[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sarojamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 January, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.49886 OF 2016 (LA - KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1 . SMT. SAROJAMMA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
W/O LATE A.B.JAGADEESH.
2 . SRI J.SOMASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O LATE A.B.JAGADEESH,
3 . SRI J.RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O LATE A.B.JAGADEESH.
ALL ARE RISIDING AT
BOMMUR AGRAHARA,
PALAHALLI POST,
BELAGOLA HOBLI,
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 438.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
SRI ANOOP HARANAHALLI, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES,
VIKASA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO. 14/3, 2ND FLOOR,
RASHTROTHANA PARISHAT BUILDING
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER &
EXECUTIVE MEMBER.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER - I
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT
ZONAL OFFICE, K.R.S.ROAD,
MYSURU - 570 016.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI B.B.PATIL, ADV. FOR R-2 AND R-3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTIFICATION NO.CI 222 SPQ 2005, BANGALORE, DATED
07.12.2005, ISSUED UNDER SECTIONS 3[1], 1[3] & 28[1] OF THE
KIAD ACT AT ANNEXURE-A, AND FINAL NOTIFICATION BEARING
NO.CI 266 SPQ 2006, BANGALORE DATED.31.8.2006, ISSUED
3
UNDER SECTION 28[4] OF THE KIAD ACT, AT ANNEXURE-B, BY THE
R-1 ARE SO FAR AS PETITIONERS SCHEDULE PROPERTIES ARE
CONCERNED; DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS
INITIATED VIDE NOTIFICATION NO.CI 222 SPQ 2005, BANGALORE,
DATED 07.12.2005, ISSUED UNDER SECTIONS 3[1], 1[3] & 28[1]
OF THE KIAD ACT AT ANNEX-A AND FINAL NOTIFICATION BEARING
NO. CI 266 SPQ 2006, BANGALORE DATED 31.08.2006, ISSUED
UNDER SECTION 28[4] OF THE KIAD ACT, AT ANNEXURE-B, BY THE
R-1, IN RESPECT OF THE PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTIES ARE
CONCERNED AS LAPSED.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following
prayers: -
"(i) Issue writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction of
similar nature and to quash the notification No.C1 222
SPQ 2005, Bangalore dated 07-12-2005 issued under
Sections 3(1), 1(3) & 28(1) of the KIAD Act at Annexure-
4
A, and final notification bearing No.C1 226 SPQ 2006,
Bangalore dated 31-08-2006 issued under Section 28(4)
of the KIAD Act, at Annexure-B by the 1st respondent are
so far as petitioners schedule properties are concerned.
(ii) Issue an appropriate writ declaring that the acquisition
proceedings initiated vide notification No.C1 222 SPQ
2005, Bangalore dated 07-12-2005 issued under Sections
3(1), 1(3) & 28(1) of the KIAD Act at Annexure-A, and
final notification bearing No.C1 226 SPQ 2006, Bangalore
dated 31-08-2006 issued under Section 28(4) of the KIAD
Act, at Annexure-B by the 1st respondent in respect of the
petition schedule properties are concerned as lapsed.
(iii) To grant any other relief/reliefs as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit to grant, in the circumstances of the case and
award costs, in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Heard Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners, Sri M.Rajakumar, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and
Sri B.B. Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
3.1. The petitioners claim that they are the absolute owners
in possession of lands measuring 2 acres 21 guntas in Sy.No.45/1;
39 guntas in Sy.No.45/3; and 4 acres 17 guntas in Sy.No.100 of
Mogarahalli Village, Belagola Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya
District. A preliminary notification comes to be issued by the 1st
5
respondent/Department of Commerce and Industries under
Sections 3(1) and 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Act, 1966 (for short 'the Act') declaring the notified
lands including the lands of the petitioners for the purpose of
formation of an industrial area. Therefore, the lands come to be
acquired for the benefit of the 2nd respondent/Karnataka Industrial
Areas Development Board. As obtaining under Section 28(2) of the
Act, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the 3rd respondent issued
a notice to all the stake holders calling for objections. The
petitioners claim to have filed their objections along with relevant
documents to the preliminary notification, objecting to the
acquisition of lands on the ground that they are eking out their
livelihood from out of the said lands. Considering the objections
filed by the petitioners, on 18-06-2006 an order under Section
28(3) of the Act comes to be passed, overruling the objections of
the petitioners and consequently a final notification under Section
28(4) of the Act comes to be issued. A general award is passed by
the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 06-03-2009. There was
absolute silence after passing of the general award.
6
3.2. The petitioners then claim to have filed certain
applications under the Right to Information Act seeking details of
the award passed with regard to the subject lands. An endorsement
comes to be issued on 8-08-2016 stating that the award was under
process of preparation and the Price Fixation Committee has fixed
the price for converted lands at ₹9/- lakhs per acre for agricultural
lands and 9.75 lakhs per acre for converted lands. It was indicated
that the land owners did not seek any claim for compensation.
Therefore, compensation was not paid. The petitioners then filed
the subject petition seeking to quash the preliminary and final
notifications and for a declaration that acquisition of lands of the
petitioners has lapsed. After filing of the writ petition, 2nd and 3rd
respondents placed a copy of the award proceedings dated 05-04-
2018 after conducting inspection. The subject petition is heard at
that stage.
4.1. The learned senior counsel Sri Ashok Haranahalli
appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that
acquisition proceedings stood lapsed, as no compensation is paid to
the petitioners despite final notification being issued in the year
7
2006 and general award passed in the year 2009. The circulars
issued by Government particularly on 03-03-2007 exempting
certain categories of lands from being acquired by the Board and
those exempted lands included areas acquired for Hospitals, fuel
station, garden land and fertile lands. The learned senior counsel
submits that the circular also prescribed joint measurement and
survey to be done before issuance of the notification under Section
28(1) of the Act, which is not done in the case at hand. He would
contend that the lands declared by the State Government as
industrial area is not proper, as there is no rationale behind
acquiring less than the extent in one village and more land in the
other village.
4.2. The learned senior counsel would further submit that the
award is not passed within the reasonable time. The award dated
06-03-2009 was three years after the final notification and is
contrary to the law laid down by this Court in plethora of cases. The
conduct of the respondents for keeping quiet would clearly indicate
that the acquisition is abandoned insofar as the lands of the
petitioners are concerned. He would submit that a Division Bench of
8
this Court in H.N. SHIVANNA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2013
(4) AKR 163 has held that there is no time limit prescribed under
the Act, but that does not mean that the State Government can
exercise its power of issuance of final notification without any time
limit. It has to be done within a reasonable time.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri B.B. Patil appearing for
respondents 2 and 3 would vehemently contend that the purport of
the Act is securing establishment of industrial areas and promotion
of industrial development. The circular dated 03-03-2007 is only a
guiding factor, which does not have any statutory force. The Apex
Court in KIADB v. C.KENCHAPPA - (2006) (6) SCC 371 has
issued certain directions for ensuring protection of environment and
ecology and sustained development of the lands acquired by the
Board. From the period from 2016 nothing has happened for the
reason that the writ petition was filed and an interim order of status
quo was granted, due to which, award could not be passed. He
would submit that reasonable period would depend upon facts and
circumstances of each case. He would seek to place reliance upon
the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Writ Petition
9
No.203585 of 2019 & connected cases, which overruled the
judgment in the case of H.N. SHIVANNA. He would contend that
land acquisition is happening in phased manner due to which there
is some delay in passing the final award.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts and link in the chain of events are
all a matter of record. The petitioners claim to be owners of
properties as narrated hereinabove. On 07-12-2005 a preliminary
notification comes to be issued by the Government/1st respondent
for acquisition of certain lands for the purpose of establishment of
an industry in the area. The preamble to the notification reads as
follows:
"ಸಂ
ಸಂ ೆ : ಐ:222:ಎ
ಐ ಎ ಕೂ :2005,, ೆಂಗಳ ರು,
ರು ಾಂಕ 7 ೇ ೆಂಬ 2005
1966ರ ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ೈ!ಾ" ಾ ಪ$%ೇ&ಾ'ವೃ * ಅ,-ಯಮದ (1966ರ ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಾ12
ಸಂ ೆ 18) ಕಲಂ 3(1)ರ45 67ತ9ಾ:ರುವ ಅ, ಾರವನು< ಚ>ಾ? ಕ ಾ ಟಕ @ಾಜ ಸ ಾ ರವB ಈ
ೆಳ:ನ Dೆಡೂ Fನ ಅಂಕಣ 2ರ45 ಾH ರುವ ಸ9ೆ ನಂಬರುಗI!ೆ Jೊಂ ೊಂಡಂKೆ ಅಂಕಣ 3ರ45
ನಮೂ ರುವ 6 Lೕಣ ವನು< ಒಳ!ೊಂಡ ಾ12ಯ ಉ%ೆ2ೕಶ ಾP: ೈ!ಾ" ಾ ಪ$%ೇಶ9ಾಗತಕP%ೆ2ಂದು
10
ಈ ಮೂಲಕ QೂೕR %ೆ ಮತುL ಅದರ ಎ>ೆ5 ಅಂಕಣ 4ರ45 ಾH ರುವ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟT
%ಾಖ>ೆಯಂVರತಕPದು2.
The lands of the petitioners become the subject matter of
acquisition. As obtaining under Section 28(2) of the Act, objections
were called from all stake holders. The petitioners are said to have
filed their separate objections on 06-02-2006 concerning separate
survey numbers. One such objection filed reads as follows:
"ಇವ"ಂದ:
Xೆ.ರYೕಶ ೆ£ï. J.Zೕ. ಜಗ ೕಶ
ೊಮೂ\ರು ಅಗ$Jಾರ
ೆಳ!ೊಳ JೋಬI
]$ೕ ರಂಗಪಟTಣ Kಾಲೂ5ಕು
ಮಂಡ ^>ೆ5.
ಇವ"!ೆ:
6&ೇಷ ಭೂ ಾa,ೕ ಾ, ಾ"ಗಳb
ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ೈ!ಾ" ಾ ಪ$%ೇ&ಾ'ವೃ¢Ý ಮಂಡI,
ವಲಯ ಕcೇ"
Yೖಸೂರು
6ಷಯ:- ನನು< ಾಬುL, dಾಗರಹIf !ಾ$ಮದ ಸ9ೆ ನಂ. 100, 6 Lೕಣ 3.20 ಗುಂgೆ
ಜhೕನು ೈ!ಾ"ಕ ಪ$%ೇ&ಾ'ವೃ¢Ý!ೆ ಭೂ ಾa,ೕನ ಪ ೊಳbfವ ಬ!ೆi
ಆkೇಪlೆ
ಉ>ೆ5ೕಖ:- ತಮ\ ಕmೇ"?ಂದ ಾಂಕ: 04.01.06 ರಂದು ನಂ.ಎF.ಎ.ಕು .(1)
ಆ .2:05-06 ರಂKೆ -ೕ ರುವ ೋo .
****
ಅ%ಾ: ನನ!ೆ ]$ೕರಂಗಪಟTಣ Kಾಲೂ5ಕು ೆಳ!ೊಳ JೋಬI, pಗರಹIf !ಾ$ಮ ೆP
ೇ"ದಂKೆ ಸ9ೇ ನಂ.100 ರ45 3.20 ಗುಂgೆ ಜhೕನು ಇದು2 ನನ< dಾ°Ãಕತa ೆP ಒಳಪoT%ೆ .
ಈಗ ಸದ" ಜhೕನು ಸ ಾ ರವB ೈ!ಾ" ಾ ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಪ$%ೇ&ಾ'ವೃ¢Ý ಾ12 1966ರ 6,
28(1) ರಂKೆ ಸಂ ೆ :- . .222.ಎ . .PÀÆå.05 ಾಂಕ :07.12.05 ಉಳf ಅ,ಸೂಚ ೆಯನು<
ಕ ಾ ಟಕ @ಾಜ ಪತ$ದ ಾಂಕ:16.12.05 ಪBಟ 06-22 ರ>ೆ5ೕ ಪ$ಕಟ!ೊI ಸದ" ಸaತುLಗಳನು<
ೈ!ಾ" ಾ ಪ$%ೇ&ಾ'ವೃ¢Ý!ೋಸPರ ಾa,ೕನ ಪ ೊಳbfವ ಬ!ೆi ಪ$ಕಟlೆ Jೊರ ನನ!ೆ
ಉ>ೆ5ೕಖದ "ೕvÁå ೋoೕ -ೕ ರುವBದು ¸ÀjAiÀĵÉÖ. ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß PÉÊUÁjPÁ ¥ÀæzÉñÁ©üªÈÀ ¢ÝUÉ
ಾa,ೕನ ಪ ೊಳbfವ ಬ!ೆi ನನ< ತಕ@ಾರು ಇರುತL%ೆ.
ಾನು ಮತುL ನನ< ಕುಟುಂಬದ YೕಲPಂಡ ಜhೕನುಗಳ ೆ<ೕ ಅವಲಂZ ೊಂಡು ^ೕವನ
ಾ:ಸುVLರುKೆLೕ9ೆ. ಇದ"ಂದ YೕಲPಂಡ ಜhೕನುಗಳನು< ಕುಟುಂಬದ ^ೕವನ ಾ:ಸಲು ನಮ!ೆ
ೇ ಾ:ದು2. KಾವB ಜhೕನು ಾa,ೕನಪ ೊಂಡ45 ತುಂ ಾ ಅ ಾನುಕೂಲ9ಾಗುತL%ೆ ಒಂದು 9ೇwೆ
ೈ!ಾ" ಾ ಪ$%ೇ&ಾ'ವೃ¢Ý!ೆ ಜhೕನು ೇ ಾದ45 ಇತ@ೆ ಜhೕನುಗ½zÀÄÝ ಅವನು<
ಾಧನಪ ೊಳfಬಹು%ಾ:%ೆ .
ಆದುದ"ಂದ SÁªÀAದರು YೕಲPಂಡ ನನ< ಜhೕನು ಜhೕನುಗಳb ಾa,ೕನಪ ೊಳf%ೆ
ನನ!ೆ ಉI ೊಟುT ನನಗೂ ಮತುL ನನ< ಕುಟುಂಬ ೆP ಅನುಕೂಲ dಾ ೊಡುವಂKೆ ಈ ಮೂಲಕ
ತಮ\45 ಕಳಕI?ಂದ xಾ$y ಸುKೆLೕ ೆ .
ತಮ\ 6&ಾa
¸À»/-
(Xೆ ರYೕ{)."
Thereafter, a final notification comes to be issued on 31-08-2006.
After the final notification, a general award is said to have been
passed by the respondents. A draft general award is placed along
with a memo by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Board.
A perusal at the general award indicates the lands of the petitioners
being subject matter of those award proceedings. After passing of
the award, it is the claim that no compensation was paid and
possession was not taken. Therefore, the petitioners seek
information by filing application under the Right to Information Act
which is replied to on 8-08-2016 by way of an endorsement. The
endorsement reads as follows:
"ಕ
ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ೈ!ಾ" ಾ ಪ$%ೇ&ಾ'ವೃ * ಮಂಡI
(ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಸ ಾ ರದ ಅ,ೕನ ಸಂ ೆ~)
6&ೇಷ ಭೂ ಾa,ೕ ಾ, ಾ"ಗಳ ಕcೇ", Yೖಸೂರು ವಲಯ, ೆ.ಆ .ಎ . ರ ೆL,
Yೖಸೂರು - 570 016. ದೂರ9ಾH/•ಾ €•:080-2582081 ಈ-YೕF: [email protected]
ಸಂ ೆ : ಭೂ ಾa (7) .ಆ /94 "ಂದ 100/2016-17/736 ಾಂಕ: 08-08-2016
7ಂಬರಹ
6ಷಯ: ಮಂಡ ^>ೆ5, ]$ೕರಂಗಪಟTಣ Kಾಲೂ5ಕು, ೆಳ!ೊಳ JೋಬI, pಗರಹIf
!ಾ$ಮದ ಸ.ನಂ.45/1 ರ45 2-21 ಎಕ@ೆ 45/3 ರ45 0-39 UÀÄAmÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
100 ರ45 3-20 ಎಕ@ೆ ಜhೕನುಗಳ ಭೂ ಾa,ೕನದ ಬ!ೆi.
