Purchasers of land and residential sites after a preliminary acquisition notification challenged acquisition for an industrial area. The court held that they lacked standing to challenge the acquisition and could only seek compensation. It dismissed the appeals without costs and refused continuation of the interim status quo order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE Mrs. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
AND
THE HON'BLE Mrs. JUSTICE M.G. UMA
W.A. No.3745 OF 2016 [LA-KIADB]
C/w.
W.A. No.5592 OF 2015 [LA-KIADB] W.A. No.5593 OF 2015 [LA-KIADB] W.A. No.5594 OF 2015 [LA-KIADB] W.A. No.5595 OF 2015 [LA-KIADB]
In W.A. No.3745/2016:
BETWEEN:
(BY SRI H. SRINIVAS RAO, ADVOCATE (THROUGH V/C))
-: 2 :-
AND:
(BY SRI C.N. MAHADESHWARAN, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3; SRI YOGESH D. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; SRI P.N.RAJESHWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R-5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NOS.7909-7911/2015 C/W W.P.NO.2665/2013 & W.P. 4634/2013, W.P.NO.9494/2013, W.P.NOS.10312-315/2013 DATED 31/10/2015.
-: 3 :-
In W.A. No.5592/2015:
BETWEEN:
APPELLANTS NO.1(a) TO 1(d) ARE R/O. NO.141/2, 9TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS, J.C. NAGAR, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM POST, 60 FEET ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 086.
-: 4 :-
-: 5 :-
GIRINAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 085.
S/O. DR. S. SRIPAD BHAT, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, DOOR NO.1676/3/3, 'KRISHNA', S.S. LAYOUT, A BLOCK, 1ST CROSS, DAVANAGERE - 577 004.
-: 6 :-
HBR LAYOUT, BANASWADI EXTENSION, BENGALURU - 560 043.
BENGALURU - 560 037.
-: 7 :-
RAVINDRA NAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE (THROUGH V/C))
AND:
-: 8 :-
BY ITS DIRECTOR & MEMBER SECRETARY, OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING, M.S. BUILDINGS, GATE NO.4, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.
(BY SRI C.N. MAHADESHWARAN, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1, R-6 & R7; SRI P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-5; SRI YOGESH D. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI P.N. RAJESHWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R-8; SRI H. SRINIVAS RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-9 (THROUG V/C))
-: 9 :-
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NOS.4827748297/2012 DATED 31/10/2015.
In W.A. No.5593/2015:
BETWEEN:
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.866, 13TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS, BSK 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 050.
W/O. P. VIJAY KUMAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.302, SANTOSH & S.R. RESIDENCY, 10TH E CROSS, NAGAVARA PALYA, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 093.
(BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE (THROUGH V/C))
AND:
-: 10 :-
-: 11 :-
(BY SRI C.N. MAHADESHWARAN, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1, R-6 & R7; SRI P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-5; SRI YOGESH D. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI P.N. RAJESHWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R-8; SRI H. SRINIVAS RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-9 (THROUG V/C)).
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NOS.10312-315/2013 DATED 31/10/2015.
In W.A. No.5594/2015:
BETWEEN:
-: 12 :-
8TH MILE, DODAKAASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 062. REP. BY ITS GPA HOLDER R. GOPALAKRISHNAN S/O. LATE RAMAKRISHNA IYER, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.D004, RENAISSANCE TEMPLE BELLS, NO.25/1, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, YESHWANTPUR, BENGALURU - 560 022. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE (THROUGH V/C))
AND:
BENGALURU - 560 001.
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-: 13 :-
GANDHINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
(BY SRI C.N. MAHADESHWARAN, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1, R-6 & R7; SRI P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-5; SRI YOGESH D. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI B.B. PATIL ADVOCATE FOR R-4; SRI P.N.RAJESHWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R-8; SRI H. SRINIVAS RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-9 (THROUG V/C))
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NOS.25629/2013 & 29689-691/2013 DATED 31/10/2015
In W.A. No.5595/2015:
BETWEEN:
-: 14 :-
(BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE (THROUGH V/C))
AND:
BENGALURU - 01.
BENGALURU - 560 009.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C.N. MAHADESHWARAN, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1, R-6 & R7; SRI P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2, R-4 AND R-5; SRI YOGESH D. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI P.N. RAJESHWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R- 8; SRI H. SRINIVAS RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-9 (THROUG V/C))
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NOS.7909-7911/2015 DATED 31/10/2015.
THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-: 16 :-
COMMON JUDGMENT
These writ appeals are filed by some of the writ petitioners in W.P. Nos.7909-7911 of 2015 and connected matters, assailing the legality and correctness of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 31.10.2015. While W.A. No.3745 of 2016 is filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.2665 of 2013 and W.P. No.4634 of 2013 i.e., M/s. Sneha Townships Private Limited; W.A. No.5592 of 2015 is filed by the petitioners in W.P. Nos.48277-48297 of 2012; W.A. No.5593 of 2015 is filed by the petitioners in W.P. Nos.10312-315 of 2013; W.A. No.5594 of 2015 is filed by the petitioners in W.P. Nos.25629 of 2013 and 29689-691 of 2013 and W.A. No.5595 of 2015 is filed by the petitioners in W.P. Nos.7909-7911 of 2015.
Brief facts of the case:
-: 17 :-
and 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter, referred to as “the KIAD Act”, for the sake of brevity) on 31.01.1998, with an intention to establish an industrial area and to acquire inter alia, lands situate at Shyanumangala Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk, vide Annexure “AZ11”. Thus, for the purpose of establishment of an industrial area by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (“KIADB”, for the sake of convenience), the aforesaid notification was issued. Subsequently, on 08.09.1998 the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, passed on order under Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act. Thereafter, on 04.10.2007, the State issued the Final Notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act, vide Annexure “AZ-3” (Published in Gazette dated 08.10.2007). Accordingly, possession of the land was taken and handed over to the KIADB on 12.01.2009. The land in question in all these cases is comprised in Sy.No.178 of Shyanmangala village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk, comprising of 4 Acres 27 Guntas (hereinafter, referred to as “the land in question”). The original khatedars of the said land were Raja Iyengar and S.V.Krishnamurthy.
-: 18 :-
notification under Section 28(1) of the Act i.e., on 31.01.1998 and the final notification issued under Section 28(4) thereof on 04.10.2007, the original khatedars alienated two parcels of the said land to N.S.Mukund, the appellant in W.A.No.3745 of 2016, the details of which are as under:-
(i) On 17.06.2006, an extent of 2.34 Acres of the land in question was purchased by Sri N.S.Mukund from Raja Iyengar and his family vide Annexure “C” to Writ Appeal No.5592 of 2015 (Annexures referred to are with reference to Writ Appeal No.5592 of 2015) and
(ii) On 03.07.2006, Sri N.S.Mukund purchased an extent of 1.33 Acres including 5 Guntas of phut kharab in Sy.No.178 from S.V.Krishnamurthy and Parthasarathi under a registered sale deed, as per Annexure “D”.
-: 19 :-
this was on the basis that the Tahasildar Ramanagara Taluk had issued an endorsement on 18.11.2006 - Annexure “F” as well as the Special Deputy Commissioner, KIADB, BMICP had issued an endorsement on 16.04.2007 - Annexure “K”, (which were prior to the issuance of final notification) to the effect that these lands were not subject matter of the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project (“BMICP”). In fact, appellants have also relied upon a report of the Tahasildar dated 07.07.2009 - Annexure “P” and another endorsement by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, dated 22.07.2009 - Annexure “L” as well as the letter addressed by BangaloreMysore Infrastructure Corridor Area Planning Authority (BMICAPA) to the Deputy Commissioner on 23.07.2009 – Annexure “N” and another endorsement issued by the Assistant Commissioner on 24.08.2009 – Annexure “R”.
-: 20 :-
permission issued by BMICAPA on 16.01.2010 – Annexure “T” and approval of the layout plan on 16.01.2020 – Annexure “V” respectively.
8). Subsequently, possession certificate is said to have been issued on 21.10.2011 (Annexure AZ-9). There were, in fact, several communications by M/s. BOSCH Limited to KIADB requesting that possession of the subject land be given or in the alternative to allot some other land.
-: 21 :-
entered into between KIADB and M/s. BOSCH Limited, as possession of 97.685 Acres was already handed over on 22.11.2014 (Annexure AF to W.A.No.5593/2015). The dispute however remained in respect of 4 Acres 27 Guntas, which is the subject land.
