Karnataka High Court
Smt Yashodamma vs State Of Karnataka on 27 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:3853
WP No. 6195 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6195 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. YASHODAMMA
W/O. C. RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
2. SRI. RAJANNA
S/O. LATE CHIKKA KEMPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
3. SMT. ANUSHA
D/O. C. RAJANNA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
4. SRI. ARUN KUMAR
S/O. C. RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
VN
BADIGER ALL RESIDING AT MALIYAPPANAHALLI
VILLAGE, VEMAGAL HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR - 563101.
Digitally
signed by V 5. SRI. T. RAJANNA
N BADIGER
Date: S/O. LATE THIPPANNA,
2025.01.29
15:12:47 AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
+0530 RESIDING AT NO 40,
MALIYAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
VEMAGAL HOBLI,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563101.
6. SMT. ANJANAMMA
W/O. LATE DODDA MUNIYAPPA,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:3853
WP No. 6195 of 2023
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
7. SRI. MANJUNATH D.
W/O. LATE DODDA MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
8. SMT. NALINA D.
W/O. MANJUNATHA D.,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
9. KUM. YASHAS
S/O. MANJUNATH D.,
AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS
10 . KUM. SINCHANA M. N.
D/O. MANJUNATH D
AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS
PETITIONER NOS 9 AND 10,
SINCE MINORS, RESPRESENTED
BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN
PETITIONER NO.7
11 . SMT. ASHA
W/O. LATE DODDAMUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
12 . SMT. VEDAVATHI
D/O. LATE DODDAMUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
13 . SMT. MUNI VENKATAMMA
W/O. LATE CHIKKA MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
14 . SMT. SUMA
D/O. LATE CHIKKA MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
15 . SMT. HEMAVATHI
D/O. LATE CHIKKA MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:3853
WP No. 6195 of 2023
16 . SMT. ANJINAMMA
D/O. LATE CHIKKA MINIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
17 . SMT. M. C. NAGARATHNA
D/O. LATE CHIKKA MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
18 . SRI. RAMACHANDRAPPA
S/O. LATE ARASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
19 . SMT. SAROJAMMA
W/O. RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
20 . SRI. SRINIVAS R.
S/O. RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
21 . SRI. NAGESH
S/O. RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
ALL RESIDING AT MALIYAPPANAHALLI
VILLAGE, VEMAGAL HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK,
KOLAR - 563101.
22 . SMT. BHARATHI
D/O. RAMACHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
RESIDING AT CHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE
THOTI POST, SUGAUR HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR - 563101
PETITIONER NOS. 1 TO 22 REPRESENTED
BY THEIR GPA HOLDER-PETITIONER
NOS.23 TO 25
23 . SRI. BHAGATH R.M
S/O. MANOHAR R. R.,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 131,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:3853
WP No. 6195 of 2023
RAMASWAMY PALYA,
NARAYANAKOTE,
HOSKOTE - 562114.
24 . SRI. VEERA PRATAP CHANDRU
S/O. AMMANA CHANDRU,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO 34-15-38/111,
FLAT NO. T2, VIJAYALAKSHMI NAGAR,
MANDAPETA, EAST GODAVARI
DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 533308.
25 . SRI. THAKKELLAPALLI RAVI KUMAR
S/O. RAMA RAO
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDING AT FLAT NO 101, MANA
NUKALA PRIDE, PLOT NOS 3 AND 4,
PANCHAVATI COLONY, NEAR MANA
STIDIO AND YSR NILAYAM,
MANIKONDA, HYDERABAD,
TELENGANA - 500080.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. DYANCHINAPPA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. M.V. SUNDARA
RAMAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560001.
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD(KIADB),
4TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE 560001.
3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KIADB, 4TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:3853
WP No. 6195 of 2023
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE 560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SR. COUNSEL FOR R2;
SRI. GURUSWAMY, AGA FOR R1 & R3)
------
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY SUCH/OTHER WRIT,
DIRECTION OR ORDER TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PRELIMINARY
NOTIFICATION DATED 12.08.2020 BEARING NO.CI 156 SPQ (E)
2020 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 UNDER SECTION 28(1) OF THE
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966
(ANNEXURE-A) IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES AND
ISSUE A WRIT IT THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY SUCH/OTHER
WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED FINAL
NOTIFICATION DATED 21.01.2023 BEARING NO.CI 156 SPQ(E) 2020
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 UNDER SECTION 28(4) OF THE
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966
(ANNEXURE-B) IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES AND
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY SUCH/OTHER
WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO
CONDUCT A SURVEY OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES TO ASCERTAIN
THE STATUS OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 16.01.2021 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:3853
WP No. 6195 of 2023
ORAL ORDER
In this writ petition, petitioners are assailing the
Preliminary Notification dated 12th August, 2020
(Annexure-A) issued under Section 28(1) of Karnataka
Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short,
hereinafter referred to as 'KIAD Act') and Final
Notification dated 21st January, 2023 (Annexure-B)
issued under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act; inter-alia
sought for direction to the respondent-Karnataka
Industrial Area Development Board (for short,
hereinafter referred to as 'KIADB') to conduct survey
as to ascertain the status of development of schedule
land.
2. The facts in nutshell are that, the petitioners
herein claim to be the owners of the land to an extent
of 07 acres, 10 guntas in Survey Nos.53/1, 53/2,
53/3, 53/4, 62/3 and 62/8 situate at Maliyappanahalli
Village, Vemagal Hobli, Kolar Taluk, having purchased
NC: 2025:KHC:3853
the same through various Sale Deeds and also as per
Partition Deeds produced at Annexures-C1 to C8. The
revenue records stand in the name of the petitioners
as per Annexures-D1 to D7. It is also stated in the
writ petition that, the petitioner Nos.1 to 22 have
entered into registered Joint Development Agreement
with petitioner Nos.23 to 25 on 07th April, 2017
(Annexure-F1), 03rd October, 2019 (Annexure-F2),
29th January, 2020 (Annexure-F3) and 29th January,
2020 (Annexure-F4) to develop the land in question.
The petitioner Nos.1 to 22 have also executed the
registered General Power of Attorney in favour of
petitioner Nos.23 to 25 as per Annexures-E1 to E4. It
is also stated in the writ petition that, pursuant to the
execution of the General Power of Attorney as per
Annexures-E1 to E4, petitioner Nos. 23 to 25 have
made an application to the competent authority for
conversion of the land for residential purpose and
NC: 2025:KHC:3853
accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar vide
order dated 06th August, 2019, 20th August, 2019, 06th
February, 2020 and 18th September, 2020 as per
Annexures-G1 to G6, permitted for conversion of land
for residential purpose. The petitioners have also
produced the sanction plan dated 02nd September,
2020 issued by the competent authority for
development of Layout as per Annexure-H. Pursuant
to the same, the petitioner Nos.23 to 25 have
relinquished the civic amenity areas to the competent
planning authority as per Annexures-J1 and J2. It is
the grievance of the petitioners that the intended
Layout to be formed in the schedule land is at the
stage of completion and the prospective buyers have
shown interest to purchase the Sites in the schedule
land and accordingly, petitioners have produced the
photographs as per Annexure-K series. In the midst of
the same, the respondent-authorities have issued the
NC: 2025:KHC:3853
Preliminary Notification dated 12th August, 2020
(Annexure-A) for the purpose of formation of
'Vemagal Industrial Area Phase-II' and as such, the
representatives of the petitioners have filed objections
to the Preliminary Notification, opposing the
acquisition of the land in question. It is the case of
the petitioners that, the respondent-KIADB, without
considering the same, had issued notification under
Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act on 24th December, 2020
(Annexure-L) and being aggrieved by the same,
petitioners have preferred Writ Petition No.14891 of
2021 before this Court and during the pendency of the
Writ Petition, the respondent-authorities have passed
the Final Notification dated 21st January, 2023 under
Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act and accordingly, this
Court, by order dated 06th March, 2023, permitted the
petitioners to challenge the impugned Final
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3853
Notification and as such, the petitioners have
presented this writ petition.
3. I have heard Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of learned
counsel, Sri. M.U. Sundara Raman, for petitioners; Sri.
Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of respondent-KIADB and Sri. Manjunath K.,
learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that,
the land in question has been converted much before
the issuance of the impugned notifications and
therefore, the respondent-authorities ought to have
dropped the acquisition proceedings in respect of the
subject land as the impugned notifications are passed
without considering the Circular dated 03rd March,
2007 (Annexure-R) and accordingly, sought for
interference of this Court.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3853
5. Nextly, it is contended by learned Senior
Counsel Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa that, the land question
is developed for the purpose of formation of layout
and that apart, the objections filed by the petitioners
opposing the acquisition proceedings has not been
properly assessed by the respondent-authorities and
therefore, sought for interference of this Court. In
order to buttress his arguments, learned Senior
Counsel Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa places reliance on the
judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1476 of 2023
disposed of on 11th January, 2024 which has been
confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated
01st April, 2024 in SLP (C) No.7276 of 2024 and
accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. It is
also submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners that, the Circular dated 03rd March, 2007
and 18th March, 2013 operates in the same domain
and precludes acquisition of residential lands. In this
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3853
regard, he refers to the judgment of this Court in Writ
Appeal No.39 of 2024, disposed of on 11th March,
2024 and contended that, the impugned notifications
are liable to be quashed. He further contended that,
the contentions raised by the respondents that
petitioner No.5 has filed claim petition, seeking
compensation from the respondent- KIADB is factually
incorrect. Accordingly, sought for interference of this
Court.
6. Per contra, Sri. Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf respondent-KIADB
sought to justify the impugned notifications and
contended that the respondent No.3 has conducted a
fair enquiry with regard to feasibility of the land in
question for the purpose of establishment of industrial
area and further contended that, one of the petitioners
had made an application for passing of consent award
and therefore, writ petition itself is not maintainable.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3853
It is also submitted by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the respondent-KIADB that the suits are
pending consideration before the competent Civil
Court and therefore, the petitioners have no legitimate
right insofar as the relief sought for in this writ
petition. It is also contended by the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the respondent-KIADB that,
vast land in the area has been acquired by the
respondent-Authorities for the purpose of
establishment of industrial area and therefore, the
larger interest of the public is to be considered and
Circular date 03rd March, 2007 (Annexure-R) is not
applicable to the facts of the case on hand and
accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
Sri. Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Senior Counsel
further submitted that, Circular is only a guideline to
regulate the acquisition proceedings and not
mandatory in nature and therefore, places reliance on
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3853
the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt.
Suvarnamma vs. State of Karnataka and Others
in Writ Appeal No.1491 of 2018 disposed of on 13th
March, 2019 and also submitted that, the public
purpose prevail over the private interest in respect of
acquisition proceedings. He further, places reliance on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Girias Investment Private Limited and
Another vs. State of Karnataka and Others
reported in (2008) 7 SCC 53. He further contended
that Circular dated 03rd March, 2007 is superseded by
new Circular dated 18th March, 2013 and therefore,
refutes the contention of the petitioners.
7. Sri. Manjunath K., learned HCGP, appearing
for the respondent-Government argued on similar
lines of Sri. Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the respondent-KIADB.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3853
8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing
for the parties, it is not in dispute that the
respondent-Authorities have issued Preliminary
Notification dated 12th August, 2020 (Annexure A)
followed by Final Notification dated 21st January, 2023
(Annexure-B) and sought to acquire the various lands
including the land belonging to petitioners for the
purpose of formation of industrial area known as
'Vemagal Industrial Area Phase-II'. It is the grievance
of the petitioners that, the schedule lands were
converted as per Annexures-G1 to G6 much before
the issuance of impugned notifications and some of
the lands were converted immediately after passing of
acquisition proceedings as the applications were filed
before issuance of impugned notifications. It is also to
be noted that the petitioners have obtained the
Sanction Plan from the competent planning authority
on 02nd September 2020 (Annexure 'H') to establish
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3853
private layout and the lands were developed into
residential layout. The petitioners have challenged the
Preliminary Notification dated 12th August, 2020
before this Court in Writ Petition No.14891 of 2021
and in the meanwhile, the respondent-Authorities
have issued Final Notification dated 21st January, 2023
(Annexure-B) and accordingly, this Court, by order
dated 06th March, 2023, permitted the petitioners to
withdraw the writ petition with liberty to challenge the
impugned Final Notification and as such, the present
writ petition is filed. It is also pertinent to mention
here that, the petitioners have filed objections to the
Preliminary Notification, opposing the acquisition
proceedings on the ground that the alleged acquisition
proceedings is contrary to Circular dated 03rd March,
2007 and that apart, the objections filed by the
petitioners has not been considered in accordance with
law as it is evident from discrepancy in the report of
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3853
Special Deputy Commissioner and the report of
KIADB. The Survey Report is also in the form of
cyclostyle and same would indicate the non-
application of mind by the respondent-authorities. In
the said aspect of the matter, on careful examination
of the order/notification dated 24th December, 2020
(Annexure-L) issued by the respondent-KIADB under
Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act, wherein, it is stated in
the remark column that the land in question is suitable
for industrial purpose and nothing is stated about the
nature of the land in question, particularly, conversion
of agricultural land into residential purpose. In this
regard, it is relevant to cite the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Kolkata Municipal
Corporation and Another vs. Bimal Kumar Shah
and Others reported in AIR 2024 SC 2819.
Paragraphs 28 to 31 reads as under.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3853
28. These seven rights are foundational components of
a law that is tune with Article 300A, and the absence of
one of these or some of them would render the law
susceptible to challenge. The judgment of this Court
in K.T. Plantations (supra)13 declares that the law
envisaged under Article 300A must be in line with the
overarching principles of rule of law, and must be just,
fair, and reasonable. It is, of course, precedentially
sound to describe some of these sub-rights as
'procedural', a nomenclature that often tends to
undermine the inherent worth of these safeguards.
These seven sub-rights may be procedures, but they do
constitute the real content of the right to property
under Article 300A, non- compliance of these will
amount to violation of the right, being without the
authority of law.
29. These sub-rights of procedure have been
synchronously incorporated in laws concerning
compulsory acquisition and are also recognised by our
constitutional courts while reviewing administrative
actions for compulsory acquisition of private property.
The following will demonstrate how these seven
principles have seamlessly become an integral part of
our Union and State statutes concerning acquisition and
also the constitutional and administrative law culture
that our courts have evolved from time to time.
30. Following are the seven principles:
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3853
30.1. The Right to notice: (i) A prior notice informing
the bearer of the right that the State intends to deprive
them of the right to property is a right in itself; a linear
extension of the right to know embedded in Article
19(1)(a). The Constitution does not contemplate
acquisition by ambush. The notice to acquire must be
clear, cogent and meaningful. Some of the statutes
reflect this right.
(ii) Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section
3(1) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable
Property Act, 1952, Section 11 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and Section
3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 are examples of
such statutory incorporation of the right to notice
before initiation of the land acquisition proceedings.
(iii) In a large number of decisions, our constitutional
courts have independently recognised the right to
notice before any process of acquisition is commenced
14.
30.2. The Right to be heard: (i) Following the right to a
meaningful and effective prior notice of acquisition, is
the right of the property-bearer to communicate his
objections and concerns to the authority acquiring the
property. This right to be heard against the proposed
acquisition must be meaningful and not a sham.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3853
(ii) Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, Section 3(1) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition
of Immovable Property Act, 1952, Section 15 of the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013,
and Section 3C of the National Highways Act, 1956, are
some statutory embodiments of this right.
(iii) Judicial opinions recognizing the importance of this
right are far too many to reproduce. Suffice to say that
that the enquiry in which a land holder would raise his
objection is not a mere formality.
30.3. The Right to a reasoned decision: i) That the
authorities have heard and considered the objections is
evidenced only through a reasoned order. It is
incumbent upon the authority to take an informed
decision and communicate the same to the objector.
(ii) Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section
3(2) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable
Property Act, 1952, Section 19 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and Section
3D of the National Highways Act, 1956, are the
statutory incorporations of this principle.
(iii) Highlighting the importance of the declaration of
the decision to acquire, the Courts have held that the
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3853
declaration is mandatory, failing which, the acquisition
proceedings will cease to have effect.
30.4. The Duty to acquire only for public purpose: (i)
That the acquisition must be for a public purpose is
inherent and an important fetter on the discretion of
the authorities to acquire. This requirement, which
conditions the purpose of acquisition must stand to
reason with the larger constitutional goals of a welfare
state and distributive justice.
(ii) Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, Sections 3(1) and 7(1) of the Requisitioning and
Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, Sections
2(1), 11(1),15(1)(b) and 19(1) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and Section
3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 depict the
statutory incorporation of the public purpose
requirement of compulsory acquisition.
(iii) The decision of compulsory acquisition of land is
subject to judicial review and the Court will examine
and determine whether the acquisition is related to
public purpose. If the court arrives at a conclusion that
that there is no public purpose involved in the
acquisition, the entire process can be set-aside. This
Court has time and again reiterated the importance of
the underlying objective of acquisition of land by the
State to be for a public purpose.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3853
30.5. The Right of restitution or fair compensation: (i)
A person's right to hold and enjoy property is an
integral part to the constitutional right under Article
300A. Deprivation or extinguishment of that right is
permissible only upon restitution, be it in the form of
monetary compensation, rehabilitation or other similar
means. Compensation has always been considered to
be an integral part of the process of acquisition.
(ii) Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, Sections 8 and 9 of the Requisitioning and
Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, Section
23 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013, and Sections 3G and 3H of the National
Highways Act, 1956 are the statutory incorporations of
the right to restitute a person whose land has been
compulsorily acquired.
(iii) Our courts have not only considered that
compensation is necessary, but have also held that a
fair and reasonable compensation is the sine qua non
for any acquisition process
30.6. The Right to an efficient and expeditious
process: (i) The acquisition process is traumatic for
more than one reason. The administrative delays in
identifying the land, conducting the enquiry and
evaluating the objections, leading to a final declaration,
consume time and energy. Further, passing of the
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3853
award, payment of compensation and taking over the
possession are equally time consuming. It is necessary
for the administration to be efficient in concluding the
process and within a reasonable time. This obligation
must necessarily form part of Article 300A.
(ii) Sections 5A(1), 6, 11A, and 34 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 6(1A) and 9 of the
Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property
Act,1952, Sections 4(2), 7(4), 7(5), 11(5), 14,
15(1), 16(1), 19(2), 25, 38(1), 60(4), 64 and 80 of the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
and Sections 3C(1), 3D(3) and 3E(1) of the National
Highways Act, 1956, prescribe for statutory frameworks
for the completion of individual steps in the process of
acquisition of land within stipulated timelines.
(iii) On multiple occasions, upon failure to adhere to the
timelines specified in law, the courts have set aside the
acquisition proceedings.
30.7. The Right of conclusion: (i) Upon conclusion of
process of acquisition and payment of compensation,
the State takes possession of the property in normal
circumstances. The culmination of an acquisition
process is not in the payment of compensation, but also
in taking over the actual physical possession of the
land. If possession is not taken, acquisition is not
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3853
complete. With the taking over of actual possession
after the normal procedures of acquisition, the private
holding is divested and the right, title and interest in
the property, along-with possession is vested in the
State. Without final vesting, the State's, or its
beneficiary's right, title and interest in the property is
inconclusive and causes lot of difficulties. The obligation
to conclude and complete the process of acquisition is
also part of Article 300A.
ii) Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, Sections 4 and 5 of the Requisitioning and
Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, Sections
37 and 38 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, and Sections 3D and 3E of the
National Highways Act, 1956, statutorily recognise this
right of the acquirer.
iii) This step of taking over of possession has been a
matter of great judicial scrutiny and this Court has
endeavoured to construe the relevant provisions in a
way which ensures non-arbitrariness in this action of
the acquirer 20. For that matter, after taking over
possession, the process of land acquisition concludes
with the vesting of the land with the concerned
authority. The culmination of an acquisition process by
vesting has been a matter of great importance. On this
aspect, the courts have given a large number of
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3853
decisions as to the time, method and manner by which
vesting takes place.
31. The seven principles which we have discussed are
integral to the authority of law enabling compulsory
acquisition of private property. Union and State
statutes have adopted these principles and
incorporated them in different forms in the statutes
provisioning compulsory acquisition of immovable
property. The importance of these principles,
independent of the statutory prescription have been
recognised by our constitutional courts and they have
become part of our administrative law jurisprudence.
9. Insofar as the contention raised by learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners regarding
consideration of objections filed by the petitioners in
the light of Circular dated 03rd March, 2007
(Annexure-R), it is relevant to Cite the judgment of
Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Gopalkrishna vs. State of Karnataka and Others
in Writ Appeal No.1476 of 2023 disposed of on 11th
January, 2024, which is confirmed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in SLP (c) No.7276 of 2024 dated 01st
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3853
April, 2024. It is also to be noted that the Division
Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.461 of 2016,
disposed of on 06th May, 2022 at paragraphs 10 and
11 held as follows:
"10. It is not in dispute that the State Government
have issued Circular dated March 3, 2007. The Hon'ble
Single Judge has extracted paras 3 and 6 of the
Circular which provides for exclusion of lands which
have been diverted for non-agricultural purpose and
the garden land. It is also not in dispute that 4 acres
each out of 5 acres, 29 guntas in Sy. No.46 and Sy.
No.42 have been converted for non-agricultural
industrial purpose. The Report of the SLAO dated June
14, 2012 shows that there existed residential houses,
Temple etc., in 20 guntas in Sy.No.48.
11. The stand taken by the State Government before
the Hon'ble Single Judge is that, KIAD Act does not
provide for exclusion of lands based on the Circular.
Admittedly, acquisition is made by the State
Government for the KIADB and State Government are
duty bound to apply the Circular uniformly while
proposing acquisition of land. Therefore, the first
argument of Shri. B.B.Patil, that the Circular is not
applicable, is untenable. The second argument that the
Circular has no statutory flavour is also untenable
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3853
because it is settle that Circulars issued by the State
Government, bind their Officers. The vires of the
Circular is not under challenge. Thus, both grounds
canvassed by the appellant fail. Hence, this appeal does
not merit any consideration and it is accordingly
dismissed."
10. Following the law declared by this Court,
with regard to consideration of the objections filed by
the land owners opposing the acquisition proceedings,
it is the duty of the respondent-Authorities to consider
such objections in the light of Circular dated 03rd
March, 2007 and Circular dated 18th March, 2013 and
to pass appropriate orders objectively in the light of
dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above.
Having applied the law declared by Division Bench of
this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to
above, I am of the view that, the petitioners have
made out a case for interference as the respondent
No.3-KIADB has not properly assessed the objections
filed by the petitioners with regard to the feasibility of
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3853
the land in the light of the Circular dated 03rd March,
2007 and Circular dated 18th March, 2013 and
therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. It
is also to be noted that, it is not the date of
conversion is the criteria to consider the application of
the circular, but it is the date on which application is
filed by the applicant, seeking conversion is to be
considered.
11. Nextly, in view of the submission made by
the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondent-KIADB, that, the Circular dated 03rd
March, 2007 is superseded by Circular dated 18th
March, 2013, on careful examination of Circular dated
18th March, 2013, it is apparent that the Circular dated
03rd March, 2007 has not been withdrawn, however,
modification has been made. Clause-2 of the Circular
dated 18th March, 2013 provides for excluding the
residential plots and therefore, I find force in the
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3853
submission made by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioners that Circular dated 03rd
March, 2007 shall be read along with Circular dated
18th March, 2013. It is also to be noted that, this
Court in Writ Appeal No.39 of 2024 disposed of on 11th
March, 2024, at paragraphs 5 to 6.1 held as follows:
5. The circulars dated 03.03.2007 and 18.03.2013, on
which challenge to the legality of acquisition of the
petitioners' lands is rested, are on record. Both the
circulars deal with the procedure to be adopted for
acquisition of land on behalf of the Board for industrial
purpose. The circular dated 03.03.2007 was issued
since it was noticed by the authorities that the lands
were being acquired without verification and that
certain lands and structures such as, temples, schools,
crematoriums, residential houses, industrial units etc.,
were also used to be unmindfully included for the
purpose of acquisition and even the hospitals, basic
amenity areas, farms and fertile lands were got
confiscated in the acquisition process.
5.1 The Department of Commerce and Industries,
Government of Karnataka, therefore, by issuing the
said circular dated 03.03.2007, laid down the procedure
to be undergone before preparing the preliminary
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3853
notification for acquiring the land for industrial purpose.
It provided that survey should be conducted. It
contemplated that temple, memorial, school,
playground, dwelling houses etc., should not be
included in the preliminary notification, so also the
industrial units should be excluded. It was also stated
that where the local planning authorities and competent
authorities have given permission for change of land be
also not included in the acquisition. The categories of
hospital, petrol station, farms, fertile lands and the core
village area were also provided to be excluded from the
acquisition.
5.2 Similarly, the subsequent circular dated 18.03.2013
was clarificatory and was issued to eliminate the lacuna
in the earlier circular. It again warned that the lands
were acquired by the Board without proper verification.
Therefore, it was reiterated that various categories of
lands as indicated should be excluded from the
preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the Act.
It may be stated at the cost of repetition that the
categories of lands provided to be kept out of the
purview of the notifications included the lands approved
for residential purposes by the local authorities and
lands where conversion was granted by the competent
authorities.
5.3 Reverting to the facts of the present case, the
above described lands of the petitioners were allowed
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3853
to be converted and final conversion order was issued
on 29.09.2021 permitting to switch over to residential
use of the land from agricultural use by the District
Collector, Bengaluru Rural District.
5.3.1 The provisional layout plan was sanctioned by the
competent planning authority on 07.01.2022. The
application was filed on 09.02.2021 for change of use
before the Urban Development Department of the
government and after scrutinizing the application, the
order was passed on 22.07.2021. On 27.08.2021, the
District Collector and other competent authorities
declared the land to be the industrial area on behalf of
the Board by issuing the notification under Section
28(1) of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Act and also
issued the notice dated 22.01.2022 subsequently.
5.4 The above are the admitted dates which
demonstrated that the lands of the petitioners were
converted from agricultural use to residential use and
necessary certifications were also issued before
issuance of the notification under Section 28(1) of the
Act.
5.5 When the aforesaid circulars dated 03.03.2007 and
18.03.2013 provided not to subject the lands for which
conversion was permitted for acquisition purpose under
the Act and not to include in the preliminary
notification, the respondents-authorities, in including
the petitioners' lands for acquisition, conducted
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3853
themselves contrary to the provisions of the said
circulars.
5.6 In Sri Venkateshappa (supra), this Court held that
the said circulars contained the command for the
authorities not to subject the lands categorized therein
and that the classified lands to be excluded from the
acquisition. In the said case, the land was converted for
non-agricultural purpose and garden land and yet, they
were brought under acquisition. Learned Single Judge,
dealing with the said case, set aside the acquisition
which was confirmed by the Division Bench.
6. Learned Single Judge, in his judgment and order,
observed that the petitioners had not only obtained No-
Objection Certificate for change of land use and the
conversion was permitted, the endorsement suggested
that the procedure contemplated under the circulars
was not complied with.
6.1 Noticing the law laid down in Writ Appeal No.461 of
2016 as above, learned Single Judge observed thus,
"8...it would appear that main ground of challenge
against acquisition proceedings initiated by
respondents is on ground of nonapplication of
mind prior to issuance of notification under Section
1(3) and Section 3(1) of KIAD Act, due to failure
to comply with circulars dated 03.03.2007 and
18.03.2013. In W.P.no.17836/2013, this Court has
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3853
held that a duty was cast on SLAO to submit
report after spot inspection as contemplated under
circulars dated 03.03.2007 and 18.03.2013. In
W.A.no.461/2016, a Division Bench of this Court
rejected contention of respondents that circular
would not have statutory flavor and therefore
cannot be invoked against acquisition.
Consequently, order of learned Single Judge
quashing acquisition notifications was upheld."
12. Following the declaration of law made by the
Division Bench of this Court, in Writ Appeal No.1476 of
2023 disposed of on 11th January, 2024, which came
to be confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
SLP(c) 7276 of 2024, I am of the opinion that,
contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the respondent-KIADB cannot be
accepted. In view of the observation made above, I
am of the opinion that, Preliminary notification dated
12.08.2020 (Annexure-A) issued under Section 28(1)
of KIAD Act cannot be quashed at this stage and
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3853
matter requires to be reassessed by the respondent-
KIADB in the light of the observations made above
and in accordance with the Circulars dated 03rd March,
2007 and 18th March, 2013 by the respondent-
authorities. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed;
ii) Final Notification dated 21st January, 2023
(Annexure-B) issued under Section 28(4) of
KIAD Act are hereby quashed in respect of
land belonging to the petitioners.
iii) Order dated 24th December, 2020
(Annexure-L) passed by the respondent-KIADB
is hereby quashed in respect of the subject
land belonging to petitioners and matter is
remitted to the respondent No.3-KIADB to re-
consider the objections filed by the petitioners
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3853
in the light of Circular dated 03rd March, 2007
(Annexure 'R') and new Circular dated 18th
March, 2013 issued by the respondent-
Government and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law, within an outer limit of
three months from the date of receipt of this
order.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SB