ಉ>ೆ5ೕಖ: -ಮ\ ಮನ6 ಾಂಕ: 28-06-2016.
*****
ಮಂಡ ^>ೆ5, ]$ೕರಂಗಪಟTಣ Kಾಲೂ5ಕು, ೆಳ!ೊಳ JೋಬI, pಗರಹIf !ಾ$ಮದ
ಸ.ನಂ.45/1 ರ45 2-21 ಎಕ@ೆ 45/3 ರ45 0-39 UÀÄAmÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 100 gÀ°è 3-20 ಎಕ@ೆ
ಜhೕನುಗಳನು< ಭೂ ಾa,ೕನಪ ೊಂಡು ಅ9ಾ‚ dಾ ಪ"Jಾರದ ಹಣ 6ತ" ರುವ ಬ!ೆi
dಾ7V -ೕಡುವಂKೆ ಉ>ೆ5ೕಖದ ಅನaಯ dಾ7V ಹಕುP ಾ12ಯ -ೕವB ಸ45 ದ2 ಮನ6ಯನು<
ಪ"]ೕ4 %ೆ.
ಮಂಡ ^>ೆ5, ]$ೕರಂಗಪಟTಣ Kಾಲೂ5ಕು, ೆಳ!ೊಳ JೋಬI, pಗರಹIf !ಾ$ಮದ
ಸ.ನಂ.45/1 ರ45 2-21 ಎಕ@ೆ 45/3 ರ45 0-39 UÀÄAmÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 100 ರ45 3-20 ಎಕ@ೆ ಜhೕನುಗಳನು<
ೆ.ಐ.ಎ. . ಾ12 1966 ರ ಕಲಂ 28(4) ರ Yೕ@ೆ!ೆ ಸ ಾ " ಅ,ಸೂಚ ೆ ಸಂ. ಐ 266 ಎ ಕೂ
2006 ಾಂಕ: 31.08.2006 ರಂKೆ ಆಂVಮ9ಾ: ಭೂ ಾa,ೕನಪ ೊಂಡು ಪರಸƒರ ಒಪƒಂದದಂKೆ
^>ಾ5, ಾ"ಗಳb, ಮಂಡ ^>ೆ5, ಮಂಡ ರವರ ಅಧ „Kೆಯ45 ನ...ೆದ ಭೂದರ ಸಲJಾ ಸhV ಸ†ೆಯ45ನ
Vೕdಾ ನದಂKೆ Jಾಗೂ ಮಂಡI ಸ†ೆಯ45 ಅನುpೕ ರುವಂKೆ ಖು¶Ì ಜhೕ-!ೆ ಎಕ@ೆ!ೆ ರೂ.9.00
ಲ„ Jಾಗೂ ಭೂಪ"ವV ತ ಜhೕ-!ೆ ರೂ.9.75 ಲ„ಗಳಂKೆ ಭೂಪ"Jಾರ -ಗ ಪ ಸ>ಾ:%ೆ. ಸದ"
ಜhೕನುಗI!ೆ ಭೂಪ"Jಾರ ಪ...ೆಯಲು ಭೂdಾ4ೕಕರು ಭೂ %ಾಖ>ೆಗಳನು< ಸ45ಸ%ೇ ಇರುವBದ"ಂದ
ಭೂಪ"Jಾರ xಾವV ರುವB ಲ5. ಈ ಬ!ೆi ಅ9ಾ‚ ತ‡ಾ" ಪ"Jಾರ xಾವVಸ ೇ ಾ:ದು2,
ಅ9ಾ‚ ರಚ ೆಯ ಹಂತದ45ರುತL%ೆ ಎಂದು Jಾಗೂ ಸ9ೆ ನಂ.45/1 ಮತುL 45/3 ೆP ಸಂಬಂ, ದಂKೆ
ಕcೇ"ಯ45 ಕಲಂ 26(3)ರ 6mಾರlೆಯ ೈಬರಹದ ಆ%ೇಶದ ಪ$V ಲಭ 6ರುವB ಲ5. ಕಲಂ 28(3)ರ
ೆರಳಚುˆ dಾ ರುವ ಆ%ೇಶದ ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß FUÁUÀ¯Éà ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA100gÀ PÀ®A
28(3)gÀ «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ ೈಬರಹದ ಆ%ೇಶದ ಪ$Vಯನು< ಈ ಕೂಡ ಲಗVL %ೆ.
