Dismissed

Sri Krishnappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Dec 2021WP/1997/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed five consolidated writ petitions challenging land acquisition under the 1966 Act. The court held that Section 24 of the 2013 Act was not invocable due to the pre-2013 acquisition and extensive delay, dismissing the petitions on grounds of laches and non-merits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed without merits on the ground of enormous delay; no explanation offered.

Sri Krishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.48591 OF 2016 (LA-KIADB) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.59693 OF 2016 (LA-KIADB), WRIT PETITION NO.1997 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB), WRIT PETITION NO.2267 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB), WRIT PETITION NO.11542 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB)

¶7

IN W.P.NO.48591/2016

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. C SHASHIKALA, W/O M JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 106.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. M B RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, BY ITS SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA, DEVELOPMENT BOARD, RASHTROTHANA BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER.

¶15

¶16

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA, DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.3/2, ARAVIND BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶17

M/S PALRECHA INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPERS. A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, OFFICE NO.203, 2^ND FLOOR, BATAVIA CHAMBERS, KUMAR PARK ROAD, KUMAR PARK EAST, BANGALORE – 560 001. REP BY ITS PARTNER PRAVEEN SHAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O P H SHAH, RESIDING AT NO.286, 17^TH CROSS, 8^TH MAIN, UPPER PALACE ORCHID, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 080. AMENDED V.C.O DATED 19.02.2019

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.SRIDHAR HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B B PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; SRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. PAVAN G N, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO DE-NOTIFY THE LAND OF THE PETITIONER IN SY.NO.83/4, MEASURING 1 ACRE AND 36 GUNTAS, SITAUTED AT IGGALUR VILLAGE, ANEKALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT FROM THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AT ANNEXS-G & H AND ETC.,

¶21

IN W.P.NO.59693/2016

¶22

BETWEEN:

¶23

SRI. BALARAJ, S/O LATE V MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O IGGALUR, CHANDAPURA TALUK,

¶24

¶25

ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 103.

¶26

SRI. LOKESH, S/O SRI NARAYNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O IGGALUR, CHANDAPURA POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 106.

¶27

SRI. LAKSHMAIAH, S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O IGGALUR CHANDAPURA POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 106.

¶28

…PETITIONERS

¶29

(BY SRI. M B RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, BY ITS SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶32

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, RASHTROTHANA BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER

¶33

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA, DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.3/2, ARAVIND BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶34

M/S PALRECHA INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPERS. A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, OFFICE NO.203, 2^ND FLOOR,

¶35

¶36

BATAVIA CHAMBERS, KUMAR PARK ROAD, KUMAR PARK EAST, BANGALORE – 560 001. REP BY ITS PARTNER PRAVEEN SHAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O P H SHAH, RESIDING AT NO.286, 17^TH CROSS, 8^TH MAIN, UPPER PALACE ORCHID, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 080. AMENDED V.C.O DATED 19.02.2019

¶37

…RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI.SRIDHAR HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B B PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; SRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. PAVAN G N, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶39

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO 3 DE-NOTIFY THE LAND OF THE PETITIONERS IN SY.NO.83/1, MEASURING 1 ACRE AND 3 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT IGGALUR VILLAGE, ANEKAL TQ., BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, FROM THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AT ANNX-C & D DATED 16/4/97 AND ETC.,

¶40

IN W.P.NO.1997/2017

¶41

BETWEEN:

¶42

SRI. KRISHNAPPA, S/O LATE MUNIYALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O IGGALUR, CHANDAPURA POST, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 562 106.

¶43

…PETITIONER

¶44

(BY SRI. M B RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶45

AND:

¶46

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE,

¶47

REP BY ITS SECRETARY,

¶48

¶49

VIKASA SOUDHA, DR AMBEDKJAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶50

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, KANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. REP BY ITS C E O & EXECUTIVE MEMBER.

¶51

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO 3/2, ARAVIND BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶52

M/S PALRECHA INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPERS. A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, OFFICE NO.203, 2^ND FLOOR, BATAVIA CHAMBERS, KUMAR PARK ROAD, KUMAR PARK EAST, BANGALORE – 560 001. REP BY ITS PARTNER PRAVEEN SHAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O P H SHAH, RESIDING AT NO.286, 17^TH CROSS, 8^TH MAIN, UPPER PALACE ORCHID, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 080. AMENDED V.C.O DATED 19.02.2019

¶53

…RESPONDENTS

¶54

(BY SRI.SRIDHAR HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B B PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; SRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. PAVAN G N, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶55

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-1 TO DE-NOTIFY THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.82, MEASURING 0-28 GUNTAS AND LAND BEARING SY.NO.93, MEASURING 0-01 GUNTAS, BOTH SITUATED AT IGGALUR VILLAGE, ANEKAL

¶56

¶57

TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT FROM THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AT ANNEX-D & E;

¶58

IN W.P.NO.2267/2017

¶59

BETWEEN:

¶60

SRI. MUNIRAJU, S/O LATE SRI DODDABETTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O IGGALUR, CHANDAPURA POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 102.

¶61

SRI.B.UMESH, S/O LATE SRI.CHIKKABETTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O IGGALUR, CHANDRAPURA POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 106.

¶62

…PETITIONERS

¶63

(BY SRI.M.B.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶64

AND:

¶65

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, BY ITS SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.

¶66

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, KANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS C.E.O & EXECUTIVE MEMBER.

¶67

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.3/2, ARAVIND BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶68

¶69

M/S PALRECHA INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPERS.

¶70

A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, OFFICE NO.203, 2^ND FLOOR, BATAVIA CHAMBERS, KUMAR PARK ROAD, KUMAR PARK EAST, BANGALORE – 560 001. REP BY ITS PARTNER PRAVEEN SHAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O P H SHAH, RESIDING AT NO.286, 17^TH CROSS, 8^TH MAIN, UPPER PALACE ORCHID, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 080. AMENDED V.C.O DATED 19.02.2019

¶71

…RESPONDENTS

¶72

(BY SRI.SRIDHAR HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. PAVAN G N, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶73

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO 3 DE-NOTIFY THE LAND OF THE PETITIONERS IN SY.NO.83/2, MEASURING 1 ACRE, SITUATED AT IGGALUR VILLAGE, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, FROM THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AT ANNEXS-H PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DTD.13.2.1996 & J FINAL NOTIFICATION VIDE DTD.16.4.1997.

¶74

IN W.P.NO.11542/2017

¶75

BETWEEN:

¶76

SRI P MUNISHAMAIAH S/O OF PILLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 102 YEARS, SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED R/O RAMAKRISHNAPURA, CHANDAPURA POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562 106.

¶77

…PETITIONER

¶78

(BY SRI. M N VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶79

AND:

¶80

¶81

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE REP BY ITS SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶82

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD

¶83

KANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD,

¶84

BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶85

REPRESENTED BY ITS C.E.O. & EXECUTIVE MEMBER.

¶86

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO. 3/2, ARAVIND BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶87

…RESPONDENTS

¶88

(BY SRI.SRIDHAR HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B B PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶89

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO DE-NOTIFY THE LAND OF THE PETITIONER IN SURVEY NO.81/2A, MEASURING 20 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT IGGALUR VILLAGE, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, FROM THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AT ANNX-C PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DTD 13.02.1996 AND ANNX-D FINAL NOTIFICATION DTD 16.04.1997 AND ETC.,

¶90

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING – B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶91

ORDER

¶92

In all these Writ Petitions, a challenge is laid to the acquisition of lands in question by the State Government under the provisions of Section 28 of the Karnataka Industrial

¶93

¶94

Area Development Act, 1966 for the benefit of the respondentKIADB; the challenge is essentially structured on Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement, Act, 2013; petitioners also seek denotification of their lands from the fray of acquisition.

¶95

The respondents having entered appearance through their advocates vehemently resist the Writ Petitions making submission in justification of the acquisition and the allotment of the subject industrial sites in favour of the private respondent beneficiary; their essential contentions are that the acquisition being under 1966 Act, the provisions of section 24 of the 2013 Act are not invocable; even otherwise, the substratum for the invocation of said provision is lacking; the petitions are barred by delay & latches; cause of justice would be served more by dismissing the petitions than by allowing them; they also contend that the petitioners have not approached the court with clean hands, clean head & clean heart; they also submit that in more or less comparable fact matrix, two Division Bench judgments have denied relief to the litigants and therefore, these petitions also need to be

¶96

¶97

accordingly disposed off; so contending, they seek dismissal of the Writ Petitions.

¶98

Since these petitions comprise of common

¶99

questions of law & facts, they are taken up for final hearing with the concurrence of the Bar; having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

¶100

(a) The Preliminary Notification for acquisition was

¶101

issued by the Government u/s 28(1) of the 1966 Act on 13.2.1996; notice u/s 28(2) followed on 29.2.1996 and objections were filed by the land owners to the proposed acquisition and seeking dropping of the proceedings on 1.5.1996; Final Notification came to be issued on 16.4.1997 u/s 28(4); general award came to be made u/s 29(3) of the 1966 Act r/w section 11 of the erstwhile Land Acquisition, Act, 1894 on 16.11.1999; the Govt. approved the award in time; deposit of compensation was made before the learned Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn), Bangalore Rural District, on 30.6.2005 u/ss 30 & 31 of the LA Act, 1894; possession came to be taken

¶102

¶103

on 1.7.2014; these are the foundational facts emerging from the records.

¶104

(b) Added to the above, the land in question came to be allotted to the private respondent beneficiary vide allotment letters dated 18.12.2012 & 5.1.2013 for a consideration of Rs.21 Crore plus; the conveyance in the form of Lease cum Sale came to be executed on 16.12.2013 and possession came to be delivered to it on 1.7.2014; the beneficiary has put up construction of huge warehouses in the subject land with the sanction plan of the KIADB; NOC has been issued by the Fire Department and the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board; Completion Certificate has also been issued to him; what all the developments are made in the subject land is fairly depicted in the photographs produced in its Objection Statement; these petitions have been filed in the years 2016 & 2017; absolutely, no explanation is offered for brooking enormous delay in laying challenge to the acquisition; therefore, the petitions are liable to be dismissed only on that ground itself.

¶105

¶106

¶107

that the revenue records reflect the crops being grown there and further that even the photographs produced by them along with the petition vouch the same, are neither factually correct nor legally tenable, assuming that they are true; there is a wealth of material loaded to the record which prima facie establishes the possession of the land having been taken by the KIADB long ago, a mahazar also has been drawn; this is in addition to its allotment to the private respondent beneficiaries who has developed the land as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs; the presumptive value attaching to the entries in the revenue records u/s 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 being rebuttable, stand rebutted the course of events mentioned supra; this apart, much value cannot be attached to these entries since they are continued casually by the revenue officials without visiting the spot and ascertaining the factuals, as is being noticed by this court in umpteen number of cases.

¶108

(d) The contention of the petitioners for voiding of the acquisition in question cannot be entertained by banking upon section 24 of the 2013 Act inasmuch as the identical contentions have been considered and rejected by a Division

¶109

¶110

Bench of this Court in W.A.No.3348/2018 (LA-KIADB) between K.Srinivas Murthy & Another Vs. State & others, disposed off on 17.8.2020; another Division Bench in W.A.No.1451/2018 (LA-KIADB) between Ananthaswamy Vs. State & others, disposed off on 2.3.2021; these judgments have extensively considered several decisions of the Apex Court including BDA Vs. State of Karnataka, (2018) 9 SCC 122, M/s Premakala Prabhakara Reddy Vs. State & others, (2019) 3 AKR 657, Indore Development Authority Vs. Monoharlal AIR 2020 SC 1426; what has been observed therein in all fours applies to these cases as well, nothing different having been

¶111

demonstrated.

¶112

4. All other contentions urged do not merit much

¶113

consideration in view of what has been discussed above.

¶114

In the light of above facts & circumstances, these Writ Petitions being devoid of merits, are liable to be dismissed and accordingly, they are, costs having been made easy.

¶115

¶116

It is open to the erstwhile land owners to seek release of

¶117

the compensation amount from the jurisdictional Civil Court in

¶118

accordance with law.

¶119

Sd/JUDGE

¶120