Karnataka High Court
Sri S Chandre Gowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:45661
WP NO.27828 OF 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.27828 OF 2024 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. S. CHANDRE GOWDA
S/O LATE N. SOMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/AT KANIVENAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
MALUR TALUK - 563 130.
2. SRI. S SRIKANTH GOWDA
S/O LATE N. SOMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.
R/AT KANIVENAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
MALUR - 563 130.
3. SRI. KISHORE N. GOWDA
S/O LATE A.R. NANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
SHARMA ANAND R/O ARABIKOTHANUR,
CHAYA KOLAR TALUK,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 133.
4. SRI. A.R. MALLIKARJUNA
S/O LATE RAJE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT ARABIKOTHANUR,
KOLAR TALUK,
KOLAR DISRICT - 563 133.
5. SRI. A.R. ARUN KUMAR
S/O LATE RAJE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:45661
WP NO.27828 OF 2024
R/AT ARABIKOTHANUR,
KOLAR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 133.
6. SRI. A.R. SAMPATH KUMAR
S/O LATE RAJE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT ARABIKOTHANUR,
KOLAR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 133.
ALL ARE REP. BY THEIR G.P.A. HOLDER
LOGILY LANDMARK PRIVATE LIMITED,
BY ITS DIRECTOR,
B.R. VENKATESH KUMAR.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERECE AND INDUSTRIES,
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER,
KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH B., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. VASANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTIFICATION DATED 10TH SEPTEMBER, 2024 ISSUED UNDER
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:45661
WP NO.27828 OF 2024
SECTION 3(1) OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966; QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED
10TH SEPTEMBR, 2024 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 28(1) OF THE
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966
VIDE ANNEXURE-F1 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN RESPECT
OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY BELONGING TO PETITIONERS;
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
In this writ petition, petitioners are assailing the
Notifications dated 10th September, 2024 (Annexure-F) issued
under Section 3(1) and 10th September, 2024 (Annexure-F1)
issued under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Act, 1966 (for short, hereinafter referred to as
'KIAD Act') by the respondent No.1 in respect of the subject
land.
2. Heard Sri. Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar, learned
counsel appearing for petitioners; Sri. Ravindranath B., learned
Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent
No.1; and Sri. Vasanth, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.2.
3. Sri. Vasanth, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2-Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board
NC: 2024:KHC:45661
WP NO.27828 OF 2024
raised preliminary objection relating maintainability of the writ
petition on the ground that the writ petition is premature and
the petitioner is challenging the preliminary notifications issued
under Sections 3(1) and 28(1) of the KIAD Act and same is
contrary to law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
HMT LTD. REP. BY ITS DY. GENERAL MANAGER (HRM)
AND ANOTHER vs. MUDAPPA AND OTHERS reported in
(2007)9 SCC 768.
4. Sri. Shivaprasand Shantanagoudar, learned counsel
appearing for petitioners submitted that, though the
respondent-Authorities have issued preliminary notification,
however, no steps have been taken for issuance of final
notification. He also submits that the preliminary notification is
contrary to Circulars dated 03rd March, 2007 and 08th March,
2013 issued by the respondent-Government, which has been
considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal
No.39 of 2024 decided on 11th March, 2024 and same has been
confirmed in S.L.P. (Civil) No.11156 of 2024 before the
Supreme Court. Accordingly, he sought to justify the challenge
made by the petitioners with regard preliminary notification.
NC: 2024:KHC:45661
WP NO.27828 OF 2024
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, I have carefully examined the law declared by the
Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.39 of 2024,
which is confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil)
No.11156 of 2024 decided on 13th May, 2024. However, taking
into consideration the fact that the petitioners are challenging
the preliminary notifications, I am of the view that the writ
petition is premature in terms of judgment rendered by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of HMT LTD. (supra) at paragraph
21 of the judgment, which reads as under:
"21. The scheme of Section 28 is thus similar to the
scheme of acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 under which such preliminary notification is
issued, opportunity of being heard is afforded to the
persons interested in the land and only thereafter final
notification can be issued. At the stage of raising
objections against acquisition, it is open to the
respondents herein to raise all contentions. In spite of
such objections, if final notification is issued by the State,
it is open to them to take appropriate proceedings or to
invoke-jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution. Unfortunately, however, the High Court
entertained the petition and quashed the preliminary
notification overruling well-founded objection as to
maintainability of petition raised by the State and the
appellants herein."
NC: 2024:KHC:45661
WP NO.27828 OF 2024
6. Following the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of HMT LTD. (supra), this Court cannot test the
legality of the preliminary notifications at this stage.
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
7. It is made clear that, dismissal of writ petition does
not come in the way of the petitioners to challenge the final
notification, if any issued by the respondent-Authorities. It is
also open for the petitioners to approach the respondent-
Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board for their
grievance, by filing objections to acquisition proceedings, if so
advised.
SD/-
(E.S. INDIRESH)
JUDGE
ARK
