THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA W.P.Nos.41052 – 41072/2013 c/w W.P.Nos.19773/2013 & 51588 – 51592 & 51593/2013, W.P.No.19772/2013, W.P.Nos.20433 – 20458/2014, W.P.Nos.7625 – 7629 & 7630 – 7633/2014 AND W.P.Nos.19771/2013 & 57648-57650/2013 (LA – KIADB) IN W.P.Nos.41052 – 41072/2013: BETWEEN :
1. SMT.LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 2. SMT.LAKSHMAMMA W/O DASEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 3. SMT.GOWRAMMA W/O DYAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 4. SMT.CHANNAMMA W/O LATE BETTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS 5. SMT.LAKSHMAMMA W/O RANGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 6. SMT.LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE DYAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 7. SMT.LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE D.C.KESHAVAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS 8. SRI H.D.NAGENDRA S/O LATE D.DASEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 9. SRI BETTEGOWDA S/O THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 10. SRI T.MANJEGOWDA S/O THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 11. SRI NAGARAJ S/O GIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 12. SRI CHIKKEGOWDA S/O JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS 13. SRI SANNAPPA S/O DASEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 14. SRI RAMEGOWDA S/O CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 15. SRI THIMMEGOWDA S/O MALIGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS 16. SRI RAMPUTTEGOWDA S/O DEVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 17. SRI D.C.ASWATHANARAYANA SWAMY S/O D.CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS 18. SRI KUMAR S/O LATE YELAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 19. SRI YALAKKI GOWDA S/O LATE MALINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 20. SRI RAMANNA S/O LATE DEVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 21. SRI MUDLIGIRI GOWDA S/O THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS ALL ARE R/O DODDABASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE M.HOSAKOPPALU POST, SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-570001. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI A.C.BALARAJ, ADV.) AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE-1 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-1 3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, K.I.A.D.B., RANGE OFFICE MYSORE-570016 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-570001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.J.ESHWARAPPA, AGA FOR R-1 & R-4; SRI B.B.PATIL, ADV. FOR R-2 & R-3.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 05.06.2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-F.
IN W.P.Nos.19773/2013 & 51588 – 51592 & 51593/2013: BETWEEN :
1. SRI H.V. RAMANNA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.R.
SRI H.R. SOMA KRISHNA ANANDA, S/O H.V. RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O NO.292, L.I.G HOUSE, 22ND CROSS ROAD, KUVEMPU NAGAR, HASSAN-573201 2. SRI H.V.KRISHNA MURTHY SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs. SRI YOGESH BHARADWAJ K., S/O H.V.KRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O NO.292, LIG HOUSE, 22ND CROSS ROAD, KUVEMPU NAGAR, HASSAN-573201 3. SRI H.V.SRINIVASA MURTHY S/O H.V.VENKATA KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/O NO.292, LIG HOUSE, 22ND CROSS ROAD, KUVEMPU NAGAR, HASSAN-573201 4. SRI PUTTASWAMY GOWDA S/O DEVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT SAMUDRAVALLI VILLAGE, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573201 5. SRI VENKATA JOGI S/O VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/O KOUSHIKA BAREMALE, KOUSHIKA POST, CHIKKABASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT-573201 6. SRI B. PRAKASH S/O H.R. BHADRI SETTY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O GANIGARA BEEDHI, OPP. DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE, HOSALANE ROAD, HASSAN-573201 7. SRI LAXMEGOWDA S/O KULLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS, R/O CHIKKABASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI, KOUSHIKA POST, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT-573201 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI A.C.BALARAJ, ADV.) AND :
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-1.
2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, K.I.A.D.B., RANGE OFFICER, MYSORE-570016. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.J.ESHWARAPPA, AGA FOR R-1; SRI B.B.PATAIL, ADV. FOR R-2.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 25.08.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-G.
IN W.P.No.19772/2013:
BETWEEN :
SRI H. SURESH S/O HANUMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT SAMUDRAVALLI VILLAGE, M.H. KOPPALU POST, SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN-573201 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI A.C.BALARAJ, ADV.) AND :
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-1.
2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, K.I.A.D.B., RANGE OFFICER, MYSORE-570016. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.J.ESHWARAPPA, AGA FOR R-1; SRI B.B.PATAIL, ADV. FOR R-2.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 25.08.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-G.
