Karnataka High Court
Sudha Lakshman vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:46166-DB
WA No. 1420 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL No. 1420 OF 2024 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. SUDHA LAKSHMAN,
W/O. LATE LAKSHMAN GUPTA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT 581, LAKSHMAN ARCADE,
3RD FLOOR, HMT LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA,
BENGALURU-560 087.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI CHETHAN A. C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
by VALLI
MARIMUTHU REPRESENTED BY ITS
Location: High PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
Court of INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT,
Karnataka VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT,
4TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:46166-DB
WA No. 1420 of 2024
3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
HAVING HIS OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR,
KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
HAVING HIS OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR,
KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M. N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL
AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.07.2024 IN WP No-
22303/2022 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE
APPELLANT.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND)
Heard learned advocate Mr. A.C. Chethan for the appellant
and learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. M.N. Sudev
Hegde for respondent No.1.
NC: 2024:KHC:46166-DB
2. The brief facts as found from the pleadings are that, the
appellant is an owner in possession of 3 Acres in Survey
No.403/P3 and 1 Acre 30 Guntas in old Survey No.650/P1 and now
corrected Survey No.677 of Bagepalli village, Kasaba Hobli,
Bagepalli Taluka, Chikkaballapur District.
3. The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board
(hereinafter referred to as 'KIADB' for short) issued a preliminary
Notification dated 09.11.2006 to acquire the lands in question.
Final Notification is issued on 07.02.2007. The appellant preferred
Writ Petition No.13688 of 2022 seeking to quash preliminary
Notification issued under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial
Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'KIAD Act'
for short) dated 09.11.2006. In view of the final Notification dated
07.02.2007, the writ petition was withdrawn with the liberty to
challenge the final Notification. Accordingly, the Writ Petition
No.22303 of 2022 is preferred.
4. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the
ground of delay. It is held that the inordinate delay of fifteen years
in filing the writ petition is not explained.
NC: 2024:KHC:46166-DB
5. Learned advocate Mr. A.C. Chethan appearing for the
appellant submits that the appellant was pursuing her remedies in
a separate writ petition along with the other land owners having
similar grievances. In that view, it cannot be held that the writ
petition is unreasonably delayed. The appellant continuously
pursued her remedy in different proceedings.
5.1 Learned advocate further submits that the delay is
immaterial when the acquisition has lapsed for non-payment of
compensation and not taking possession. It is submitted that the
authorities have failed to pass the award and take possession even
after a lapse of fifteen years.
5.2 Learned advocate by relying on the judgment in Writ Appeal
No.6763 of 2017 submits that when no award is passed and
possession is not taken, the acquisition fails and the challenge to
the acquisition cannot be refused to be entertained on the ground
of delay. It is submitted that the Special Leave Petition against the
judgment of the Division Bench is not entertained by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:46166-DB
6. Having considered the submissions of the learned advocate
for the appellant and perused the appeal papers, it can be gathered
that the preliminary Notification was issued on 09.11.2006 and the
final Notification on 07.02.2007. The challenge to the acquisition
proceedings after a lapse of fifteen years is twofold. Firstly, no
award is passed. Secondly, possession of the land in question is
not taken and continued with the appellant; thereby, the acquisition
lapses.
7. The reason for the delay of fifteen years in challenging the
acquisition proceedings was attempted by the learned advocate
during the hearing, stating it was due to the other proceedings
initiated by the appellant-petitioner along with other landlords
before this Court in a separate proceeding.
8. On thorough perusal of the pleadings and the documents
annexed, reference to Writ Petition No.3486 of 2021 can be figured
out. The Writ Petition No.3486 of 2021 was decided on
22.04.2021, directing the State Government to consider the
grievances of the appellant-petitioner. The final Notification was
issued in 2007, and the writ petition is the first of its kind,
challenging the acquisition in 2021. The time gap between 2007
NC: 2024:KHC:46166-DB
and 2021 and actions of the appellant in between would show the
bona fides and diligence in prosecuting the cause. The appellant is
silent on the period between 2007 and 2021 which period is too
long to be ignored.
9. The Court cannot find any explanation, resulting in an
inordinate delay of fifteen years. The contention of the learned
advocate for the appellant that in view of different proceedings
before the Court, which resulted in delay, is to be noted only for its
rejection, in the absence of any pleading or the evidence to such
effect is produced before the Court. In the absence of any
plausible explanation resulting in a delay of fifteen years, the
rejection of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge on that
count is well-founded and merits no interference.
10. The judgment in Smt. M. Shakuntalamma's case is
considered in the context of the dates therein. Preliminary
Notification is dated 16.10.2008 and final Notification is on
21.03.2009. Writ petition challenging the acquisition is filed in
2016. Further, the Court was not called in question to consider the
delay. In the case on hand, the delay is 15 years and there is no
whisper as to the reasons behind the inordinate delay. The
NC: 2024:KHC:46166-DB
judgment is of no assistance to the appellant. Further, SLP is
rejected by recording the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case without answering the question of law.
11. The acquiring authorities vested with the power of acquiring
the land are vested with the statutory duty to pass award and pay
compensation within reasonable time. This Court, having held that
the challenge to the acquisition cannot be entertained due to
inordinate delay, the grievance of the appellant insofar as non-
passing of award and non-payment of compensation cannot be
allowed remediless. The valuable land of the appellant having
been acquired, the same needs to be compensated by the
concerned authorities within a reasonable time. In the absence of
any material to indicate the passing of the award, the Court finds it
difficult to issue directions to the respondent authorities to pay
compensation.
12. In these circumstances, the Court finds it necessary to issue
the following directions,
(i) The appellant is granted liberty to file a representation
within two weeks to seek award of compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC:46166-DB
(ii) The respondent-authorities are directed to consider the
representation.
(iii) The representation shall be decided as expeditiously
as possible with an outer limit of six months from the
date of this order.
(iv) The Registry is directed to communicate this order to
the respondent authorities.
13. Writ appeal is not entertained except to the above limited
observation/directions. Accordingly, dismissed.
In light of the above order, pending interlocutory applications
do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, disposed of.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
VBS
