Karnataka High Court
Narasareddi S/O Pentareddi vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 29 February, 2024
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1840-DB
WA No.200121 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL NO.200121 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
NARASAREDDI
S/O PENTAREDDI
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O BELLUR VILLAGE
TQ: AND DIST: BIDAR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAVI B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by VARSHA N
RASALKAR
Location: HIGH
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
COURT OF REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
KARNATAKA
(INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT)
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AND INDUSTRIES
VIKAS SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
K.I.A.D.B. HEAD OFFICE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1840-DB
WA No.200121 of 2023
14/3, 2ND FLOOR, R.P. BUILDINGS
NRUPATUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
K.I.A.D.B. ZONAL OFFICE
KAPNOOR INDUSTRIAL AREA
HUMNABAD ROAD
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GA FOR R1;
SRI A.M. NAGARAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE RECORDS IN WRIT PETITION NO.200769/2015 ON THE
FILE OF LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE Court; AND
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER IMPUGNED DATED 09.02.2023
PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.200769/2015 AND
CONSEQUENTIALLY TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED
FOR IN THE INTEREST JUSTICE AND ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1840-DB
WA No.200121 of 2023
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 4
of the Karnataka High Courts Act, 1961 challenging the
order dated 09.02.2023 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.No.200769/2015, whereby the writ petition
filed by the appellant/petitioner is dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case:
The appellant herein is the owner of the land bearing
Sy.No.4/Po4/1, measuring 02 acres 21 guntas situated at
Bellur village, Tq. & Dist. Bidar and the said land has been
acquired by the respondent authorities under the
provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development
Act, 1966 (for short, 'the Act') by issuing Preliminary
Notification under Section 28(1) of the Act which was
published on 21.09.2007 and the final Notification under
Section 28(4) of the Act was published on 26.03.2008.
Thereafter, the consent award was passed on 10.06.2008.
The said land has been acquired for the purpose of
establishing of Airport but till the year 2015, the purpose
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1840-DB
for which the land was acquired has not been served which
compelled the appellant/petitioner to approach this Court
by filing a writ petition challenging the acquisition
proceedings initiated by the respondents by issuing both
preliminary and final notifications. After having considered
the contentions raised by the appellant as well as the
respondents, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ
petition. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant is
before this Court in this writ appeal.
3. The contentions raised by Sri Ravi B. Patil,
learned counsel for the appellant are that:
(i) The Notification issued under Section 3(1) of
the Act was published without mentioning the date and
therefore the notification itself is invalid. Without issuing
notification under Section 3(1) of the Act, the respondent
authorities have no right to acquire the land by issuing
Notifications under Section 28(1) and 28(4) of the Act.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1840-DB
(ii) As per the notification, the land was acquired
for the purpose of establishment of an Airport but the
respondents have not utilized the land for which purpose it
was acquired and in most of the cases, the land owners
have obtained permission under Section 95 of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 for utilizing the
agricultural land into non-agricultural purpose. Therefore,
it indicates that the respondent authorities have not
utilized the land for the purpose for which it has been
acquired. Therefore, the acquisition of the subject land
itself lapsed.
(iii) Even though in the year 2008, the appellant
gave consent for passing the consent award but till today
the respondent authorities have not utilized the land for
which purpose it has been acquired. The possession is also
with the land owner.
Hence, on the above grounds, the learned counsel
sought to allow the appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1840-DB
4. Per contra, Sri Mallikarjun C. Basareddy, the
learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent
No.1 - State and Sri A.M. Nagral, the learned counsel for
the respondent Nos.2 to 4 - KIADB in unison contend that
as per Section 3(1) of the Act, notification has been issued
for the purpose of acquisition of land for industrial
development and it is the submission of learned counsel
for the respondents that in the copy of said notification
which is produced before the Court, the date of notification
is not even minimal legible. It is further contended that
the Preliminary Notification issued under Section 28(1) of
the Act has been issued for industrial purposes as well as
the establishment of an Airport. They further contend that
now industrial plots have been formed and same are
allotted to some entrepreneurs for the establishment of
industry.
5. In support of his contention, learned counsel
Sri A.M. Nagral relied upon a decision of Apex Court in
P. Narayanappa and another Vs. State of Karnataka
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1840-DB
and Others1. He further contended that the order of the
Deputy Commissioner for conversion of the land under
Section 95 of the Land Revenue Act is related to
Sy.No.4/4/5, the land which is not subjected to acquisition
under notifications in question. He further contended that
the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is in
respect of the conversion of land that has been challenged
and same been set aside by the Court. Hence, on these
grounds, sought for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the appeal papers.
7. It is not in dispute that the
appellant/petitioner's land in Sy.No.4/Po4/1 has been
acquired by the respondent authorities under the
provisions of the Act. The Preliminary Notification has
been issued under Section 28(1) of the Act on 21.09.2007.
The Final Notification under Section 28(4) of the Act was
(2006) 7 SCC 578
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1840-DB
issued on 26.03.2008. Before issuing both preliminary
and final notifications, the Government issued a
notification under Section 3(1) of the Act declaring the
lands enlisted under the said notification as industrial area
for the purpose of industrial development. But the date of
notification is not forthcoming from the notification. The
learned Single Judge has considered that aspect of the
matter and has given a clear finding that non-mentioning
of the date in the Notification issued under Section 3(1) of
the Act is not much of a consequence.
8. As per the Preliminary Notification issued under
Section 28(1) of the Act, it is very clear that the land was
acquired for the purpose of establishment of industry in
Chidri village, taluka and district Bidar and also for the
establishment of the Airport. As per the records produced
by the respondent authorities, it is very clear that now
they have formed an industrial layout and have allotted
plots to the entrepreneurs for the establishment of
industry. The Apex Court in the case of P. Narayanappa
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1840-DB
(supra) has considered the definition of 'industrial
infrastructural facilities'. The relevant paragraphs of the
said decision are at para-11 to 13, which are extracted as
follows:
"11. The Preamble of the Act shows that it has
been enacted to make special provisions for
securing the establishment of industrial areas and
generally to promote the establishment and the
orderly development of the industries in such
industrial areas. Section 2(7-a) defines "industrial
infrastructural facilities". This provision was
inserted on 19.2.1997 by an amendment made by
Act No.11 of 1997. The Statement of Objects and
Reasons of the amending Act has some relevance
and the same is being reproduced below:
"After the liberalization of economic
and industrial policies in the year
1991 increased emphasis has been
given for private sector investment
not only in the industrial sector but
also in the infrastructural sectors. As
such a number of proposals, both
from indigenous and foreign
companies have been received for
considerable investments in
infrastructural areas like
establishment of power projects,
express highways, ports, airports,
townships, industrial parks etc. These
projects need considerable extent of
land for implementation.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1840-DB
Therefore, it is considered
necessary to amend the Karnataka
Industrial Areas Development Act,
1966, to enable the Board to acquire
land for providing industrial
infrastructural facilities.
12. As the definition shows, anything which
contributes to the development of industries in
industrial areas like technology parks, townships
for the purpose of establishing trade and tourism
centres and any other facility as the State
Government may notify, will be an industrial
infrastructural facility. It, therefore, shows that
the object of the Act is not only to secure
establishment of industrial areas and orderly
development of industries therein, but also to
create facilities which contribute to the
development of industries which may include
technology parks, townships, trade and tourism
centres, etc.
13. The provision for acquisition of land
under the Act is contained in Section 28 which is
somewhat different from the provisions contained
in Sections 4, 5A and 6 of the Land Acquisition
Act. The legislature in its wisdom thought it
proper to make a specific provision for acquisition
of the land in the Act itself rather than to take
recourse to Sections 4 and 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act. A plain reading of sub-section (1)
of Section 28 would show that land can be
acquired for the purpose of (i) development by
the Board, or (ii) for any other purpose in
furtherance of the objects of the Act. Sub-section
(3) of Section 28 is similar to Section 5A of the
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1840-DB
Land Acquisition Act and the final notification is
issued under sub-section (4) of Section 28. The
necessary precondition for a valid notification
under sub-section (4) of Section 28 is that the
State Government should be satisfied that the
land is required for the purpose specified in the
notification issued under sub-section (1), viz., for
the purpose of (i) development by the Board, or
(ii) for any other purpose in furtherance of the
objects of the Act. Therefore, in order to judge
the validity of the notification what is to be seen
is whether the acquisition of land is being made
for securing the establishment of industrial areas
or to promote the establishment or orderly
development of industries in such areas. In view
of wide definition of the words "industrial
infrastructural facilities" as contained in Section 2
(7a) of the Act, making of a technology park,
research and development centre, townships,
trade and tourism centres or making provisions
for marketing and banking which would contribute
to the development of industries will meet the
objectives of the Act and acquisition of land for
such a purpose would be perfectly valid."
(Emphasis supplied)
9. From the above, it is very clear that even
assuming that the land is acquired for the purpose of
establishment of Airport and if the respondents have
formed an industrial layout, then it achieved the object of
the Act. In fact, in the case on hand, the Preliminary
Notification under Section 28(1) of the Act is crystal clear
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1840-DB
that notification was issued acquiring the land for the
purpose of industrial development and also for the
establishment of an Airport. Therefore, under these
circumstances, the notifications not suffered from any
illegality, irregularity and is not contrary to the Act.
10. At this stage, the learned counsel for the
appellant has also contended that there is a delay in
passing the award and in support of this contention, the
learned counsel relies on a decision of the co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in W.A.No.557/2021, disposed of on
23.03.2022, wherein this Court quashed the acquisition
proceedings on the ground that the award is not passed
even after a long time. In fact, the said judgment is not
applicable to the present case as in the said judgment the
fact that after issuing Preliminary Notification under
Section 28(1) of the Act, the Final Notification has not
been issued even after a lapse of 14 years and therefore
the award has not passed therein. But in the present
case, the final notification is issued within 01 year from
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1840-DB
the date of issuance of Preliminary Notification i.e., on
26.03.2008. Thereafter, the appellant/petitioner has
given the consent to pass the award on 10.06.2008.
Therefore, there is no delay and the respondent
authorities have not abandoned the acquisition
proceedings.
11. It is relevant to note that the Apex Court in the
case of M. Nagabhushana Vs. State of Karnataka and
Others2 wherein it is held that Section 11-A of the Land
Acquisition Act is not applicable to proceedings under the
KIAD Act, 1966. Therefore, the contention of the
appellant that the respondents have abandoned the
acquisition of land is unsustainable. Under these
circumstances, having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case and in the light of the
discussions made herein above, we find that there is no
error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the
(2011) 3 SCC 408
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1840-DB
learned Single Judge. Therefore, the writ appeal deserves
to be dismissed, and it is dismissed.
In view of the disposal of the main appeal, the
pending application in I.A.No.3/2023 does not survive
consideration. Accordingly, the same stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
BL
Ct;Vk