ಈ dಾ7V?ಂದ ಾ,ತ@ಾದ45 ಪ$ಥಮ Yೕಲ\ನ6 xಾ$, ಾರ9ಾ:ರುವ 6&ೇಷ
ಭೂ ಾa,ೕ ಾ, ಾ"ಗಳb ೆಐಎ Z, Yೖಸೂರು ವಲಯ, Yೖಸೂರು, 6 ಾ$ಂŠ gೈgïì ಸhೕಪ,
ೆ.ಆ .ಎ ರ ೆL, ಇವ"!ೆ dಾ7V ಹಕುP ಅ,-ಯಮ ಅ‹ಾ ಯ V ರ ಕಲಂ 19(1) ರ 30
ನ%ೊಳ!ೆ Yೕಲ\ನ6 ಸ45ಸಬಹು%ಾ:%ೆ.
ಸ7/-
ಾವ ಜ-ಕ dಾ7V ಹಕುP ಅ, ಾ"
ಮತುL ವ ವ ಾ~ಪಕರು,
6&ೇಷ ಭೂ ಾa,ೕ ಾ, ಾ"ಗಳ ಕcೇ",
PÀ ೈಪ$ಮಂ, ವಲಯ ಕcೇ", Yೖಸೂರು."
The endorsement narrates that compensation is determined and
ready to be disbursed. It is at that point in time, the petitioners
knocked at the doors of this Court in the subject petition. This Court
entertaining the petition, passes the following order on 05-10-2016.
"Learned AGA is directed to take notice for R1.
Issue notice to R2 and R3.
Parties are directed to maintain status quo in
respect of the petition schedule property."
The parties were directed to maintain status quo which has
continued till the date on which the matter was heard and reserved
on 05-08-2025.
8. After filing of the petition, award proceedings are held by
the Special Land Acquisition Officer including the areas in which the
petitioners' lands were situated. The award was not passed insofar
as the lands of the petitioners are concerned in the teeth of the
interim order of status quo that was operating from 5-08-2016 and
continued to operate till the date on which the matter was heard
and reserved for orders. Therefore, it is not a case where the Board
has not done anything insofar as the lands that are sought to be
acquired. The Board did not pass the award insofar as the
petitioners are concerned for the reason that the writ petition was
pending and there was an interim order of status quo.
9. Heavy reliance is placed by the petitioners upon the
judgment in the case of H.N. SHIVANNA, wherein the Division
Bench had observed that, merely because no time limit is fixed
under the Act for the Board to conclude the acquisition proceeding,
it cannot be said that the Board can do it at any time, but has to do
it within a reasonable time. What would be the reasonable time was
not indicated. Even otherwise, the said judgment is distinguished
later by a Full Bench in SIDDESHWAR SUGARS LIMITED v. THE
STATE OF KARNATAKA1. The reference to the Full Bench was for
the following purpose:
"2. The reference to the Full Bench is pursuant to
an order of the learned Single Judge dated 08.07.2022,
wherein, the learned Single Judge taking note of the
submissions of the learned Senior counsel for the
petitioners in W.P.No.203585/2019 and the learned
counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.201572/2016 has
prima facie opined that there is a conflict between two
judgments rendered by Benches of equal coram i.e., the
judgment rendered by the Division Bench in the case of
Ananthaswamy vs. State of Karnataka and Others i.e., in
W.A.No.1451/2018 (LA-KIADB) and the judgment of
another Division Bench in the case of KIADB and Anr. vs.
K. H. Shivanna &Ors rendered in W.A.No.557/2021 (LA
KIADB)."
(Emphasis supplied)
The conflict between two Division Benches led a learned single
Judge to refer the matter to the Full Bench in terms of his order
dated 08-07-2022. The decision in H.N.SHIVANNA, upon which
the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance, was also
Writ Petition No.203585 of 2019 and connected cases decided on
27.10.2023
one of the judgments that was considered by the Full Bench. It is
held that H.N.SHIVANNA was decided much prior to coming into
force of the 2013 Act and observes that a subsequent Division
Bench has impliedly overruled H.N.SHIVANNA. Therefore, H.N.
SHIVANNA was not a good law. The Full Bench observes as
follows:
".... ..... ....
12. The judgment in Ananthaswamy's case
rendered on 02.03.2021 precedes the judgment rendered
in W.A.No.557/2021. In Paragraph Nos.47 and 48 of
Ananthaswamy's case, the Division Bench has recorded
compelling reasons as to why H. N. Shivanna's case is no
more good law and Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 is
inapplicable to acquisitions other than the acquisition
initiated under the LA Act. In W.A.No.557/2021 delivered
on 23.03.2022, the acquisition has been held to have
been lapsed on account of inordinate delay and in the
light of the judgments noted in Paragraph No.6 of the
said judgment. Thus, in our view, the judgment in
Ananthaswamy's case has rightly held the inapplicability
of Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013, in the light of the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as noted supra.
W.A.No.557/2021 has been rendered without noticing
the judgment in Ananthaswamy's case and without
appreciating the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Anasuya Bai's case and M. Nagabhushana's case.
13. The Full Bench having perused the judgments
rendered by two Division Bench referred to in the reference
order, we find that the judgments rendered are on different
factual aspects point of law and there is no conflict with each
other."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Full Bench holds that the judgments of subsequent time which
were also referred to the Full Bench were rendered on the facts
obtaining in each of the cases and H.N. SHIVANNA was not a good
law. In the light of the judgment of the Full Bench, the chief support
of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners would tumble
down.
10. Several other judgments are relied on by the learned
senior counsel for the petitioners in the cases of: (i) RAM CHAND
v. UNION OF INDIA - (1994) 1 SCC 44; (ii) KIADB v. THE
STATE OF KARNATAKA - W.A.No.100219 of 2018 and another
decided on 05-12-2018; (iii) M. NAGABHUSHAN REDDY v. THE
STATE OF KARNATAKA - W.A.No.4583 of 2011 and connected
cases decided on 01-02-2023 and (iv) SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE FOR FRUITS AND
VEGETABLES, GOLIMANGLA v. N.KRISHNAPPA - (2017) 13
SCC 239. The said judgments are distinguishable to the facts
obtaining at hand are considered without much ado.
11. The award is not passed and compensation is not paid in
the case at hand only for the reason that the writ petition was
pending and an order of status quo was operating. But, the
acquisition proceedings had in fact come to an end with the draft
general award itself being kept ready. In that light, the petitioners
cannot claim that delay has vitiated the acquisition proceedings or
is said to have lapsed. Insofar as the circular is concerned, it
emerges on 03-03-2007, by which time even the final notification
had been issued. It would have been altogether different
circumstance if the final notification had emerged after the circular
of the State Government. The circular is dated 03-03-2007 and the
final notification is dated 31-08-2006, long before emergence of the
circular. Even otherwise, the circular is indicative of the fact that
certain categories of lands would be exempted only if they do not
break the contiguity in the acquisition and for the purpose for which
the acquisition is made. The acquisition in the case at hand is for
industrial purpose. While industries are being set up amidst the
said land, it cannot be said that the petitioners should be exempt to
create an agricultural activity in the midst of industries.
12. Finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands
rejected. Interim order if any operating, shall stand dissolved.
The 2nd respondent/Board shall now determine compensation in
accordance with law and disburse the same to these petitioners
without brooking any delay.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
bkp
CT:MJ
