IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S. PATIL WRIT PETITION Nos.42663-42667 OF 2017 [LA-KIADB] AND WRIT PETITION Nos.42668-42670 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
1. MS.ALOKAM VENKAYAMMA W/O.MR.ALOKAM PEDDABBAIAH AGE:70 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.303, A BLOCK, ORACLE RESIDENCY, HOYSALANAGAR ROAD HORAMAVU, BENGALURU – 560 043.
2. M/S.DREAMLAND AVENUE PVT. LTD. A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGSITERED OFFICE AT:
NSL ICON, 4TH FLOOR, # 8-2 – 684/2/A, PLOT NO.1 TO 4, OPP. ICICI BANK, ROAD NO.12, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD – 560 034, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR.LOKESH REDDY S/O.SHIVANNA S.
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS. ... PETITIONERS (BY:SRI SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT.ANUPARNA BORDOLOI FOR M/S.SHETTY AND HEGDE ASSOCIATES) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 01.
2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER NO.49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU – 01.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN,RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU – 01.
4. KARNATAKA UDYOG MITRA 3RD FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAWAN (SOUTH WING), NO.40, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ..RESPONDENTS (R4 deleted vide order dt.21.9.2017) (BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR A.PATIL, AGA FOR R1: SRI B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND 3:
R4 DELETED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 21.09.2017) THESE WRIT PETITIONS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 3(1) OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966 DATED 3.11.2006 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 1(3) OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966 DATED 3.11.2006 VIDE ANNEXURE-B, TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATIONS DATED 4.11.2006 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 28(1) OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966 HAVE LAPSED AS HAVING BEEN ABANODONED VIDE NOTIFICATION VIDE ANNEURE-C AND TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO ISSUE NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966 FOR DROPPING OF THE LAND FROM ACQUISITION IN VIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 27.6.2013 PASSED UNDER SECTION 28(3) OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966 AND TO DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION OF LANDS PURSUANT TO THE NOTIFICATIONS ISUSED UNDER SECTION 3(1) AND 1(3) DATED 3.11.2006 AND NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 28(1) DATED 28.11.2006 OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966 HAVE LAPSED FOR NOT PASSING THE AWRD AND FOR NOT TAKING THE POSESSION AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R 1. In these writ petitions, petitioners have sought quashing of the notifications dated 3.11.2006 (Annexures-A, B and C) issued under Sections 3(1), 1(3) and 28(1) respectively of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 [for short ‘the Act’] and the order dated 27.6.2013 (Annexure-D) passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer-KIADB under Section 28(3) of the Act, on the ground that acquisition proceedings initiated have lapsed, as having been abandoned.
2. Facts, briefly stated, for the purpose of disposal of this case are that petitioners 1 and 2 are owners/interested persons of the lands bearing Sy.Nos.120, 121, 122, 123 measuring 4 acres each and Survey Nos.126, 127, 128 and 129 measuring 2 acres each situated at Bandikodigehalli, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk.
3. The first respondent–State issued a notification dated 3.11.2006 exercising power and jurisdiction under Section 3(1) of the Act declaring the land in question as part of industrial area. Thereafter, by notification of the same day, land was proposed for acquisition in terms of Section 28(1) by issuing a preliminary notification. Petitioners filed objections. The objections were overruled and final notification dated 7.5.2007 under Section 28(4) of the Act was issued. This was challenged by the petitioners before this Court in W.P.No.9809/2007. This Court, by order 18.7.2011 quashed the final notification dated 7.5.2007 and directed Special Land Acquisition Officer to reconsider the objections filed by petitioners and pass appropriate orders in terms of Section 28(3) of the Act. Thereafter, Special Land Acquisition Officer – KIDAB (SLAO) has passed the order dated 27.6.2013 (Annexure-D) under Section 28(3) of the Act, recommending that lands may be dropped from acquisition proceedings.
4. Pursuant to the same, the matter was discussed by KIADB in its 329th Board Meeting held on 28.4.2014. The Board, having accepted the recommendation of SLAO submitted a proposal to the State Government to give up the lands from acquisition and issue a notification under Section 4 of the Act. This is evident from the communication dated 14.8.2014 (Annexure-J) addressed by the Chief Executive Officer and Executive Member, KIADB to the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Department of Commerce and Industries.
5. Thereafter, as no action was taken by State Government to drop the lands from acquisition proceedings by issuing notification under Section 4 of the Act, petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.Nos.37360-37362/2015. This Court disposed of the writ petitions on 20.4.2017 recording the statement made by learned Additional Government Advocate on instructions from State Government that if reasonable time was granted, representations of petitioners would be considered in accordance with law. This Court directed the State Government to consider the representations, dated 21.8.2014 and 12.11.2014 and pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
6. The grievance now made before this Court is that despite such direction issued by this Court fixing the outer limit for excluding the land from acquisition and inspite of further representation given by the petitioners on 27.4.2017 (Annexure- L) to the State Government, Department of Commerce and Industries, no action has been taken by it.
7. Sri Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submits that despite the beneficiary of the acquisition, i.e. KIADB making it clear that lands were no longer needed by it and could be excluded from acquisition and inspite of specific direction issued by this Court to the Government fixing the outer limit, there is no action on the part of State Government; this has resulted in serious prejudice, irreparable loss and injury to the interests of the petitioners, as they are not in a position to utilize their land.
8. Sri B.B.Patil, learned counsel appearing for KIADB submits that a decision has indeed been taken by the Board to exclude the land from acquisition in the light of recommendation made by SLAO-KIADB after considering objections of the land owners and proposal has been submitted in this regard to the State Government as back as on 14.8.2014. It is his submission that decision has to be taken by the State Government.
9. Sri Vijay Kumar A. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for first respondent – State submits that Government will take appropriate decision in the matter in accordance with law.
10. Upon hearing learned counsel for all the parties, I find that there is no justification for the State Government to sit over the matter, particularly when the beneficiary – KIADB has considered the matter in accordance with law and has recommended in its meeting held on 14.8.2014 for exclusion of lands from acquisition. It cannot be lost sight that the land was notified for acquisition by issuing preliminary notification dated 3.11.2006. The SLAO-KIADB accepted the objections raised by petitioners and has recommended for exclusion of lands from acquisition. The State Government cannot take three years to take a decision in the matter. It cannot take more than the time that was granted by this Court to take a decision in the matter, particularly, when this Court had made it clear that decision should be taken within an outer limit of three months while passing the order dated 20.4.2017 in W.P.Nos.37360- 37362/2015.
11. As rightly contended by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners, as the lands are to be regarded as still under the process of acquisition, the land owners/petitioners have been deprived of enjoying their lands in accordance with law. Such uncertainty over the rights of petitioners is due to the omission on the part of State Government.
12. It cannot take 11 years for completion of acquisition proceedings or for a decision to be taken to exclude the lands from acquisition proceedings. The State has acted according to its whims and fancies causing irreparable loss and hardship to the petitioners. Hence, absolutely there is no justification for the inaction of the respondent–State. The acquisition proceedings, as rightly contended, has been abandoned both, by beneficiary and the State Government. A declaration needs to be granted in this regard keeping in mind the ends of justice.
13. Hence, these writ petitions are allowed. The impugned acquisition proceedings insofar as lands in question are concerned are declared as abandoned. Parties to bear their respective costs.
Sd/- JUDGE VGR