Allowed

Dr M R Lakshmikanth v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2022WP/18473/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking to quash notifications regarding land acquisition. Finding that objections were not considered and the petitioner was not heard as required under Section 28(3) of the K.I.A.D.B Act, 1966, the Court quashed the final notification and remanded the matter to the Special Land Acquisition Officer for a fresh consideration complying with natural justice. Th

What did the court decide?

Notification dated 17.02.2007 under Section 28(4) of the K.I.A.D.B Act, 1966 is quashed. Matter remanded to Special Land Acquisition Officer to hear objections and pass orders within eight weeks.

Dr M R Lakshmikanth Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 18473 of 2007

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 18473 OF 2007 (LA-KIADB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

DR M R LAKSHMIKANTH S/O M RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, M.S.(ORTHO), R/AT NO.443, 11TH C CROSS,BEL LAYOUT VIDYARANYAPURA BANGALORE -97

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. MOHAN KUMAR K V.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE M.S.BUILDING,BANGALORE -01

¶14

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA INDUSTRIES AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE.

¶16

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. NITHYANANDA K.R., AGA FOR R1 SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶19

¶20

WP No. 18473 of 2007

¶21

THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATIONS VIDE ANNEX.F. DT. 19.9.2006 PASSED UNDER SECTION 28(2) OF THE ACT AND VIDE AND VIDE ANNEX.J. UNDER SECTION 28(4) OF THE ACT DT. 17.2.2007. GRANT STAY ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE NOTIFICATION DT. 17.2.2007 UNDER SECTION 28(4) OF THE ACT AS PER ANNEX.J.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

¶25

following reliefs:

¶26

a. Issue Writ of Certiorary or any other appropriate order quashing the notifications vide Annexure-F Dated 19.09.2006 passed under Section 28(2) of the act and vide Annexure G under Section 28(4) of the Act dated 17.02.2007 and

¶27

b. To issue writ of certiorari quashing the notification issued by the respondent No.1 under Section 28(1) of the K.I.A.D.B Act 1996 in No.C1 191 NPQ 2006 dated 02.08.2006 vide Annexure-G1.

¶28

c. Grant such other reliefs that this Hon'ble High Court deems fit to grant in such other circumstances of the case.

¶29

The petitioner is the owner of the land measuring about 3 acres 32 guntas situated at Sy.No.12/ID of Makankuppe Village, Tyamagondlu Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk,

¶30

¶31

WP No. 18473 of 2007

¶32

Bangalore District. The said land was proposed to be acquired by issuing Notification under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 ('the Act' for short) dated 02.08.2006. Subsequently, notice had been issued under Section 28(2) of the Act. As regards that, objections was submitted.

¶33

Despite the objections being submitted, no consideration of the said objections was made. Without hearing the petitioner an order under Section 28(3) of the Act came to be passed on 16.01.2007 recommending acquisition and thereafter, Final Notification under Section 28(4) of the Act, on 17.02.2007 was issued. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court, aggrieved by the above.

¶34

On account of the petitioner's objections not having been considered, Sri. Y.R. Sadashiva Reddy, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is gross violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the only opportunity that is available to the petitioner is to object to and/or submit his say in acquisition proceedings at the stage of Section 28(2) proceedings. The

¶35

¶36

WP No. 18473 of 2007

¶37

objections not having been considered, the petitioner's right to property, has been unjustly taken away by the respondents resulting in gross violation of rights of the petitioner.

¶38

Sri. P.V Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 was granted time to verify the same and make his submission. Today, he makes a submission that there are no records available, to show that the petitioner has been heard.

¶39

Heard Sri. Y.R. Sadashiva Reddy, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri. P.V Chandrashekar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the records.

¶40

Insofar as the hearing is concerned, submission of Sri. P.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the respondents indicates that there is no hearing granted. Insofar as the consideration of objections, on perusal of the order passed under Section 28(3) of the Act, the said objections have not been considered.

¶41

¶42

WP No. 18473 of 2007

¶43

In view thereof, I am of the considered opinion that requirement of Section 28(3) of the Act have not been complied with. Without compliance of the same, Section 28(4) of the Act, Notification could not have been issued. As such, I am of the opinion that Section 28(4) of the Act Notification is required to be quashed and the petitioner is to be restored the land back in the same position as it was prior to issuance of Notification under Section 28(4) of the Act.

¶44

At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents submits that a portion of the property has already been utilized by virtue of the Court order and the same may be protected pending the orders to be passed under Section 28(3) of the Act and any action to be taken by the State. In view thereof, the utilization already made is required to be protected until orders are passed.

¶45

In view thereof, I pass the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i. The writ petition is allowed.

¶48

¶49

WP No. 18473 of 2007

¶50

ii. Writ of Certiorari is issued. Final Notification dated 17.02.2007 issued under Section 28(4) of the K.I.A.D.B Act, 1966 is quashed.

¶51

iii. The matter is remanded to respondent No.3- Special Land Acquisition Officer, for consideration of the objections already filed by the petitioner from the stage of Section 28(2) of the Act by hearing the petitioner and pass necessary orders in accordance with law, after considering the objections submitted by the petitioner.

¶52

iv. Respondent No.3- The Special Land Acquisition Officer shall consider and pass necessary orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶53

¶54

WP No. 18473 of 2007

¶55

v. Since the order is being passed in the presence of both the counsel, the petitioner shall appear before respondent No.3- The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 01.08.2022, at 3.00 p.m., without requirement of any further notice.

¶56

vi. Until orders are passed under Section 28(3) the use to which the land has been put to will stay protected and would be subject to the orders passed under Section 28(3).

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

SKS

Dr M R Lakshmikanth v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr M R Lakshmikanth v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Official Liquidator Vs Sr Venkat Ramana Kaluvakolanu Ex-Director

Official Liquidator of M/S. Hemavathi Coffee Vs Nil

Mrs Dr Frederica Samuel Vs M/S S P Constructions

Shri T Ramakrishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt S Padmavathi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Shivanna Vs the State of Karnataka