Karnataka High Court
Sri Renukaradhya vs State Of Karnataka on 14 February, 2025
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:6787
WP No. 19693 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 19693 OF 2024 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI RENUKARADHYA
S/O SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
2. SMT. CHANDRAKALA
W/O SRI RENUKARADHYA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
BOTH THE PETITIONERS ARE
R/O HULIKUNTE VILLAGE,
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 206.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. S. AISHWARYA., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. RAJESWARA P N., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by SUMA B N
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE,
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR BEEDI,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY.
2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD
IV AND V FLOORS, EAST WING,
KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:6787
WP No. 19693 of 2024
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER-2
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
(BMICP) AND BENGALURU RURAL
IST FLOOR, MAHARSHI ARAVINDA BHAVANA,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (I) ISSUE A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION
BEARING NO.CI 36 SPQ (E) 2023 DATED 21.03.2023
PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE ON 23.03.2023 AT
ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AND THE FINAL
NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.CI 36 SPQ (E) 2023 DATED
20.02.2024 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE ON
21.02.2024 AT ANNEXURE-B ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IN
SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LANDS MEASURING 2 ACRES 22
GUNTAS IN SY NO.155/1A, 18 GUNTAS OF LAND IN
SY.NO.155/5 AND 31 GUNTAS OF LAND IN SY.NO.155/6 OF
HULIKUNTE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABELAVANGALA
HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, IS CONCERNED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:6787
WP No. 19693 of 2024
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner No.1 claiming to be owner of land measuring
18 guntas in Sy.No.155/5 and land measuring 31 guntas in
Sy.No.155/6 and Petitioner No.2 claiming to be owner of land
measuring 4 acres 0.8 anas in Sy.No.155/1A situated at
Hulikunte Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddabelavangala Hobli,
Doddaballapura Taluk, are before this Court seeking following
relief:
"Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the Preliminary
Notification bearing No.CI 36 SPQ (E) 2023 dated
21.03.2023 published in the Karnataka Gazette on
23.03.2023 at Annexure-A issued by respondent No.1
and the Final Notification bearing No.CI 36 SPQ (E) 2023
dated 20.02.2024 published in the Karnataka Gazette on
21.02.2024 at Annexure-B issued by respondent No.1 in
so far as the petitioners lands measuring 2 acres 22
guntas in Sy.No.155/1A, 18 guntas of land in
Sy.No.155/5 and 31 guntas of land in Sy.No.155/6 of
Hulikunte Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddabelavangala Hobli,
Doddaballapura Taluk, is concerned".
2. Learned counsel for petitioners submit that the
primary contention of the petitioners is that despite they
submitting elaborate objections to the Preliminary Notification
dated 21.03.2023 at Annexure-A setting forth the nature of
land and agricultural activities being carried on, existence of
trees, buildings and structures seeking exclusion of their lands
NC: 2025:KHC:6787
as per Annexure-E, respondent-SLAO has not considered the
same. Learned counsel refers to the orders passed by
respondent-SLAO under Section 28(3) of the Karnataka
Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to
as Act, 1966) as seen at Annexure-G column 25, 30 and 31 and
submits that there has been no application of mind by the
respondent-SLAO to the contentions and substance of the
objections which were put forth by the petitioners. She relies
upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of Malligamma
and others Vs State of Karnataka reported in ILR 2013
Karnataka 4449 to buttress her submissions that the
consideration of objections is not a mechanical process but
requires examination with application of mind. She also
submits that the Circular issued by the respondent-Government
recommending exclusion of land as far as practicable which are
being used for agricultural purposes. Thus she submits what
emanates from the order under Section 28(3) of the Act, 1966
is lack of application of mind by the SLAO to the objections.
Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition.
3. Learned counsel for respondent-Karnataka Industrial
Areas Development Board submits that objections are
NC: 2025:KHC:6787
considered and respondent-SLAO has also taken note of
existence of house and developments made thereon and only
thereafter has excluded a portion measuring 1 acre 18.08
guntas as seen in column No.25 of the order passed under
Section 28(3) of the Act, 1966. Hence, he submits contention
of non application of mind is not tenable. Hence, seeks for
dismissal of the petition.
4. Learned AGA supplementing the submission made by
the learned counsel for Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Board submits that the order passed by
respondent-SLAO under Section 28(3) of the Act, 1966 is after
application of mind and considering relevant factors. That the
report submitted by him is lawful and no fault can be found
with the order of respondent-SLAO. Hence, seeks for dismissal
of the petition.
5. Heard and perused the records.
6. There is no dispute that petitioners being owners of
land referred to above and their names having been reflected in
the Preliminary Notification and in the Final Notification as
notified khathedars.
NC: 2025:KHC:6787
7. Perusal of objections filed by the petitioners at
Annexure-E would indicate that apart from specifically
contending that the lands are being used for agricultural
activities they have also given details of the existence of
building and existence of trees, nature of trees and five active
borewells which are existing in the land being used for
agricultural purpose. In contrast the reasons assigned by the
respondent-SLAO at column 25 of the order under Section
28(3) of the Act, 1966 in respect of Sy.No.155/1A read as
under:
25. ಸಳ ಪ ೕಲ ೆ ಾಡ ಾ ೆ. ಆ ೇಪ ೆಯನು ಪ ೕ ಸ ಾ ತು.
ಒಟು! 1-18.08 ಎಕ(ೆ )*+ೕಣ-ದ ಜ0ೕ1ನ 2 ಎರಡು ಮಹ6 ಆ7.*.*.
ಕಟ!ಡ, ಅ6:ೆ ;ೆಂಗು, *ಲ>7, ಇತ(ೇ vÉÆÃlUÁj:ೆÉ EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ 1-18.8
JPÀgÉ «¹ÛÃtðzÀ §UÉÎ ªÀÄÄA¢£À ºÀAvÀzÀ°è 28(3)gÀr PÀæªÀÄ ªÀ»¸À¯ÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
G½PÉ «¹ÛÃtðªÀ£ÀÄß ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ¥Àr¸À®Ä DzÉò¹zÉ.
8. Similarly the reasons assigned at Column 30, 31 of the
said order in respect of Sy.No.155/5 and 155/6 read as under:
30. ಸಳ ಪ ೕಲ ೆ ಾಡ ಾ ೆ. ಆ ೇಪ ೆಯನು ಪ ೕ ಸ ಾ ತು. ಈ
ಜ0ೕನು ಉ ೆBೕ ತ Cೕಜ ೆDೆ ಅತEವಶEಕHಾ Iೇ:ಾ ರುವJದ ಂದ
ಭೂMಾ>Nೕನ:ೆO ಇರುವ ಆ ೇಪ ೆಯನು PರಸO * ಭೂMಾ>Nೕನಪ6ಸಲು
ಆ ೇ * ೆ.
31. ಸಳ ಪ ೕಲ ೆ ಾಡ ಾ ೆ. ಆ ೇಪ ೆಯನು ಪ ೕ ಸ ಾ ತು. ಈ
ಜ0ೕನು ಉ ೆBೕ ತ Cೕಜ ೆDೆ ಅತEವಶEಕHಾ Iೇ:ಾ ರುವJದ ಂದ
ಭೂMಾ>Nೕನ:ೆO ಇರುವ ಆ ೇಪ ೆಯನು PರಸO * ಭೂMಾ>Nೕನಪ6ಸಲು
ಆ ೇ * ೆ.
NC: 2025:KHC:6787
9. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in its order passed
in W.P.Nos.24322-24340 of 2012-Malligamma and others Vs
State of Karnataka and anr under similar circumstances at
paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 has adverted to the procedure
required to be adopted for consideration of objections which are
as under:
10. My perusal of Section 28(3) order shows that the Special
Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) has just referred to the
objections filed by the petitioners, but he has not considered
them at all. The reasons given by him for rejecting the
objections are (a) the acquisition is with the best intention and
(b) the acquisition is in public interest.
11. The word 'consideration' is vividly explained by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of The Barium Chemicals Ltd. and
another v. A.J. Rana and others reported in
MANU/SC/0488/1971: AIR 1972 SC 591. The relevant
paragraph of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow:
15. The words 'considers it necessary' postulate
that the authority concerned has thought over
the matter deliberately and with care and it has
been found necessary as a result of such
thinking to pass the order. The dictionary
meaning of the word 'consider' is 'to view
attentively, to survey, examine, inspect (arch),
to look attentively, to contemplate mentally, to
think over, meditate on, give heed to, take note
of to think deliberately, bethink oneself to
reflect' (vide Shorter Oxford Dictionary).
According to Words and Phrases-Permanent
Edn.: Vol. 8-A to 'consider' means to think with
care. It is also mentioned that 'to consider' is to
fix the mind upon with a view to careful
examination; to ponder; study; meditate upon,
think or reflect with care. It is, therefore,
manifest that careful thinking or due application
NC: 2025:KHC:6787
of the mind regarding the necessity to obtain
and examine the documents in question in sine
qua non for the making of the order. If the
impugned order were to show that there has
been no careful thinking or proper application of
the mind as to the necessity of obtaining and
examining the documents specified in the order.
The essential requisite to the making of the
order would be held to be non-existent.
12. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Raghbir Singh
Sehrawat (supra), the collector is required to consider the
land-owners plea against the acquisition of land. It has this
to say in paragraph No. 40 of its judgment:
40. Though it is neither possible nor desirable to
make a list of the grounds on which the landowner
can persuade the Collector to make
recommendations against the proposed acquisition
of land, but what is important is that the Collector
should give a fair opportunity of hearing to the
objector and objectively consider his plea against
the acquisition of land. Only thereafter, he should
make recommendations supported by brief
reasons as to why the particular piece of land
should or should not be acquired and whether or
not the plea put forward by the objector merits
acceptance. In other words, the recommendations
made by the Collector must reflect objective
application of mind to the objections filed by the
landowners and other interested persons.
9. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid directions, it is clear
that process of consideration of objections does not mean
mechanical perusal of the record. It requires application of
mind with conscious and meaningful reasoning either to accept
NC: 2025:KHC:6787
or reject any objections, which is manifestly absent in this
matter.
10. Also appropriate to refer to circulars issued by
respondent-State Government which are (1) Circular bearing
No.CI 151 SPQ 2007 dated 03.03.2007 (2) Circular bearing
No.CI 590 SPQ 2012 dated 18.03.2013.
11. Perusal of the aforesaid circulars indicate that the
respondent-State itself has recommended exclusion of land
which falls within the parameters set down in the aforesaid
circulars. There is no reference to this aspect of the matter in
the impugned order either.
12. For the aforesaid reasons and factual aspect of the
matter, this Court is of the considered view that there has been
no application of mind to the statement of objections filed by
the petitioners to the Preliminary Notification.
Hence, the following:
ORDER
1. Writ petition is allowed.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6787
2. Order dated 15.11.2023 at Annexure-G passed under
Section 28(3) of the Act, 1966 is quashed. Consequently
Final Notification to the extent of lands belonging to the
petitioners is quashed.
Notwithstanding quashing of the order under Section
28(3) of the Act, 1966 as above respondent-SLAO shall
reconsider the objections filed by the petitioners in respect of
aforesaid lands. Petitioners are at liberty to file additional
objections if any. The respondent-SLAO after affording
sufficient opportunity to the petitioners shall proceed thereafter
in accordance with law and appropriate orders shall be passed
within an outer limit of eight weeks thereafter.
Since the petitioners are represented through their
counsel they shall appear before the respondent-SLAO on
15.03.2025 at 3 P.M. without waiting for further notice in the
matter.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE
