Five writ petitions seeking denotification of land acquired under the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 via Section 24 of the 2013 LARR Act were dismissed solely due to enormous delay in challenging the acquisition.
Writ petitions dismissed on account of enormous delay; petitioners directed to seek compensation release in Civil Court.
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 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
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)
IN W.P.NO.48591/2016
BETWEEN:
SMT. C SHASHIKALA, W/O M JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 106.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M B RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
…RESPONDENTS
(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)
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.,
IN W.P.NO.59693/2016
BETWEEN:
3
ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 103.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M B RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
4
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, 17TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN, UPPER PALACE ORCHID, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 080. AMENDED V.C.O DATED 19.02.2019
…RESPONDENTS
(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)
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.,
IN W.P.NO.1997/2017
BETWEEN:
SRI. KRISHNAPPA, S/O LATE MUNIYALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O IGGALUR, CHANDAPURA POST, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 562 106.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M B RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
5
VIKASA SOUDHA, DR AMBEDKJAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(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)
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
6
TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT FROM THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AT ANNEX-D & E;
IN W.P.NO.2267/2017
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.M.B.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
7
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, OFFICE NO.203, 2ND 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, 17TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN, UPPER PALACE ORCHID, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 080. AMENDED V.C.O DATED 19.02.2019
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SRIDHAR HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. PAVAN G N, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
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.
IN W.P.NO.11542/2017
BETWEEN:
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.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M N VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
8
KANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS C.E.O. & EXECUTIVE MEMBER.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SRIDHAR HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B B PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
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.,
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING – B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
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
9
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.
10
accordingly disposed off; so contending, they seek dismissal of the Writ Petitions.
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:
(a) The Preliminary Notification for acquisition was
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
11
on 1.7.2014; these are the foundational facts emerging from the records.
(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.
(c) The second contention of the petitioners that the possession of the land is retained by them even to this day and
12
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.
(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
13
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
demonstrated.
4. All other contentions urged do not merit much
consideration in view of what has been discussed above.
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.
14
It is open to the erstwhile land owners to seek release of
the compensation amount from the jurisdictional Civil Court in
accordance with law.
Sd/JUDGE
cbc
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners seeking denotification of land acquired under the 1966 Act can invoke Section 24 of the 2013 Act.
Whether significant delay in filing writ petitions warrants dismissal without adjudication on merits.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K.Srinivas Murthy & Another Vs. State & othersReferred¶109
K.Srinivas Murthy & Another Vs. State & others, disposed off on 17.8.2020
Ananthaswamy Vs. State & othersReferred¶109
Ananthaswamy Vs. State & others, disposed off on 2.3.2021
BDA Vs. State of KarnatakaReferred¶109
BDA Vs. State of Karnataka, (2018) 9 SCC 122 · Who else cites this
M/s Premakala Prabhakara Reddy Vs. State & othersReferred¶109
M/s Premakala Prabhakara Reddy Vs. State & others, (2019) 3 AKR 657
Indore Development Authority Vs. MonoharlalReferred¶109
Indore Development Authority Vs. Monoharlal AIR 2020 SC 1426 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SMT. C SHASHIKALA
SRI. BALARAJ
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA, DEVELOPMENT BOARD
M/S PALRECHA INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPERS
KRISHNA S.DIXIT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court