IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.47928/2019 (LA – KIADB) BETWEEN :
H.CHIKKAIAH S/O LATE HALE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O JADENAHALLI VILLAGE BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER (BY SRI SATISH M. DODDAMANI, ADV.) AND :
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE VIDHANA SOUDHA Dr. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001 REP BY ITS SECRETARY 2 . THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD EAST WING, KHANIJA BAHVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001 REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 3 . THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.14/3, MAHARSHI ARAVINDA BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560001 REP BY ITS SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI NITHYANANDA K.R., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI PAVAN KUMAR, ADV. FOR SRI H.DEVENDRAPPA, ADV. FOR R-2 & R-3.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 21.07.1999 ISSUED BY R-2 UNDER SECTION 28(1) OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966, VIDE ANNEXURE-E ONLY IN SO FAR AS THE LAND OF THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED i.e., SY.NO.107, MEASURING 7 ACRES 20 GUNTAS, BANIKUPPE VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. The petitioner has challenged the Preliminary Notification dated 21.7.1999 issued by the respondent No.2 under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘Act’ for short) insofar as the land of the petitioner is concerned i.e., 7 acres 30 guntas, Banikuppe village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk and District.
3. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.107 measuring 8 acres 15 guntas situated at Banikuppe village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk and District. It is submitted that the respondent issued Preliminary Notification dated 21.7.1999 under the provisions of the Act, proposing to acquire the said lands for industrial purpose. However, no Final Notification has been issued in furtherance of the said Preliminary Notification even after a lapse of 20 years. The respondents have not taken possession of the petitioner’s property by passing an award.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the Cognate Bench decision of this Court in the case of B.M. Shiva Kumar Vs. The State of Karnataka & others in W.P.No.10487/2019 (D.D.13.6.2019) submitted that the very same Preliminary Notification was considered and quashed pertaining to the petitioner’s land therein, observing that it is the cardinal principle of law that even where the statute does not prescribe a time limit for taking a particular action, the aforesaid power has to be exercised within a reasonable time. Further, reliance has been placed on the order dated 10.4.2014 passed in W.P.No.11839/2014 which has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2402/2014.
5. In the present case, Preliminary Notification was issued on 21.7.1999 i.e., nearly 20 years ago. The aforesaid period by mere stretch of imagination can not be said to be reasonable.
6. For the reasons assigned in the orders aforesaid, the Preliminary Notification dated 21.7.1999 is quashed insofar as the petitioner’s land is concerned.
Writ petition is allowed in terms of the above.
Dvr:
Sd/- JUDGE