IN W.P.Nos.20433 – 20458/2014: BETWEEN :
1. DYAVEGOWDA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.R., DEVARAJ, S/O LATE DYAVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O CHIKKABASAVANAHALLI, KAUSHIKA POST, SHANTIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573203.
2. SRI NAGARAJU S/O BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O CHIKKABASAVANAHALLI, KAUSHIKA POST SHANTIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573203.
3. SMT.SAROJAMMA W/O BYREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O CHIKKABASAVANAHALLI, KAUSHIKA POST, SHANTIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573203.
4. SRI C.B.MANGEGOWDA S/O LATE BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O CHIKKABASAVANAHALLI, KAUSHIKA POST, SHANTIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573203.
5. SRI R.SHIVANNA S/O R.RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O CHIKKABASAVANAHALLI, KAUSHIKA POST, SHANTIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573203.
6. BETTEGOWDA SINCE DECEASED REP. BY ITS L.R., JAYAMMA, S/O LATE BETTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O CHIKKABASAVANAHALLI, KAUSHIKA POST, SHANTIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573203.
7. DYAVEGOWDA SINCE DECEASED REP. BY ITS L.R., SRI CHIKKEGOWDA, S/O LATE DYAVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O CHIKKABASAVANAHALLI, KAUSHIKA POST, SHANTIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573203.
8. SMT.CHANNAMMA W/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O KOUSHIKA VILLAGE, KOUSHIKA POST, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT-573203.
9. SRI N.BOREGOWDA S/O NINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O CHIKKABASAVANAHALLI, KAUSHIKA POST, SHANTIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573203.
10. SRI MAYEGOWDA S/O SOMBEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O CHIKKABASAVANAHALLI, KAUSHIKA POST, SHANTIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573203.
11. SRI NANJEGOWDA S/O BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O CHIKKABASAVANAHALLI, KAUSHIKA POST, SHANTIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573203.
12. SRI DYAVEGOWDA S/O NINGAIAH @ NINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O CHIKKABASAVANAHALLI, KAUSHIKA POST, SHANTIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573203.
13. SRI PUTTE NINGEGOWDA S/O PUTTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O CHIKKABASAVANAHALLI, KAUSHIKA POST, SHANTIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573203.
14. SRI DEVARAJEGOWDA S/O CHALUVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O CHIKKABASAVANAHALLI, KAUSHIKA POST, SHANTIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573203.
15. SMT.PUTTAMMA W/O BASAVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O CHIKKABASAVANAHALLI, KAUSHIKA POST, SHANTIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573203.
16. NINGEGOWDA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.H., SRI CHANDRA, S/O LATE NINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O CHIKKABASAVANAHALLI, KAUSHIKA POST, SHANTIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573203.
17. NINGEGOWDA SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS L.H., SRI C.N.SATISH, S/O LATE NINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O CHIKKABASAVANAHALLI, KAUSHIKA POST, SHANTIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573203.
18. SRI NINGAIAH S/O DYAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, R/O CHIKKABASAVANAHALLI, KAUSHIKA POST, SHANTIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573203.
19. SRI MANJEGOWDA S/O PUTTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O CHIKKABASAVANAHALLI, KAUSHIKA POST, SHANTIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573203.
20. SMT.JAYAMMA W/O DEVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O CHIKKABASAVANAHALLI, KAUSHIKA POST, SHANTIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573203.
21. SMT.BETTAMMA W/O NINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/O CHIKKABASAVANAHALLI, KAUSHIKA POST, SHANTIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573203.
22. SRI RAMAIAH S/O PUTTASWAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O CHIKKABASAVANAHALLI, KAUSHIKA POST, SHANTIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573203.
23. MALLAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.R., SRI NINGARAJU, S/O LATE MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O CHIKKABASAVANAHALLI, KAUSHIKA POST, SHANTIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573203.
24. SRI BASAVEGOWDA S/O BETTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O CHIKKABASAVANAHALLI, KAUSHIKA POST, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573203.
25. SRI CHANDREGOWDA S/O SUBBEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O CHIKKABASAVANAHALLI, KAUSHIKA POST, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573203.
26. THIMMAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.R., SRI RANGAIAH, S/O THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O CHIKKABASAVANAHALLI, KAUSHIKA POST, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573203. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI A.C.BALARAJ, ADV.) AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-1.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-1.
3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER K.I.A.D.B., RANGE OFFICE, MYSORE-570 016.
4. M/s OPTO INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.54, GEM PLAZA, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, Mr. MANJE GOWDA, MAJOR.