-: 22 :-
11. Learned single Judge further held that the final
notification was issued in the year 2007 whereas, the writ petitions were filed during the years 2012 to 2015 and the validity of the notifications could not have been assailed belatedly, which would imply that the petitionersappellants herein had acquiesced to the notifications. While dismissing the writ petitions, learned single Judge observed that KIADB may consider the request of the petitioners for allotment of sites in any of the layouts formed by it in the vicinity of the land in question or in any other location. Learned single Judge reserved liberty to the writ petitioners to seek refund of the stamp duty on the conveyance deeds since they did not convey any title to immovable property. Liberty was also reserved to the petitioners to recover from the Planning Authority the development charges paid towards sanction of layout. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petitions, the writ petitioners have preferred these appeals.
-: 23 :-
Private Limited, and learned Additional Government
Advocate Sri. C.N. Mahadeshwaran, appearing for the State and perused the material on record.
Submissions:
-: 24 :-
acquisition for BMICP but Shyanumangala village is situated within the limits of BMICAPA. He further submitted that another representation was made on 18.07.2009 to the Special Deputy Commissioner, BMICP, in order to ascertain as to whether the land in question was acquired for BMICP. Once again, an endorsement was issued on 22.07.2009 (Annexure ‘L’), stating that the land in question was not a subject matter of BMICP, but, Shyanumangala village was situated under BMICAPA.
-: 25 :-
stated that the land in question was not included in the land acquisition notification of BMICAPA.
-: 26 :-
-: 27 :-
Developer purchased the land in question on 17.06.2006 and 03.07.2006 which was subsequent to the issuance of preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act and the same was issued on 31.01.1998. That, as on the date of the purchase of the land in question, there was no final notification issued and the owners of the land in question dealt with the same in the manner that was prudent and feasible. Further, there is no bar in law for the owner of the land to deal with the land which is notified, by way of a preliminary notification. That in the instant case, development of the land in question was after taking diligent steps. It was only on 04.10.2007, i.e., several years after the issuance of preliminary notification, the final notification was issued. But, in the interregnum, the Developer had converted the land in question into sites
and alienated the same to the individual purchasers. However, according to the KIADB, possession is said to have been taken on 12.01.2009. But, there is no indication as to when the award was passed and the compensation was deposited. Learned senior counsel contended that the delay in issuance of final notification in
-: 28 :-
respect of the land in question, implied that both KIADB as well as the State had abandoned the acquisition of the land. That, in fact, 35 guntas had been given up from acquisition by KIADB. But, the representation made by the developer seeking deletion of the land in question under Section 4 of the KIAD Act was not considered in accordance with law.
-: 29 :-
from the BDA. This would indicate that the issuance of a preliminary notification is no bar or prohibition to deal with notified land by the owner of the land. In this regard, reliance was placed on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bombay and others vs. Godrej and Boyce, [AIR 1987 SC 2421], (Godrej and Boyce).
-: 30 :-
take place only after the issuance of the final notification and till land vests with the State Government, the owner of the land is free to deal with the notified land in the manner he chooses to do so.
-: 31 :-
clearly stated so in the preliminary notification issued on 31.01.1998. The Developer purchased the land in question from the original Khatedar, formed sites and sold the sites to individual persons, totally disregarding the fact that the land in question, amongst other lands, was notified for acquisition. That the Developer did not make representations or take diligent steps to make inquiries from the appropriate authorities before purchase of the land in question. After issuance of the notification under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act. The Developer was only interested in knowing as to whether the land in question had been acquired for BMICP. He did not take steps to ascertain as to whether the land was sought to be acquired under the provisions of the Act to establish an industrial area. The omission on the part of the Developer in taking appropriate steps in ascertaining about the land in question being a subject matter of the acquisition and preliminary notification issued under Section 28(1) of the Act on 31.01.1998, is the sole cause of the litigation. The Developer as well as the purchasers of the sites formed by the Developer have to pay a price in taking the risk of purchasing land notified for acquisition.
-: 32 :-
23. Learned counsel for KIADB further submitted
that the possession of the land was taken as early as on 12.01.2009 and the compensation was determined under Section 29 of the KIAD Act by the Price Advisory Committee and compensation was deposited before the
-: 33 :-
reference Court after notice being issued to the original Khatedar to which there was no response. The allotment of 100 acres including the land in question to BOSCH Limited was made on 02.02.2010. The possession was handed over to the allottee on 21.10.2011 and the writ petitions have been filed in the year 2012-13, long after third parties rights were created by the KIADB.
-: 34 :-
that M/s. BOSCH Limited had applied to the State High Level Clearance Committee/State Level Single Window Clearance Committee under the provisions of the Karnataka Industries (Facilitation) Act, 2020 ('Facilitation Act, 2020', for short) and it was decided that 100 acres be allotted to the said Company. The same has not been interfered with by the learned Single Judge.
-: 35 :-
commissioned and at this point, there cannot be any interference at the hands of this Court, as that would cause great prejudice to the allottee.
-: 36 :-
that the original Khatedar had participated in the acquisition process. He had not challenged the same. He alienated the land in question to the Developer after the issuance of the preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the Act. The Developer purchased the land in question at his own risk and the learned Single Judge is right in dismissing the writ petitions. He also submitted that the appeals may be dismissed.
-: 37 :-
the alienation made in the year 2006 cannot be faulted with. He contended that the order of the learned Single Judge may be set aside and the acquisition of the land in question may be quashed.
Points for consideration:
respective parties, the following points would arise for our consideration:
33. The detailed narration of facts and contentions
would not call for reiteration except highlighting a few facts. That in respect of the land in question, preliminary notification for acquisition under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act was issued on 31.01.1998 along with notifications under Sections 3(1) and 1(3) of the said Act with an intention to establish an industrial area. The same was followed by a final notification issued on 04.10.2007 under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act. In the interregnum, the
-: 38 :-
land in question was sold in two parcels on 17.06.2006 to
an extent of 2.34 Acres to Sri.N.S.Mukund and subsequently, on 03.07.2006 to an extent of 1.33 Acres including 5 guntas of phut kharab which was also purchased by N.S.Mukund of M/s.Sneha Townships Private Limited, which is the Developer. On the acquisition of the land in question as part of an industrial area and on the application made on behalf of M/s.BOSCH limited, 100 acres was allotted to the said Company on 02.02.2010. Possession of 97.685 Acres was handed-over to BOSCH Limited on 22.11.2014. These appeals concerns the land in question comprising of 4 Acres 27 Guntas only, out of the said 100 acres in which M/s. Sneha Townships - Developers formed a layout comprising of house sites and alienated them to several purchasers even during the process of acquisition of the same and the subsequent allotment of the same to BOSCH Limited. N.S.Mukund and M/s. Sneha Developers Limited, subsequent purchasers i.e., subsequent to the issuance of the preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act, their right as subsequent purchasers calling in question the
-: 39 :-
acquisition notifications, has been objected to by KIADB in the instant cases.
-: 40 :-
case was, whether, a purchaser of property subsequent to the issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the LA Act, 1894 could invoke Section 24 of the 2013 Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after discussing its earlier judgment in the case of Manav Dharam Trust, and other judgments, held that in Manav Dharam Trust , the provisions of 2013 Act had not been taken into consideration. When a purchase is made subsequent to the issuance of a preliminary notification, the same would be void. Such a purchaser cannot seek a declaration under Section 24 of the 2013 Act. That when the acquisition had lapsed, the effect may be to get back the land. But no right is available to the purchaser of the land to assail the acquisition notification as granting such a right to question the acquisition notifications to a subsequent purchaser, would be against public policy and the law which proscribes such transactions. It cannot be given effect to under the guise of subsequent legislation and the same cannot confer due right to the transaction, which is a void transaction. Therefore, it was observed that the decision in Manav Dharam Trust was per incuriam as it did not lay
-: 41 :-
down correct law. Placing reliance on the said judgment, learned counsel for the KIADB contended that, by way of analogy, the said judgment could be applied even to an acquisition made under the provisions of the KIAD Act, and a subsequent purchaser cannot have a right to assail the acquisition notifications, but only to seek compensation.
-: 42 :-
That, when the sale transaction does not confer any title, the purchaser cannot claim any possession and challenge the acquisition by questioning the legality or regularity of the proceedings in taking over of possession. That, a purchaser of a notified land under a void transaction cannot have any right to challenge the acquisition proceedings, as any such purchase has no legality. This is because, no legal, just or equitable right enures to the purchaser of the notified land so as to assail the process of acquisition. The sale of notified land is void ab initio and no rights are acquired on the purchaser as against the State. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has elaborated on such sales being void and ultimately over-ruled the earlier decision in Manav Dharam Trust . The said judgment would squarely apply even to an acquisition under the provisions of KIAD Act.
-: 43 :-
a) Firstly, the respondent-Developer purchased
the land in question subsequent to the issuance of the preliminary notification, dated 31.01.1998. No material has been placed before us to state that prior to the purchase of the said land, any due diligence exercise had been carried out in order to ascertain as to whether the land in question has been notified for acquisition. It may be mentioned here that the preliminary notification in respect of the subject land was issued on 31.01.1998 and alienations were made on 17.06.2006 and 03.07.2006 under two registered sale deeds. Thereafter, the final notification was issued on 04.10.2007. In the absence of proper steps being taken by the Developer to ascertain, as to, whether, the land in question was a subject matter of acquisition, we do not think that the Developer had been prudent in purchasing the said land in question in the year 2006 when it was already notified for acquisition in the year 1998 itself.
b) Secondly, it is brought to our notice that in the notification issued under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act (Preliminary Notification), it was clearly mentioned that
-: 44 :-
there was a prohibition to deal with the notified land in any manner. Despite that, the notified Khatedar in total disregard of the same, alienated the subject land to the respondent-Developer prior to the issuance of the Final Notification and the appellant-Developer purchased the notified land, which was at his own risk.
c) Thirdly, it is only subsequent to the purchase
of the land in question that the respondent-Developer made representations to various authorities, but not to the authority which was concerned with the acquisition of said land. Reliance was placed on several endorsements which have been adverted to above in order to demonstrate the fact that the land in question was taken up for development after seeking conversion and after ensuring that the same was not acquired. That is the crucial aspect of the matter. The endorsements which have been relied upon by the appellants are all issued from the office of BMICP. The said authority may be under KIADB, nevertheless, the fact remains that no representation was made to the authorities or to the Department which was concerned with the acquisition of the land in question. In the instant case, the State had issued the notifications
-: 45 :-
seeking to acquire, inter alia, the land in question. Moreover, the applications made to the Planning Authority and other local authorities were all of no consequence in the face of the acquisition notifications issued by the State. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the said endorsements.
d) The appellant-Developer has sought to portray that he was diligent and he had been mislead on account of the endorsements issued. Had a due diligence exercise being carried out by the appellant-Developer prior to purchase of the land in question, which is not so in the instant case, the true state of affairs would have been known to him and he may not have proceeded to purchase the land in question! Therefore, the appellant-Developer cannot now contend that all steps were taken by him subsequent to purchase of the land and before developing the same so as to contend that he was given a green signal by the respective authorities to go ahead with the development of his land, seek conversion of the same, form house sites and alienate them to various other purchasers.
-: 46 :-
-: 47 :-
receive compensation in respect of the acquired land. This is because such a purchaser is not the notified khatedar and therefore is not entitled to challenge the acquisition as he takes the risk of buying the land notified for acquisition. Thus, when the notified khatedar alienates the notified land and thus loses his right to challenge the acquisition of such land, the alienee of such land would not acquire any right to challenge the acquisition as he is not the notified khatedar or the occupier of the notified land at the time when the preliminary notification was issued.
-: 48 :-
also, then the purchaser of the same subsequent to the issuance of the preliminary notification but before the issuance of the final notification does so at his own risk and subject to the final notification. If the land so purchased does not find mention in the final notification, the sale in his favour is without any impediment from the point of view of acquisition. On the other hand, if the land/property purchased subsequent to the issuance of the final notification finds a place in the final notification, the same would prevail over the sale transaction and the subsequent purchaser is entitled only to receive compensation on proving his title to the land. He does not have the right to challenge the acquisition as he is not the original khatedar who alone has the right to challenge the acquisition notification.
-: 49 :-
issuance of the final notification which was on 04.10.2007 for allotment of inter alia, the land in question. The allotment of 100 acres of land was made under the provisions of the Facilitation Act, 2020 by the State High Level Clearance Committee. The allottee made the payments for the said land and was in continuous correspondence with KIADB for handing over possession of the subject land, so that its project on the extent of land could take off without any further complication. In fact, it is the case of the KIADB that possession of the land in question was taken on 12.01.2009. The allotment was made to the allottee on 02.02.2010 and possession certificate was issued on 21.10.2011 and it is only thereafter that the writ petitions were filed in the year 2012-13.
-: 50 :-
world market. That there is an anxiousness to attract foreign direct investment and to attain progress in the economy and therefore, infrastructure must be made available to keep up the pace of the progress in various sectors, such as, transportation, power and communications. That the acquisition of land must not be delayed and the courts must be slow in interfering in such acquisition proceedings as the acquisition of land when made for public purpose, the interest of justice and the public interest coalesce. They are very often one and the same. The courts have to weigh the public interest in relation to private interest while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution and its discretionary powers. That the courts must be absolutely sure before interfering in any acquisition process and grant relief to those who challenge the acquisition. Ultimately, it is balancing the competing interests.
was invoked for the purpose of quick clearance of the large-scale project and the system of Single Window has been put in place so that a prospective foreign or indigenous investor is not faced with technical or other
-: 51 :-
impediments in the commencement of projects. Facilitation Act, 2020 is an Act to provide for the promotion of industrial development and facilitation of new investments to simplify the regulatory frame-work by reducing procedural requirements and rationalising documents and to provide for an investor friendly environment in the State. Under the said Act, clearances for industrial activity to be commenced in the State from interested entrepreneurs are made through the State High Level Clearance Committee and State High Level Single Window Clearance Committee. In the instant case, under the Facilitation Act, 100 acres of land including the land in question was allotted to M/s.BOSCH Limited for the purpose of establishment of their project.
-: 52 :-
-: 53 :-
an Act to impose certain restrictions on transfer of land, which have been acquired by Government or in respect of which acquisition proceedings have been initiated by the Government, with a view to preventing large scale transaction of purported transfer, or as the case may be, transfers of such lands to unwary public. Therefore, the said Act applies to acquisition under the KIAD Act also, which is evident from the expression "or any other law providing for acquisition of land for a public purpose" in Section 3 thereof. Acquisition of land under the KIAD Act commences with the issuance of a notification under Section 28(1) of the said Act. Therefore, there is a bar for transfer of lands, which is a subject matter of acquisition under the KIAD Act also.
-: 54 :-
purchase and thereby prejudice industrial activity by resorting to litigation.
-: 55 :-
In view of the dismissal of the appeals, all pending applications stand dismissed.
After dismissal of the appeals, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri.Pruthvi Wodeyar, sought for continuation of the status quo order granted in these appeals as well as by the learned Single Judge.
We do not think that the said submission could be accepted, as, once the appeals are dismissed, the interim order cannot have an over-arching effect.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
MVS* RK/Ct: R*
2 issues framed by the court
Could purchasers after the preliminary notification under the KIAD Act challenge the acquisition rather than merely seek compensation?
Did Section 3 of the Karnataka Land (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1991 apply to land notified for acquisition under the KIAD Act?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bombay and others vs. Godrej and BoyceReferred¶215
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bombay and others vs. Godrej and Boyce, [AIR 1987 SC 2421], · Who else cites this
State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Manav Dharam TrustReferred¶266
State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Manav Dharam Trust, [(2017) 6 SCC 751], · Who else cites this
Shiv Kumar vs. Union of IndiaApplied¶266
Shiv Kumar vs. Union of India, (2019) 10 SCC 229] · Who else cites this
Ramniklal N.Bhutta Vs. State of MaharashtraRelied on¶291
Ramniklal N.Bhutta Vs. State of Maharashtra [(1997) 1 SCC 134] · Who else cites this
Girias Investment Private Limited vs. State of KarnatakaRelied on¶306
Girias Investment Private Limited vs. State of Karnataka, [(2008) 7 SCC 53], · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
M/S. SNEHA TOWNSHIPS PRIVATE LIMITED
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BANGALORE MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY
M/S. BOSCH INDIA PVT. LIMITED
B.V. NAGARATHNA
M.G. UMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
