IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NOs.2590 & 2966-2968 OF 2018 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN:
1. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD PRESENTLY AT KANIJA BHAVAN 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001.
BY ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY KIADB. (WRONGLY SHOWN AS ITS COMMISSIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION).
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (BMICP), THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD PRESENTLY AT NO. 14/3, ARAVINDA BHAVANA NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. (WRONGLY SHOWN AT NO.1, FORD GARDENS OPP M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001).
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (BMICP) THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD PRESENTLY AT NO. 14/3, ARAVINDA BHAVANA NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 (WRONGLY SHOWN AT NO. 3/2, KHENY BUILDING 1ST CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 009).
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ASHOK N. NAYAK, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. H. S. RAMACHANDRAIAH SON OF SHIVARUDRAIAH AGED 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 153, 1ST PHASE BHARATHNAGAR, ANJANANAGAR VISHWANEEDAM POST MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 091.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE VIKASA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR.S. PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT NO.1, SRI. S.S. MAHENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT DATED 25/01/2017 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NOS.48365-366 OF 2014 AND WRIT PETITION NOS.48672-673 OF 2014 [LA-KIADB].
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 25.01.2017 passed in Writ Petition Nos.48365-48366 of 2014 and Writ Petition Nos.48672-48673 of 2014, respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 before the learned Single Judge have filed these appeals.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent No.2 issued a Preliminary Notification dated 3.6.1999 proposing to acquire the petitioners’ land in Survey No.126 (measuring 1 acre 20 guntas), Survey No. 127 (measuring 1 acre 22 guntas), Survey No.129 (measuring 1 acre 22 guntas) and Survey No.130 (measuring 1 acre 20 guntas) situate at Kodugehalli village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. These and other lands were sought to be acquired by issuing a Final Notification on 8.5.2003. The said Final Notification was challenged before the Writ Court in Writ Petition No.32851 of 2003 and vide order dated 27.8.2003, the writ petition was allowed with respect to the writ petitioners therein. Thereafter, fresh proceedings were initiated to hold an inquiry as contemplated under sections 28(2) and 28(3) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 as per the endorsement dated 12.09.2012 issued by the respondents. However, the respondents did not take further action thereafter. Therefore, the instant Writ Petitions were filed to quash the endorsement dated 12.09.2012 as well as the Preliminary Notification. The learned Single Judge considering the contentions and in view of the fact that it has been almost a decade after the Preliminary Notification was issued and no Final Notification is issued concluded that the acquisition would not stand. Hence, the writ petitions were allowed. The impugned endorsements, including endorsements dated 12.09.2012, were quashed as well as the Preliminary Notification was quashed. Questioning the same, the KIADB have filed this appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Final Notification could not be issued since certain connected matters were pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and that until and unless those proceedings are completed, a final notification could not be issued. However, we are unable to accept the said contention. Issuance of final notification insofar as the petitioner’s land is concerned is not a subject matter pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the same is only a ruse to avoid the acquisition proceedings herein. Furthermore, the counsel for the respondents relies upon identical matters which were considered by this Court pertaining to the order dated 12.4.2016 passed in Writ Appeal No.2402 of 2014 as well as the order dated 22.3.2018 passed in Writ Appeal No.800 of 2017 & Writ Appeal Nos. 4219-4221 of 2017. Thereto was a question with regard to the delay in issuing the Final Notification.
Therefore, this too would constitute an additional ground in support of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has held on facts based on the statement of objections filed by the appellants themselves that no Final Notification is issued yet and the acquisition proceedings would not stand. Hence, we do not find that the order passed by the learned Single Judge calls for any interference. Consequently, the appeals being devoid of merit are dismissed.
In the circumstances, it would not be necessary to consider the application for condonation of delay. The said I.A.2 of 2018 is rejected.
SD/- SD/-
JUDGE JUDGE nv