IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION Nos.32704-32705/2017 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN:
SMT. N. REKHA D/O. NITYANANDAN, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT LAKSHMI NIVAS, 6TH CROSS, A BLOCK, SHARAVATHI NAGAR, SHIMOGA – 577 201. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI ZULFIKIR KUMAR SHAFI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.
3. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, E-WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 009.
5. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.14/3, ARVIND BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 570 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: SUNIL DUTT YADAV, SPECIAL GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R-1, R-2 & R-4; SRI B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 & R-5) ***** THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS DECLARING THE NOTIFICATION DTD:21.07.1999 VIDE NOTIFICATION UNDER 28[1] OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966 ISSUED BY THE R-5 THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN RESPECT OF LANDS BEARING SY NO.33 MEASURING 2 ACRES 22 GUNTAS AND SY NO.34 MEASURING 17 GUNTAS SITUATED AT AVAREGERE VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARAM TALUK AS LAPSED, ABANDONED, NON-EST AND NULL AND VOID SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER LANDS ARE CONCERNED THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Though these writ petitions are listed for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group, with the consent of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Special Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 5, the writ petitions are heard finally and disposed of by this order.
2. Petitioner has sought a declaration that Preliminary Notification issued under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for the sake of brevity), bearing No.CI 196 SPQ 98, dated 21/07/1999 concerning schedule properties being agricultural lands bearing Sy.Nos.33 and 34, measuring 2 acres 22 guntas and 17 guntas respectively, situated at Avaregere Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagaram Taluk and District is deemed to have lapsed.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that these writ petitions could be disposed of in terms of order dated 22/02/2016, passed in similar Writ Petition Nos.30353/2015 & 30476- 30479/2015, by the learned single Judge of this Court under which the declaration has been made that the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed as the State has abandoned the acquisition proceedings as there has been no progress made since the year 1999 after the issuance of Preliminary Notification, a copy of which is produced in these writ petitions as Annexure-A.
4. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the order of learned single Judge has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.807-811/2016, by judgment dated 28/02/2017 and hence, a similar declaration may be made in these writ petitions also in respect of the schedule lands.
5. Learned Special Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 5/Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board submit that indeed, in respect of Notification dated 21/07/1999, a copy of which is at Annexure-A, learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench of this Court have held that the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed and that a similar declaration may be made in these writ petitions also.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, it is noted from the order of the learned single Judge dated 22/02/2016, a copy of which is annexed at Annexure-E to the writ petitions, that this Court has categorically held that although the Preliminary Notification under Section 28(1) of the Act was issued in July 1999, no further steps have been taken thereafter, neither declaration nor final notification has been issued under Section 21(4) of the Act. In the absence of such a notification, no further steps can be taken by the State with regard to the acquisition of lands notified under the preliminary notification. On that basis, learned single Judge declared that the acquisition proceedings is deemed to have been abandoned and lapsed and therefore, the relief was granted to the petitioners in those writ petitions. The said order of the learned single Judge was carried in appeal before the Division Bench of this Court and it is noted from the Division Bench’s judgment dated 28/02/2017 that the judgment of the learned single Judge referred to above has been confirmed and the writ appeals have been dismissed. It is further noted that just as in this case, where the petitioner is a subsequent purchaser in the aforesaid petitions also, the petitioners therein were subsequent purchasers, were held to be entitled to a declaration that the acquisition had stood lapsed as the State had abandoned process of acquisition.
7. Further in a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Government (NCT of Delhi) vs. Manav Dharam Trust and another [(2017)6 SCC 751] at paragraph No.28, it has been held that a subsequent purchaser, an assignee, a successor in interest, a power of attorney holder are all persons who are interested in compensation and that they are entitled to seek a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed by virtue of operation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. That is exactly what is sought for by the petitioner herein who is a subsequent purchaser from the notified khatedar. Although the aforesaid dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is rendered in the context of acquisition made under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by way of an analogy, the fact that a subsequent purchaser is entitled to seek declaration that the acquisition has lapsed is applicable to the present case also. It is also emphasized that the reason as to why the petitioner has sought for such a declaration is on account of the fact that the State has not progressed in the acquisition proceeding subsequent to the issuance of the Preliminary Notification way back in the year 1999 under Section 28(1) of the Act. Therefore, the State has abandoned the acquisition proceedings.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, Preliminary Notification (Annexure-A) insofar as the petitioner’s land is concerned, stands quashed.
Writ petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Sd/- JUDGE S*