IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.3542/2018 (LA – KIADB) BETWEEN :
SMT. SHARADAMMA W/O LATE ARYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS NO.924, KONAPPANA AGRAHARA, KRISHNA REDDY LAYOUT, ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE-560100 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI E.V.GOPALAKRISHNAN POTTY, ADV.) AND :
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001, KARNATAKA 2 . THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD BY ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 3 . THE SPL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI NITHYANANDA K.R., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI BASAVARAJ V. SABARAD, ADV. FOR R-2 & R-3.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO R-2 AND 3 TO SET ASIDE THE NOTIFICATION DATED 30.09.1997 VIDE ANNEXURE-B IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BELONGS TO THE PETITIONER TO AN EXTENT 20 ½ GUNTAS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner has sought for the following relief;
“ Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ or order or direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to set aside the Notification –C1 17 SPQ.96 dated 30/09/1997 as per Annexure-B in respect of the land belongs to the petitioner to an extent of 20 ½ guntas carved out from Sy.No.No.44/3 and Sy.No.No.44/25 of schedule property to an extent of 3 acre 02 guntas”.
The petitioner claims to be the wife of late Narayanappa, the absolute owner of the land measuring 3 acres 2 guntas in survey No.44/1A1, situated at Konappana Agrahara, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru.
2. It is submitted that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have acquired the land measuring 2 acres 2 guntas out of the aforesaid 3 acres 2 guntas vide Notification dated 25/05/1996 under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, (‘KIAD Act’ for short) 1966 and final Notification dated 30/09/1997 under Section 28(4) of the said Act.
3. It is submitted that an extent of 1 acre was left out, out of 3 acres and 2 guntas from acquisition. Out of 2 acres, 2 guntas of land acquired, compensation was awarded only to an extent of 1 acre 6 guntas on 24/07/2001 and an endorsement was issued by the KIADB on 22/08/2003. Further, in pursuance to LAC No.1/2007, compensation for 15 ½ guntas was awarded on 05/02/2015, for the remaining portion of 20 ½ guntas, the KIADB neither awarded compensation nor re-conveyed the land till date.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that several representations made before respondent Nos.2 and 3 for awarding compensation towards 20 ½ guntas of land remained unconsidered.
5. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 - KIADB would submit that the writ petition is frivolous and no documents were placed on record by the petitioner to establish the factum that the husband of the petitioner late Narayanaswamy was the owner of 3 acres 2 guntas of land in survey No.44/1A1, acquired in terms of the notification referred to at Annexures-A and B respectively. The registered sale deed dated 14/08/1963 relates to survey No.44/3 and 44/25 of Konappana Agrahara Village, Begur Hobali, Bengaluru South Taluk. In LAC No.1/2007, the petitioner has sought compensation to an extent of 15 ½ guntas in survey No.44/1A1, in addition to the compensation awarded for 1 acre 6 guntas of land acquired through Notifications at Annexures- A and B respectively. The learned Civil Judge having considered the material aspects on record, allowed the application filed by the petitioner and directed the KIADB to award compensation in proportionate to an extent of 15 ½ guntas of land, in addition to the compensation awarded. The said judgment having reached finality, the petitioner is estopped from claiming further compensation relating to the lands acquired vide Notifications at Annexurers A and B and to further extent of 20 ½ guntas carved out in survey No. 44/3, 44/25 of Konappanaa Agrahara Village, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, it is apparent that the petitioner is claiming compensation to an extent of 20 ½ guntas said to have been acquired by the respondents vide Notifications at Annexures – A and B respectively.
7. As could be seen from the prayer column, it is the specific case of the petitioner that the compensation for 20 ½ guntas still requires to be awarded to the said extent of land carved out in survey Nos.44/3, 44/25 in terms of the registered sale deed dated 14/08/1963. This registered sale deed indeed was marked as Ex.P.5 in LAC No.1/2007. After analysing the material facts including the registered sale deed dated 14/08/1963 - Ex.P.5, the learned Civil Judge has arrived at a finding that the petitioner herein is entitled for the compensation in proportionate to an extent of 15 ½ guntas of land. It is indisputably in addition to 1 acre 6 guntas of land to which the compensation was made. The said judgment having reached finality, the petitioner is before this Court that the authorities have not properly considered the total extent of land of the petitioner’s husband acquired since consolidated extent of land was shown in the notifications. However for the same purpose i.e. relating to apportionment of compensation vis-à-vis the extent of land acquired under the Notifications at Annexures- A and B, the matter was referred to the learned Civil Judge under Section 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the same having been adjudicated and decided, the petitioner’s claim to adjudicate upon the said issue in writ jurisdiction at this length of time cannot be countenanced. Writ petition is devoid of merits.
8. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Msu