Dismissed

Tuljaram Singh v. the Karnataka Industrial Area

Karnataka HC12 Oct 2023WP/109193/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition where the petitioner sought restoration of land acquired for an industrial area. The court held that once compensation is paid, the owner loses locus to claim restoration, relying on Supreme Court precedents stating unutilization does not entitle the owner to land back.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it was devoid of merits. All pending interim applications were also dismissed.

Tuljaram Singh Vs the Karnataka Industrial Area — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12355 WP No. 109193 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 109193 OF 2014 (LA-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.TULJARAM SINGH S/O. ANAND SINGH AGARWAL AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. MUMMIGATTI VILLAGE, TQ and DIST: DHARWAD

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.VINAY S.KAUJALAGI & SRI.ROHIT L.SHEELVANT, ADVS.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD

¶13

R/BY ITS CHAIRMAN RASHTROTHAN PARISHAND BUILDING, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE

¶14

MOHANKUMAR

¶15

B SHELAR

¶16

Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2023.10.13 11:46:49 +0530

¶17

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, RASHTROTHAN PARISHAND BUILDING, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE

¶18

THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ZONAL OFFICE, NO. 33/A, LAKAMANA HALLI, INDUSTRIAL AREA, P B ROAD, DHARWAD

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ SABARAD, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT.SHARMILA M PATIL)

¶21

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12355 WP No. 109193 of 2014

¶22

THIS WRIT PEITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28/06/2014 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The captioned writ petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 28.06.2014.

¶26

The captioned petition is contested by respondent Nos.1 to 3. Countering the claim made by the petitioner, respondent-authorities have claimed that petition lands were acquired for the purpose of industrial area. Notices were issued under Section 28(2) to all the land owners while petitioner’s father was served with notice on 10.05.1992. Placing reliance on Annexures-R1 & R2, respondents claim that petitioner’s father agreed to the amount fixed and entered into an agreement under

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12355 WP No. 109193 of 2014

¶28

Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act. Respondents claim that petitioner’s father executed indemnity bond which is produced at Annexure-R4. Therefore, respondents claim that petitioner in terms of agreement and having received compensation amount is estopped from further claiming any relief.

¶29

On examination of the material on record and

¶30

the ground on which the captioned petition is filed, the petitioner’s grievance is that respondents-board failed to utilize the lands for the purpose for which it was acquired. Therefore, by way of representation, petitioner is seeking restoration of the land. Petitioner claims that he is willing to deposit the compensation amount. The law in regard to issue relating to unutilized land and claim of restoration of the land to the owners is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Govt. of A.P. and Another Vs. Syed Akbar reported in AIR 2005 SC 492 has held that merely because the land has stood unutilized that cannot be a ground to erstwhile owner to seek

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12355 WP No. 109193 of 2014

¶32

restoration of the land. The Apex Court in the latest judgment in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manohar Lal and Others reported in (2020) 9 SCC 129 has also held that, once the land is acquired, it vests in the State, free from all encumbrances. The Apex Court was of the view that once the compensation is paid, the land owner loses locus and he cannot have any grievance on the ground that land acquired is not utilized for the purpose for which it is acquired. The Apex Court has also held that State neither has any requisite power to reconvey the land to the person interested nor can such person claim any right and restoration on the ground whatsoever unless there is some statutory amendment to this effect.

¶33

Petitioner’s father received compensation which

¶34

is pursuant to agreement entered into voluntarily with the Board, has no legal right to seek restoration of the land. The Board is equally is not under any obligation to reconvey the land to the petitioner. If there is no legal right

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12355 WP No. 109193 of 2014

¶36

¶37

in favour of the petitioner and corresponding obligation on

¶38

the part of the Board, no mandamus can be issued.

¶39