Allowed

Sri. Muniyappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2022WP/12955/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High Court of Karnataka quashed preliminary and final land acquisition notifications issued against the petitioner's land, declaring them abandoned and non-existent due to the respondents' failure to complete acquisition proceedings within a reasonable time.

What did the court decide?

The preliminary notification No.CI/422/SPQ/2005 dated 03.11.2006 and final notification NO.CI/212/SPQ/2007 dated 07.05.2007 insofar as relating to the petitioner's land are declared abandoned and quas

Sri. Muniyappa Vs State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 12955 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.12955 OF 2022 (LA-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

¶9

SRI.ULIGA @ ULLAPPA S/O LATE GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶10

BOTH ARE R/AT BANDIKODIGEHALLI VILLAGE JALA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL) TALUK.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. SRIHARI A V.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶16

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶17

¶18

WP No. 12955 of 2022

¶19

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER-2 KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.39, SHANTHI GRUHA, BHARATH SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING 4TH FLOOR, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.NITHYANANDA K.R., AGA FOR R1; SRI.C.RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.CI/422/SPQ/2005, BANGALORE, DATED 03.11.2006 VIDE ANNEXURE - A AND FINAL NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.CI/212/SPQ/2007, BANGALORE DATED 07.05.2007 VIDE ANNEXURE - B ISSUED BY THE R1 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONERS LAND BEARING SY.NO.40/P34 MEASURING 1 ACRES 20 GUNTAS SITUATED AT BANDIKODIGEHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLIL, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK AS ABANDONED, LAPSED AND NON-EST AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶26

¶27

WP No. 12955 of 2022

¶28

a) "Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order declaring that the preliminary notification bearing No.CI/422/SPQ/2005, Bangalore, dated 03.11.2006 vide Annexure-A and final notification bearing No.CI/212/SPQ/2007, Bangalore, dated 07.05.2007 vide annexure -B issued by the First Respondent in respect of the Petitioner's land bearing Sy.No.40/P34 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas situated at Bandikodigehalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk as abandoned, lapsed and non-eat;

¶29

b) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order quashing the preliminary notification bearing No.CI/422/SPQ/2005, Bangalore, dated 03.11.2006 vide annexure-A and final notification bearing No.CI/212/SPQ/2007, Bangalore, dated 07.05.2007 vide annexure-B issued by the First Respondent in respect of the Petitioner's land bearing Sy.No.40/P34 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas situated at Bandikodigehalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk as First and Second Respondents have not completed the acquisition proceedings within reasonable time;

¶30

c) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents not to interfere with the Petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule property.

¶31

d) Grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity"

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner of land measuring 1 acre 20 guntas bearing Sy.No.40/P34 situated at Bandikodigehalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The same was proposed to be acquired by notification under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KIAD Act' for short) on 03.11.2006

¶33

¶34

WP No. 12955 of 2022

¶35

and the final notification came to be issued on 07.05.2007. Despite the lapse of several years, the petitioner continuous to be in possession of the property and cultivate the said property. At the same time, respondents have not taken any steps to complete the acquisition proceedings. He therefore submits that the acquisition process was spent itself and as such the same requires to be quashed.

¶36

In this regard, he relies upon the order passed in WP.No.10583/2016 dated 01.04.2021, WP.No.22273/2021 dated 21.12.2021, WP.Nos.4266342667/2017 dated 06.10.2017 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in WA.NO.1268/2021 dated 17.03.2022 as also WA.No.6387-6390/2017 dated 07.03.2018 and submits that the very same acquisition notification has been quashed in respect of the petitioner therein on the very same grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein. The order of the Division

¶37

Bench of this Court has been challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP NO.25239/2018 and the same has been dismissed vide order 06.08.2018.

¶38

¶39

WP No. 12955 of 2022

¶40

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3-KIADB submits that the present petition may also be disposed of as per the orders passed in the aforesaid writ petitions and writ appeal.

¶41

In view thereof, I pass the following:

¶42

: ORDER :

¶43

a) Writ petition is allowed .

¶44

b) Certiorari is issued, the preliminary notification No.CI/422/SPQ/2005 dated 03.11.2006 and final notification NO.CI/212/SPQ/2007 dated

¶45

07.05.2007 insofar as relating to the land of the petitioner in Sy.No.40/P34 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas situated at Bandikodigehalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk is hereby declared to be abandoned and as such

¶46

quashed.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

KTY

Sri. Muniyappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Muniyappa 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Chennamma Vs State of Karnataka

Nagaraja S Vs National Highways Authority of India

Sri. S.M. Yarappa Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. M. Sharadamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M N Lingaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Akkayyamma Vs State of Karnataka