5. M/s R.T.INDUSTRIES REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O MUDALAGIRI, MAJOR, R/O NO.893, 25/4TH CROSS, HEBBALA 2ND STAGE, MYSORE-570001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.J.ESHWARAPPA, AGA FOR R-1; SRI B.B.PATIL, ADV. FOR R-2 & R-3;
R-4 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.CI 39 SPQ 2013 DATED 18.11.2013 ISSUED BY THE R-1 AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-J.
IN W.P.Nos.7625 – 7629 & 7630 – 7633/2014: BETWEEN :
1. SRI H.V. RAMANNA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.R.
SRI H.R. SOMA KRISHNA ANANDA, S/O H.V. RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O NO.292, L.I.G HOUSE, 22ND CROSS ROAD, KUVEMPU NAGAR, HASSAN-573201 2. SRI H.V.KRISHNA MURTHY SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs. SRI YOGESH BHARADWAJ S/O H.V.KRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O NO.292, LIG HOUSE, 22ND CROSS ROAD, KUVEMPU NAGAR, HASSAN-573201 3. SRI H.V.SRINIVASA MURTHY S/O H.V.VENKATA KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/O NO.292, LIG HOUSE, 22ND CROSS ROAD, KUVEMPU NAGAR, HASSAN-573201 4. SRI PUTTASWAMY GOWDA S/O DEVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT SAMUDRAVALLI VILLAGE, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573201 5. SRI VENKATA JOGI S/O VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/O KOUSHIKA BAREMALE, KOUSHIKA POST, CHIKKABASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT-573201 6. SRI B. PRAKASH S/O H.R. BHADRI SETTY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O GANIGARA BEEDHI, OPP. DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE, HOSALANE ROAD, HASSAN-573201 7. SRI LAXMEGOWDA S/O KULLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 91 YEARS, R/O CHIKKABASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI, KOUSHIKA POST, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT-573201 8. SRI H.S. VENKATAKRISHNAPPA S/O LATE SRIKANTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, R/AT GIRIDHAMA, NO.1099/1, K.R.PURAM, HASSAN TOWN, HASSAN-573201 9. SRI H. SURESH S/O HANUMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT SAMUDRAVALLI VILLAGE, M.H. KOPPALU POST, SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN-573201 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI A.C.BALARAJ, ADV.) AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-1 2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER K.I.A.D.B, RANGE OFFICE, MYSORE-570016 3. M/s VOCATIONAL TRAINING INSTITUTE NO.445, 8TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN ROAD, DOLLARS COLONY, RMV 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560072, REP. BY ITS SMT.H.S.SUDHA, MAJOR, PROPRIETOR 4. M/s VOCATIONAL TRAINING INSTITUTE NO.445, 8TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN ROAD, DOLLARS COLONY, RMV 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560072, REP. BY ITS A.M.ARVIND, MAJOR, PROPRIETOR 5. M/s VOCATIONAL TRAINING INSTITUTE NO.222, 5TH CROSS, RMV 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560072, REP. BY ITS SMT.PARINEETHA SHETTY, MAJOR, PROPRIETOR 6. M/s VOCATIONAL TRAINING INSTITUTE NO.632, 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010 REP. BY ITS SRI RAVI SHANKARE GOWDA, MAJOR, PROPRIETOR 7. M/s OMNIKAN EARTH SCIENCES PVT. LTD., PHOENIX HOUSE, 201-B, PEOENIX MILL COMPOUND 462-SB MARG, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI-400013, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, SRI MELLING KERKAR, MAJOR 8. M/s JAISHREE KRISHNA STEEL WORKS PVT. LTD., NO.B-4, 1ST FLOOR, B-BLOCK, UNITY BUILDING, J.C ROAD, BANGALORE-560002 REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & DIRECTOR SRI M.M.PRABHU, MAJOR, 9. M/s HIMATSINGKA SEIDE LIMITED NO.10/24, KUMARA KRUPA ROAD, HIGH GROUNDS, NEAR SINDHI HIGH SCHOOL, BANGALORE-560001 REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (FINANCE) & COMPANY SECRETARY SRI AMIT JAIN, MAJOR 10. M/s OPTO INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.54, GEM PLAZA, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR Mr. MANJE GOWDA, MAJOR 11. KUMAR ORGANIC PRODUCTS LIMITED HEAD OFFICE AT KRISHNA CENTRE, 819/C, 13TH CROSS, 7TH BLOCK, NEAR JSS COLLEGE CIRCLE, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560041 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.J.ESHWARAPPA, AGA FOR R-1; SRI P.V.CHANDRASHEKHAR, ADV. FOR R-2;
SRI LOHITSWA BANAKAR, ADV. FOR R-3 TO R-6; SRI AJESH KUMAR S., ADV. FOR R-7;
SRI P.N.RAJESWARA, ADV. FOR R-8; SRI A.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, ADV. FOR R-9;
SRI ARAVIND KUMAR K., ADV. FOR R-10; SRI T.M.VIJAY KUMAR & SRI K.S.MANJUNATH, ADVS. FOR R-11.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 05.09.2013 ISSUED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-H.
IN W.P.Nos.19771/2013 & 57648 – 57650/2013: BETWEEN :
SRI H.S.VENKATAKRISHNAPPA S/O LATE SRIKANTAIAH AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS R/O GIRIDHAMA NO.1099/1, K.R. PURAM HASSAN TOWN, HASSAN. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI A.C.BALARAJ, ADV.) AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE-1 2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER K.I.A.D.B., RANGE OFFICE MYSORE-570016 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.J.ESHWARAPPA, AGA FOR R-1; SRI K.KRISHNA, ADV. FOR R-2.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSMENT DATED 25.08.2012 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-G.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 11.03.2019, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, S.SUJATHA J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R These petitions involving similar and akin issues, have been considered together and are disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioners have challenged the endorsements impugned herein issued by the Secretary to Government, Department of Commerce and Industries/the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, inter alia, seeking a direction to respondent No.1 - State for excluding the schedule properties belonging to the petitioners from acquisition proceedings by exercising powers under Section 4 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘Act’ for short).
3. The petitioners are claiming to be the agriculturists who owned and possessed small extents of agricultural lands. It is contended that their lands together with surrounding lands to an extent of 2477 acres were declared as industrial area and proposed for acquisition of the industries as per the provisions of the Act. Respondent No.1 had issued notification declaring the lands of the petitioners and others measuring in total an extent of 2477 acres having been acquired for the purpose of establishment of industries in the year 1991. It is the contention of the petitioners that they were paid meager compensation at the rate of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- per acre; these petitioners and others were made to agree for the said compensation by inducing of providing employment into Government service to one member in family.
4. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the lands acquired being not utilized by the respondents for the purpose for which it was acquired, they made several representations for redelivery or to pay higher compensation. The State Government issued notification on 26.05.2010 by exercising powers under Section 4 of the Act and thereby excluded from acquisition an extent of 128-05 acres of land situated at Channapatna and Sankalapura village of Hassan Taluk and District. It is the further contention of the petitioners that though they were also entitled for similar reliefs, their claims were not considered and being aggrieved, filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.8042- 8050/2011 and allied matters and this Court was pleased to issue directions to the respondents to consider the claims of the petitioners for the exclusion from acquisition of the lands belonging to the petitioners under Section 4 of the Act. The representations submitted by the petitioners in compliance with the order passed by this Court not being considered, the petitioners and others filed W.P.Nos.45483-45491/2011 and allied matters. This Court disposed of the said writ petitions by granting eight weeks time as prayed for, for disposing of the representations and in the meantime, the learned Single Judge also issued directions to the respondents for stopping constructions in the lands in question. The said orders not being complied with by the respondents, CCC Nos.384-392/2012 and allied matters were filed by the petitioners and during the pendency of the above contempt petitions, the endorsements impugned have been issued holding that the lands cannot be excluded from acquisition proceedings. Hence, these writ petitions.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners inviting the attention of this Court to the order passed in W.P.Nos.8042-8050/2011 and allied matters contended that the State Government was obligated to consider whether the lands of the petitioners would be required to implement the purpose of acquisitions and if not, to consider as to whether steps could be initiated under Section 4 of the Act. Reliance was also placed on the order of this Court in the case of N. Venkatesha Gowda and Another vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in 2012 (6) Kar. L.J. 672. The learned counsel further submitted that the endorsement impugned is passed in a perfunctory manner and the same is full of inconsistencies. To substantiate the same, the description of the industrial sites allotted in Sl.Nos.3, 4 and 5 of the endorsement vis-à-vis lease cum sale agreement entered into between the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (‘Board’ for short) and M/s. Himatsingka Seide Limited with respect to the schedule property was referred to. It is pointed out that the endorsement discloses the description of the properties allotted to M/s. Himatsingka Seide Limited as 1, 2, 38, 38-P, 39 & 40, whereas the description of land in the lease cum sale agreement refers to some other properties namely Plot No.1 in Sy.Nos.2(P), 3, 138(P), 139(P), 140(P), 11(P), 12(P), 13(P), 26 and 160(P) in the SEZ (Textile) Hassan Industrial Area.
6. It was further argued that Clause 20(c) of the lease cum sale agreement executed by the Board with the allottees (lessees) stipulates that the lessee, in employing skilled and unskilled labour, in the industrial units to be established in the scheduled property, shall as far as possible give preference to the members of the families of the landowners whose lands have been acquired for the purpose of formation of Industrial areas subject to the eligibility as per qualifications prescribed for the job. No efforts have been made by the Board to provide any employment to the members of the families of land owners, who have lost their lands in the acquisition proceedings for more than three decades. On the other hand, the said acquired lands are not utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired and are reserved for allotment in future acting like a ‘Real Estate Agent’. It was also argued that subsequent to filing of these petitions, the respondents have allotted the sites to some of the industries detriment to the interest of the poor agriculturists.
7. The learned counsel for the Board placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Northern Indian Glass Industries vs. Jaswant Singh and others reported in (2003) 1 SCC 335 submitted that after passing the award and taking possession of the lands, the acquired land vests with the Government free from all encumbrances. Even if the land is not used for the purpose for which it is acquired, the landowner does not get any right to ask for revesting the land in him and for restitution of the possession. The learned counsel submitted that the law laid down in N. Venkatesha Gowda, supra, is no more good law in view of the order passed by Division Bench in W.A.No.241/2011 and connected matters. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in (2015) 10 SCC 469.
8. The learned Additional Government Advocate
9. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.9 in W.P.Nos.7625-7629/2014 and allied matters contended that respondent No.9 is not a proper and necessary party to the proceedings. No industrial sites formed in the lands acquired by the petitioners herein have been allotted to the said respondent as could be seen from the description of the property indicated in the schedule to the lease cum sale agreement executed between the Board and the allottees (lessees). Respondent No.9 has made huge investments and is running industry and the same cannot be disturbed at the instance of the petitioners herein.
10. The learned counsel for respondent No.11 in W.P.Nos.7625-7629/2014 and allied matters submitted that the said respondent is carrying on export business by investing heavily for the infrastructure and the other related industrial activities. Hence, no interference can be made with the business activities of respondent No.11 on the allegations made by the petitioners. It was further argued that no representation was made by any of the petitioners seeking employment as sought for.
11. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
12. This Court in W.P.Nos.8042-8050/2011 and allied matters considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Northern Indian Glass Industries, supra, held that the observations made therein were in the context of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the same are squarely applicable even in the context of the Act under consideration, directed the respondents and particularly respondent – State to consider the case of the petitioners having regard to Section 4 of the Act, whereby the State Government at any time by Notification can exclude any extent of area or it can include any extent of area, as the case may be, considering the grievance of the petitioners that no decision has been taken by the State Government either to implement the purpose of acquisition or to drop the acquisition proceedings invoking section 4 of the Act.
13. In the case of N. Venkatesha Gowda, supra, the cognate bench of this Court in considering the similar issue observed as under:-
“10. If such is the factual position, it is obvious that the acquisition is purely for the exclusive benefit of the 4th respondent a Private Company. It is only because the State Government and the Board are also aware of this position, the colour of public purpose is sought to be painted into the acquisition proceedings by claiming that such acquisition proceedings are justified in allotting/handing over acquired lands in favour of private companies but the acquisition will nevertheless be for a public purpose, for the reason that such companies not only generate employment opportunities to the local residents, but also ensures tax collection to the State Exchequer, when their transactions are subjected to taxation provisions, which generates revenue to the State.
13. If one has to look into the object and purpose of creating the Board and the object behind the legislation, it becomes obvious that the main purpose of creating the Board, an expert body is to develop areas as industrial areas, suitable for industries for setting up new projects and to increase the productivity and in turn wealth of the nation.
Transactions of the present nature and utilization of the statutory power by the State and the Board only projects that the Board is nothing more than a ‘Real Estate Agent’ which has acquired private land by use of State Power/Statutory power and holding out assurances to the private owners, of a possible employment opportunity to the members of their family, but even in terms of the additional statement of objections placed before this Court by the 4th respondent, there is no indication as to how many members of land owners, who have lost their lands in the acquisition proceedings have been provided employment in the 4th respondent – Company.”
14. This judgment was challenged by the Board in W.A.No.241/2011 and connected matters in so far as the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in para 17 is concerned. The same was disposed of by the Division Bench observing as under:
“The learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 in para–17 of the interim order has given a direction to the KIDB as follows:-
“17. In the meanwhile, the KIADB is directed to place before this Court the details of the lands acquired by the Board in and around Bangalore City i.e., in Bangalore rural and Bangalore urban districts in the name of developing them for public purpose or for any other purpose and the outcome of such acquisition proceedings to be placed before this Court.”
2. The appellant-KIDB aggrieved by the said direction in the interim order has filed this appeal and seeks a direction to set aside the said direction.
3. The Respondent No.4 has filed the writ petition by the following prayer:
xxxxxxx 4. The scope of the writ petition does not warrant enquiry into all the acquisition made by the KIDB in respect of acquisition of land for other purposes and projects. In that view of the matter, the writ appeal is allowed.”
15. However, the other portions of the said order passed in W.P.No.15183/2008 and W.P.No.1460/2009 (N. Venkatesha Gowda, supra) remains undisturbed. The judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Peerappa, supra, would not be of any assistance to the respondents.
16. The endorsements issued as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not speaking orders. The said orders indicate that certain lands of the petitioners acquired are reserved for allotment and few of them are allotted to certain allottees. The industrial site allotted to respondent No.9 in W.P.Nos.7625-7629/2014 and allied matters indicated in the impugned endorsement indeed does not tally with the description of the property found in the schedule of the lease cum sale agreement executed between the Board and the allottee (lessee) - M/s. Himatsingka Seide Limited.
17. It is a settled law that the State Government is expected to consider the scope of Section 4 of the Act with reference to the lands of the petitioners acquired. The acquisition of 2477 acres of land and its development as well as the expenses incurred by the Board in general would not be construed as compliance of the order passed by this Court to consider the representations of the petitioners in term of Section 4 of the Act. More particularly, the orders impugned are ex- facie incongruous insofar as respondent No.9 in W.P.Nos.7625-7629/2014 and allied matters is concerned. In some cases, the industrial sites are only reserved for decades together.
18. The endorsements impugned being perfunctory and lacks reasons, the same requires to be set aside remitting the matter to the State Government for reconsideration. In view of the allotment of the industrial sites said to have been made to some of the industries like respondent No.11 and others in W.P.Nos.7625-7629/2014 and allied matters who have made huge investments for setting up their industries and are functioning, the petitioners are at liberty to file necessary representations before the Board seeking for employment to any of the family members as agreed while acquiring the lands of the petitioners in small extent. As observed by this Court in N. Venkatesha Gowda, supra, the Board cannot acquire the lands and preserve the same for allotting for the industries in future acting like a ‘Real Estate Agent’ acquiring the lands of small holders by use of State power/Statutory power and holding out assurances to the land loosers, of possible employment opportunity to the members of their family. The State Government is required to consider all these aspects while considering the representations of the petitioners.
19. However, in view of the submissions made on behalf of the respondents that no representation was made by the petitioners inasmuch as seeking an employment to the members of their family, it would be appropriate to direct the petitioners to file additional representations to the State Government and Board seeking for providing employment to any of the members of their family. If such representation/s is/are made by the petitioners within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, the same shall be considered by the State Government and the Board along with the representations of the petitioners made under Section 4 of the Act.
20. Hence, the endorsements impugned bearing No.CI 280 SPQ 2013 dated 05.06.2013, No.BhuSwa (3) C.R./2012-13/1280 dated 25.08.2012, No.CI 39 SPQ 2013 dated 18.11.2013 and No.CI 447 SPQ 2013, dated 05.09.2013 are quashed and the proceedings are restored to the file of respondent No.1 - State to reconsider the representations made by the petitioners seeking exclusion of lands in terms of Section 4 of the Act. Respondent No.1 - State as well as respondent No.2 - Board shall consider the representations to be filed, if any, by the petitioners seeking for employment to any of the family members in accordance with the terms of the lease cum sale agreement entered into between the Board and the lessees. A decision shall be taken by the respondent No.1 - State and respondent No.2 - Board in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open. This exercise shall be done by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in an expedite manner, in any event, not later than four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petitions stand disposed of.
In view of disposal of the writ petitions, all pending applications also stand disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR