Karnataka High Court
Sri R Shankar vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:45662
WP NO.27835 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.27835 OF 2024 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. R. SHANKAR
S/O LATE N. RAMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
2. SRI. S. CHANDRE GOWDA
S/O LATE N. SOMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.
3. SRI. S. SRIKANTH GOWDA
S/O LATE N. SOMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.
PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 3 ARE
R/AT KANIVENAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
MALUR TALUK - 563 130.
Digitally signed by 4. SRI. KISHORE N. GOWDA
SHARMA ANAND S/O LATE A.R. NANJEGOWDA,
CHAYA
Location: High AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
Court of Karnataka
5. SRI. A.R. MALLIKARJUNA
S/O LATE RAJE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
6. SRI. A.R. ARUN KUMAR
S/O LATE RAJE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
7. SRI. A.R. SAMPATH KUMAR
S/O LATE RAJE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:45662
WP NO.27835 OF 2024
RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 7 ARE
R/AT ARABIKOTHANUR,
KOLAR TALUK,
KOLAR - 563 133.
ALL ARE REP. BY THEIR G.P.A. HOLDER,
LOGIY LANDMARK PRIVATE LILMITED,
BY ITS DIRECTOR,
B.R. VENKATESH KUMAR.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 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. MANJUNATH K., HCGP 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
SECTION 3(1) OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966 VIDE ANNEXURE-H; QUASH THE
NOTIFICATION DATED 10TH SEPTEMBR, 2024 ISSUED UNDER
SECTION 28(1) OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966 VIDE ANNEXURE-H1 BY
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:45662
WP NO.27835 OF 2024
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-H) issued
under Section 3(1) and 10th September, 2024 (Annexure-H1)
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. Manjunath, learned High
Court Government Pleader 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 Areas Development
Board raised preliminary notification relating to maintainability
of the writ petition on the ground that the writ petition is
NC: 2024:KHC:45662
WP NO.27835 OF 2024
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 to preliminary notification.
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, I have carefully examined the law declared by the
NC: 2024:KHC:45662
WP NO.27835 OF 2024
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:45662
WP NO.27835 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
