IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.1491 OF 2018 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN:
SMT. SUVARNAMMA @ SMT SUVARNA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS WIFE OF LATE S R BALASUNDAR RESIDING AT SHANUMANGALA VILLAGE SHANUMANGALA POST BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARAM TALUK- 562 109.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. C VENKATESHA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU- 01.
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-1 KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.14/3, 1ST FLOOR, ARAVINDA BHAVANA, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU- 560 002.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.14/3, 1ST FLOOR, ARAVINDA BHAVANA, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU- 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S S MAHENDRA, AGA.) THIS APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23/04/2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO.35813/2013 [LA- KIADB], PASSED THEREIN BY THE SINGLE JUDGE AND ALLOW THE SAID WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR AND GRANT SIMILAR RELIEFS AS THIS COURT DEEM FIT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The petitioner is in appeal, aggrieved by dismissal of the writ petition by order dated 23.04.2018 by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.35813 of 2013.
2. The petitioner had challenged the notification dated 17.01.2006 issued by the first respondent under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) and sought for direction to the respondents not to acquire the scheduled lands since the same is situated within 100 meters of Gramathana based on Government Circular dated 03.03.2007.
3. The appellant states that during the life time of her husband, he had purchased the land measuring 5 guntas in Sy.No.36, situated at Talakuppa village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramangaram Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District under the registered sale deed dated 27.03.1997 and 2 guntas of land in the very same survey number under the registered sale deed dated 11.06.1998. Subsequently, the name of the husband of the petitioner was entered in the revenue records. The appellant’s husband died on 29.04.2005 leaving behind appellant and six sons. Further, it is stated that the lands in question are within 100 meters from Gramathana area adjacent to Talakuppa village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramangaram Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. The State Government by notification dated 18.01.2006 under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act acquired lands including the appellant’s lands for the benefit of KIADB. The appellant was issued notice dated 29.08.2011 stating that if the land owner is ready to receive compensation on consent rate to produce documents for verification. It is stated that the appellant objected for the same by filing representation dated 05.02.2012.
4. The respondent-KIADB filed its objections and contended that consent award is passed and the petitioner is acquiesced from challenging the notification issued under Section 28(4) of the KIADB Act.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the acquisition is opposed to Circular dated 03.03.2007 Annexure-L and further submits that the land acquired is not for industrial purpose. Hence, it requires interference by this Court.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner has made a representation requesting the respondents for release of compensation determined in terms of consent award. Hence, it is not open for the petitioner to question the notifications. Further, the Circular relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant to contend that Circular dated 03.03.2007 would not permit her land to be acquired has no merit. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to demonstrate as to how the Circular is helpful to the case of the appellant. More over it is to be noted that the said Circular has no statutory force and hence, it would not help the case of the appellant/petitioner. Further, the petitioner has sought for mandamus directing the respondents not to acquire her land, which cannot be sought at this stage since the land has already been acquired and consent award is passed. Such mandamus also cannot be granted since it would amount to injuncting a statutory authority from performing its statutory duty. The impugned notification is of the year 2006, whereas the writ petition is filed in 2013. There is delay of more than 7 years in approaching this Court, that too after requesting for release of award amount. On this ground also the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. The order of the learned Single Judge is a reasoned order which requires no interference by this Court. The petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms