IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.18673 OF 2013(GM-RES) BETWEEN:
INFOSYS LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIOSN OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ELECTRONIC CITY, HOSUR ROAD BANGALORE – 560 100 AND ITS MANGALORE OPERATIONS AT PAJERU KAMBLAPADAVU BANTWAL TALUK BANTWAL – 574 211 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS REGIOINAL HEAD - FACILITIES (BY MR.S.S.NAGANAND SR. ADV. FOR MR.S.SRIRANGA, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIKAS SOUDA, BANGALORE – 1 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE TAHASILDAR BANTWAL TALUK OFFICE BANTWAL – 574 211.
3. LT COL S.K.BHAT S/O LATE RADHAKRISHNA BHAT AGED 53 YEARS COMMANDING OFFICER NO.609, BOUGAIN VILLE … PETITIONER SANKALP CENTRAL PARK YADAVAGIRI, MYSORE [AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 26.04.2013] 4. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD #14/3, 2ND FLOOR, R.P.BUILDING NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001.
[AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 18.11.2013] … RESPONDENTS (BY MR.O.SHIVARAM BHAT ADV. FOR R3 SMT.NILOUFER AKBAR AGA FOR R1 & R2 MR.BASAVARAJ V. SABARAD ADV. FOR R4.) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH NOTICE DATED 09.04.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-M ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.S.S.Naganand Learned Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Sriranga, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.O.Shivaram Bhat, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
Smt.Niloufer Akbar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr.Basavaraj V.Sabarad, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. A Bench of this Court had afforded an opportunity to amicably resolve the dispute. However, the parties could not arrive at amicable settlement of the dispute. Therefore, the petition was heard on merits.
4. In this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashment of the notice dated 09.04.2013 issued by the Tahsildar viz., respondent No.2.
5. Facts giving rise to filing of this petition briefly stated are that the petitioner is a company, which is engaged in a business of software development. The petitioner has set up a campus on an area measuring 355 acres of land. The petitioner made an application for allotment of the land to Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board for the purposes of establishing the industry in Mangalore on 12.08.2005, pursuant to which an order of allotment was issued to the petitioner on 12.08.2005. The Government has issued a Notification under Sections 13 & 31 of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 and thereafter, the possession notices have been issued to the petitioner on various dates. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner has set up an industry by incurring huge costs. However, the petitioner received a notice dated 09.04.2013, by which respondent No.2 called upon the petitioner to hand over the possession of land bearing Sy.No.110/6 measuring 4.97 acres of Kairangala Village. The aforesaid show cause notice was issued in compliance of the order dated 18.09.2012 passed in W.P.No.26842/2012. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not a party in the aforesaid writ petition and neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, which has been styled as a notice by respondent No.2. It is further submitted that before taking any action against the petitioner, survey has to be carried out in the presence of the petitioner and there has to be compliance of principles of natural justice. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate fairly did not dispute the submissions made by the Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submitted that a time bound direction be issued to respondent No.2 to conclude the survey and thereafter to deal with the matter in accordance with law.
7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the impugned order, which is styled as a notice dated 09.04.2013 has been passed in purported compliance of the order passed by a Bench of this Court in W.P.No.26842/2012. Admittedly, the petitioner was not a party in the aforesaid writ petition. The impugned order has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is per se without jurisdiction. The impugned notice dated 09.04.2013 issued by respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside. The respondent No.2 is directed to issue notice to the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 and to conduct the survey in presence of the petitioner and respondent No.3 and thereafter to consider the objections, which are already been filed by the petitioner to the notice dated 09.04.2013 in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today after hearing the petitioner and respondent No.3. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS