Allowed

B a Rama Chandra S/O Appu Gowda v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Jan 2016WP/14733/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed final land acquisition notification issued by KIADB. Court held that despite land vesting rules, petitioners entitled to hearing under grounded reality of construction and development. Parties remanded for fresh disposal after hearing objections.

What did the court decide?

Final notification dated 31.8.2006 quashed; parties relegated to stage of hearing petitioners and filing objections; appropriate orders to be passed thereafter.

B a Rama Chandra S/O Appu Gowda Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 08^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos.14733 OF 2008 & 4758-4781 OF 2015

¶7

(LA-KIADB)

¶8

CONNECTED WITH

¶9

WRIT PETITION Nos.12973 OF 2008 & 4734-4757 OF 2015

¶10

(LA-KIADB)

¶11

IN W.P.Nos. 14733 OF 2008 & 4758-4781 OF 2015

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

B.A.Rama Chandra,

¶14

Son of Appu Gowda,

¶15

Aged 48 years, Bukan Karie Village, K.R.Pet Taluk (Sy.No.49).

¶16

K.C.Pemmaiah,

¶17

Son of Changappa, Aged about 46 years, Residing at No.383, I Block, 2/2Main,

¶18

6^th Cross, Ramakrishna Nagar,

¶19

¶20

Mysore . (Sy.No.88).

¶21

P.S.Ramakrishna, Son of Shivappa, Aged about 41 years, Phalahalli Village, Bhalaghala Hobli, Srirangapattana Taluk, Mandya (Sy.No.88).

¶22

Y.B.Eswara, Aged about 50 years, No.3839, sec, Vikranth Tyres, Mysore (Sy.No.49).

¶23

S. Basavaraj, Son of Late Siddayaa, Aged about 46 years, Residing at No.2847/13C, 8^th Cross, 3^rd Main, Jayanagar, Mysore (Sy.No.49).

¶24

Smt. Lakshmamma, Wife of K.N.Manje Gowda, Aged about 35 years, Residing at #720, 1^st Main, 15^th Cross, B.M.Sri Nagar, Matigahalli, Mysore (Sy.No.49).

¶25

M.N.Shashidar, Son of M.S.Nagaraj Shetty, Aged about 41 years,

¶26

¶27

Residing at #531, New K.41, Dwarakamaie, Chaluvamba Agrahara, Mysore 24 (Sy.No.49).

¶28

Smt. Jayamma, Wife of Late S.V.Rame Gowda, Aged about 38 years, Residng at #716, Subhash Nagar, Chamundeshwari Extension, Kumbar Koppal, Mysore 16 (Sy.No.49).

¶29

L. Raju, Son of Lakshmanna, Aged about 43 years, No.2215, sec, Vikranth Tyres, Mysore (Sy.No.88).

¶30

G. Rama Swamy, Son of M.N.Jawre Gowda, Aged about 48 years, No.3441, sec, Vikranth Tyres, Mysore (Sy.No.88).

¶31

H.N.Paramesh, Son of Ninge Gowda, Aged about 41 years, No.3101, sec, Vikranth Tyres, Mysore (Sy.No.88).

¶32

H. Machappa,

¶33

¶34

Son of Hanumanthappa, Aged about 39 years, Residing at 2496, Vinayaka Nagara, Paduvarahalli, Davaraj Mohalla, Mysore (Sy.No.88).

¶35

B.S.Laksmipathi, Son of B.R.Srinivas, Aged about 39 years, #2866, Lashkar Mohalla, Halladda Keri, Mysore (Sy.No.88).

¶36

B.M.Nagamallesh, Son of Mallappa, Aged about 51 years, Residing at No.504/1^st 4^th Cross, Vene Sheshanna Road, Mysore (Sy.NO.49).

¶37

M. Mahadeva Shetty, Son of Madha Shetty, Aged about 41 years, No.2723, sec, Vikranth Tyres, Mysore (Sy.No.88).

¶38

V. Khodanda Rama, Son of Venkatramane Gowda, Aged about 52 years, No.3019, sec, Vikranth Tyres, Mysore (Sy.No.49).

¶39

¶40

P.T.Kuriyan, Son of Thomas, Aged about 38 years, No.2143, sec, Vikranth Tyres, Mysore (Sy.No.58/1).

¶41

Devid C.S, Son of F. Devid, Aged about 58 years, Residing at No.132/B, Chikka VeerannaRoad, Bannimantap, Mysore (Sy.No.49).

¶42

M.A.Chunche Gowda, Son of Late Amavase Gowda, Aged about 42 years, No.3620, sec, Vikranth Tyres, Mysore (Sy.No.49).

¶43

P. Parburaj, Son of M. Puttaiah, Aged about 48 years, Residing at # 342, Milk Center Road, Vishweshwaranagara 1^st Stage, Mysore-8 (Sy.No.49).

¶44

K.A.Venkatesh, Son of Late Ananda, Aged about 43 years, No.2958 sec,

¶45

¶46

Vikranth Tyres, Mysore (Sy.No.49).

¶47

H. Shivananjaiah, Son of Honnaya, Aged about 48 years, Residing at #292, 2^nd Stage, K.H.B.Road, Ews, Kuvempu Nagar, Mysore (Sy.NO.49).

¶48

Abanipal, Son of Jogendra Pal, Aged about 42 years, No.2309 sec, Vikranth Tyres, Mysore (Sy.No.49),

¶49

M.M.Ahmad, Son of Mohamad Pauajulla, Aged about 38 years, No.2364 sec, Vikranth Tyres, Mysore (Sy.No.88).

¶50

B. Mari, Son of Rame Gowda, Aged about 40 years, Rampaulla Road, #1292, Srirangapattana, Mandya (Sy.No.69).

¶51

…PETITIONERS

¶52

(By Shri M.V.Vedachala, Advocate)

¶53

¶54

AND:

¶55

State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Industries and Commerce, M.S.Building, Vidhana Veedhi, Bangalore.

¶56

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, Rastrothan Building, Opposite Reserve Bank of India, N.R.Road, Bangalore 560 002, Represented by its Executive Member.

¶57

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, K.I.A.D.B.Development Authority, Rastrothan Building, Opposite Reserve Bank of India, N.R.Road, Bangalore 560 002.

¶58

…RESPONDENTS

¶59

(By Shri Vijaykumar A Patil, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1;

¶60

Shri Shivaprabhu S Hiremath, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)

without jurisdiction, illegal and unconstitutional in respect of Sy.No.49 and Sy.No.88 particularly petitioners site Nos. 332, 384, 392, 353, 349, 331, 297, 309, 380, 372, 370, 369, 394, 350, 314, 293, 326, 325, 324, 302, 345, 300, 315, 355 and 341 situated at Mogarahalli, Belagola Hobli, Srirangapattana, Mandya District properties are concerned and etc;

¶65

IN W.P.Nos.12973/2008 & 4734-4757 OF 2015

¶66

BETWEEN:

¶67

M.K.Swamy Gowda, Son of Kempe Gowda, Aged about 52 years, Residing at No.428, 7^th “A” Main, Hebbal 1^st Stage, Metagalli Post, Mysore 570 016. (Site No.304).

¶68

Thippegowda, Son of Chikkanna, Aged about52 years, Residing at No.60, 2^nd Main, Lokanayaka Nagar, Hebbal 1^st Stage, Metagalli Post, Mysore 570 016. (Site No.305).

¶69

Shekarappa, Son of Keshavaiah, Aged about 45 years, Residing at No.1349/4 L.I.G, II Main Road, 1^st Stage,

¶70

¶71

Hebbal, Mysore 570 016. (Site No.308).

¶72

B. Rajkumar, Son of Boregowda, Aged about 48 years, Residing at Hoskere Village, Pandavapura Taluk, Mandya District (Site No.313).

¶73

M.N.Ramu, Son of Late Nage Gowda, Aged about 50 years, Residing at M.Shetty Halli, K.Setty Halli, S.R.Pattana Taluk, Mandya District (Site No.329).

¶74

G. Umesh Rao, Son of Ganesh Rao, Aged about 46 years, Residing at No.54, I Main, Vikrant Guest House, Opposite Nirmala convent, Vontikoppal, Mysore 570 016. (Site No.330).

¶75

Srishila, Son of B.R.Shivashankar, Aged about 48 years, Residing at Ragi Bonnana Halli, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District,

¶76

¶77

(Site No.333).

¶78

R. Srikanta, Son of R. Rudrappa, Aged about 52 years, Residing at No.49, 2^nd Main, Yadavagiri, Mysore 570 020, (Site No.338).

¶79

B. Manjunatha, Son of Boregowda, Aged about 45years, Residing at No.177, 5^th Cross, Hebbal II Stage, Mysore 570 017, (Site No.340/A,B).

¶80

S.A.Lakshme Gowda, Son of Ankegowda, Aged about 50 years, Residing at No.195, 8^th Main, Hebbal I Stage, Metagalli Post, Mysore 570 016. (Site No.342/B).

¶81

T. Srinivasa, Son of Thirumale Gowda, Aged about 45 years, Residing at No.744, III Stage, Hebbal, Metagalli Post, Mysore 570 016. (Site No.347).

¶82

N. Srikanta Murthy,

¶83

¶84

Son of Nanjaiah, Aged about 50 years, Residing at No.1143/18, 6^th Main, N.G.H.Road, Vidyaranya Puram, Myosre (Site No.351).

¶85

Sujatha A Setty, Daughter of Anka Setty, Aged about 43 years, Residing at No.146, 2^nd Cross, Roopanagar, Bogadi, Mysore (Site No.354).

¶86

S.G.Shivakumar, Son of M.K.Gowdegowdar, Aged about 49 years, Residing at No.18/B, 2^nd A Cross, 4^th Main, V.V.Mohalla, Mysore -2 (Site No.365).

¶87

Manju,

¶88

Son of Rachaiah, Aged about 46 years, Residing at No.366, Muneswara Swamy Layout, Moogarahalli, Srirangapattana Taluk, Mandya District, (Site No.366).

¶89

Naseer Ahamed, Son of Shek Ahamad Khasim, Aged about 55 years, Residing at No.548, West Park Avenue,

¶90

¶91

Hosanagar, Bogadi, Mysore 26 (Site No.368).

¶92

K. Govendaraju, Son of Kullegowda, Aged about 55 years, Residing at Palahalli, Srirangapattana, Mandya District (Site No.374).

¶93

M.R.Keshava Prasad, Son of S. Ranganatha, Aged about 50 years, Residing at No.289, 7^th ‘A’ Main, Hebbal I Stage, Metagalli Post, Mysore 16, (Site No.375).

¶94

M.b.Krishne Gowda, Son of Boregowda, Aged about 48 years, Residing at No.2332, 3^rd Cross, Vinayaka Nagara, Mysore 16 (Site No.378).

¶95

Moganna, Son of Guru Shantappa, Aged about 59 years, Residing at No.309, Lokanayaka Nagara, Near Ganapathi Devasthana, Hebban, Mysore, (Site No.381).

¶96

Lokeshachar,

¶97

¶98

Son of Kempachar, Aged about 45 years, Residing at No.Rampura Village, K. Shetty Halli Hobli, Srirangapattana Taluk, Mandya District. (Site No.383).

¶99

Thippegowda, Son of Kempegowda, Aged about 52 years, Residing at No.60, 2^nd ‘A’ Main, Lokanayakanagara, Hebbal, Mysore 570 016, (Site No.386).

¶100

P.N.Kirana Kumar, Son of P.S.Nagabhushana Rao, Aged about 25 years, Residing at No.104, 3^rd ‘A’ Main, III Stage, South of Kumbara Koppalu, Mysore (Site No.389).

¶101

Vimala, Wife of Govinda, Aged about 42 years, Residing at No.19, EWS III Stage, CITB Choultry Road, Hebbala, Mysore (Site No.390).

¶102

Sarojamma, Wife of Late Sri. Manju, Aged about 41 years,

¶103

¶104

Residing at Hulikeri Village, Belagola Hobli, S.R.Pattana Taluk, Mandya District (Site No.393). …PETITIONERS

¶105

(By Shri M.V.Vedachala, Advocate)

¶106

AND:

¶107

State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Industries and Commerce, M.S.Building, Vidhana Veedhi, Bangalore.

¶108

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, Rastrothan Building, Opposite Reserve Bank of India, N.R.Road, Bangalore 560 002, Represented by its Executive Member.

¶109

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, K.I.A.D.B.Development Authority, Rastrothan Building, Opposite Reserve Bank of India, N.R.Road, Bangalore 560 002.

¶110

…RESPONDENTS (By Shri Vijaykumar A Patil, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1;

¶111

Shri I.G.Gachchinamath, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)

¶112

¶113

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for records from the KIADB in respect of the Acquisition Proceedings dated 31.8.2006 in respect of petitioners land and declare that the final notification dated 31.8.2006 issued by KIADB, vide Annexure-A which is wholly without jurisdiction, illegal and unconstitutional in respect of Sy.No.49 particularly petitioners site Nos. 304, 305, 308, 313, 329, 330, 333, 338, 340/A-B, 342/B, 347, 351, 354, 365, 366, 368, 374, 375, 378, 381, 383, 386, 389, 390 and 393 situated at Mogarahalli, Belagola Hobli, Srirangapattana, Mandya District properties are concerned and etc;

¶114

These Writ Petitions coming on for Hearing this day, the court made the following:

¶115

O R D E R

¶116

These petitions are heard and disposed of by this

¶117

common order.

¶118

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

¶119

learned Counsel for the respondents.

¶120

The facts and circumstances are almost identical in all

¶121

these petitions.

¶122

¶123

It is the case of the petitioners that they are all employees of a company and are individual owners of house sites formed in Survey No.49 and Survey No.88 of Moogarahalli village, Belgola Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, in the respective petitioners.

¶124

It is the case of the petitioners that the land in question had been converted for non-agricultural use and thereafter sites having been formed, each of the petitioners have purchased sites under registered sale deeds and khata in respect of the sites have also been transferred in their names.

¶125

It is the further case of the petitioners that many of them have constructed houses and the houses have been provided with facilities such as electricity connection, water connection, and sewerage connection. The area is largely built up. Notwithstanding the same, the respondents had proceeded to acquire the land by recourse to the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘KIAD Act’, for brevity), by issuance of a notification

¶126

¶127

under Section 28(1) dated 16.12.2005, whereby the lands had been notified for the purpose of industrial area development and followed up by Final Notification dated 8.9.2008. This is in the face of the circumstance that the notified khatedar, who was the vendor of the lands in question having entered appearance in the acquisition proceedings and having filed his objections and the circumstances pertinent having been brought to the attention of the authorities, the authorities have ignored the said circumstances and have proceeded to issue the final notification.

¶128

The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit

¶129

that in identical circumstances, this court, in the case of B.J.Jagadish vs. State of Karnataka and others, WP 15663/2006, dated 25.8.2010 , has held that since the petitioner therein was not served with notice as required under Section 28(2) and since there was no inquiry as contemplated under Section 28(2) and 28(3) of the KIAD Act, there was non-

¶130

¶131

compliance with the mandatory requirements of the KIAD Act . Since the proceedings were held to be vitiated, the final notification therein was set at naught. The matter was remanded to the Land Acquisition Officer for a fresh disposal after affording opportunity to the petitioners therein to make a representation and to file objections, if any and with a direction that those objections to be considered in the light of the developments that had taken place and thereafter to proceed in accordance with law.

¶132

The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that after such remand, since the respondents had failed to address the circumstances by necessary application of mind, and the objections having been rejected, it was again challenged in another batch of writ petitions in WP 23308/2012 and connected cases, which were again disposed of by an order dated 13.8.2014, again setting aside the final notification and relegating the parties to the stage where objections were required to be heard over again.

¶133

¶134

Therefore, this court has underlined the requirement of a

¶135

fair hearing and due consideration of the objections with reference to the ground reality in addressing the objections filed to the acquisition notifications. The learned Counsel, therefore, would submit that the petitioners, even though they may not be notified khatedars, but who have after legally obtaining conversion of the land in question, have put up construction on the property, cannot be deprived of their property otherwise than under due process of law, which would certainly require them to be heard and their presence on the property also having been brought to the attention of the respondents by the notified khatedars who had filed objections, would make it imperative that they be given a right of hearing.

¶136

Though the learned counsel for the respondent –

¶137

KIADB would submit that it is an admitted that a final notification has been issued under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act, unlike under other compulsory acquisition legislation in

¶138

¶139

the present case on hand, if a notification under Section 28(4) is issued, the land vests in the State and once it is vested in the State, there can be no reversal of the same. And since the law does not require a notified khatedar to be heard, the petitioners cannot, as a matter of right, seek that they be permitted to file objections and they may be heard. The petitioners having chosen to purchase the land after the preliminary notification was issued, have taken the risk of any further development and cannot take advantage of their own folly in seeking any such fresh opportunity of hearing and the time has long since passed and hence the question of relegating to the stage of hearing the objections would not arise and seeks dismissal of the petitions with exemplary costs.

¶140

However, given the facts and circumstances of the

¶141

case and the precedents that have been set insofar as addressing a valuable right of hearing, which a person who would be deprived of his property ought to be given, it is certainly a case

¶142

¶143

where the petitioners ought to be heard before the final notification can be issued.

¶144

Consequently, the petitions are allowed. The final notification dated 31.8.2006 is quashed. The parties are relegated to the stage where the petitioners would be given an opportunity of hearing and filing their objections and thereafter, appropriate orders be passed insofar as the objections raised by the petitioners are concerned, without which, a final notification shall not be issued. The exercise of hearing objections and considering the same should be with reference to the ground realities and development of the land, notwithstanding the subsequent improvement made by the petitioners by putting up their houses in the layout in question.

¶145

Accordingly, the petitions stand disposed of in terms as

¶146

above.

¶147

Sd/JUDGE

¶148

B a Rama Chandra S/O Appu Gowda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B a Rama Chandra S/O Appu Gowda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri M a Fairoze Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Jagannatha Vs the Secretary

Smt Siddamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Manjunath Vs the State of Karnataka

G.V. Subba Rao Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Nirman Shelters(B) Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka