on behalf of the
Authority for the inordinate delay in concluding the
proceedings under the Act. Therefore, we hold that
there was an unreasonable and unexplained delay in
concluding the land acquisition proceedings."
14. In the light of the judgments of the Division Bench
and having regard to the fact that the awards have not
been passed for nearly 14 years from the date of dismissal
of the writ petition, the acquisition proceedings cannot be
sustained. Consequently, the notifications dated
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:14627
25.11.2002 and 11.05.2004 issued under Sections 28(1)
and 28(4) of the KIAD Act, insofar as the petitioners' lands
are concerned is quashed.
15. The learned Senior counsel, on instructions from
petitioner No.2--who is present in the Court, submits that
in respect of a portion of the lands belonging to petitioner
Nos.1 and 2, have been earmarked for the use by BMRCL
and he submits that the petitioners are ready to hand over
this land provided the package compensation offered by
the BMRCL is offered to them.
16. This statement is placed on record.
17. The learned counsel for the BMRCL submits that the
compensation amount in respect to the lands needed for
BMRCL has been deposited with the KIADB. If the KIADB
is prepared to pay the said package amount to the
petitioners, the statement of the petitioners that they
would hand-over possession of the land which is
earmarked for the use of BMRCL is placed on record.
18. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:14627
IN W.P. No.27650 of 2019:
19. The learned counsel for the KIADB however submits
that one of the sons of Pillappa--the notified Khatedar has
filed an affidavit stating that he is agreeable for accepting
the compensation at the rate of Rs.12.10 crores per acre
and the copy of the notarized affidavit is also filed.
20. Having regard to the fact that the notified Khathedar
was Pillappa and it is admitted by the parties that Pillappa
had six sons, merely on the basis of a statement of one of
his sons, the acquisition cannot be upheld.
21. Consequently, the acquisition of the lands in respect
of the petitioners land measuring 0-13 guntas is quashed.
22. Liberty is however reserved to the KIADB to secure
the share of Ramchandraiah--the son of late Pillappa who
has executed an affidavit stating that he is prepared to
receive the compensation.
23. If Ramchandraiah is able to secure his particular
share and hand-over the same, to that extent,
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:14627
notwithstanding the quashing of the notifications, the
KIADB would be entitled to those lands.
24. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RK
Ct: SN
