Dismissed

Smt Kadiramma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Feb 2023WP/6767/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging land acquisition. Applying Section 28(4) and 29(2) of the 1966 Act and precedents, the Court held that once a Final Notification is issued or acquisition is by agreement, land vests forthwith. The petitioner is not entitled to protection under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and continues in occupation as a trespasser.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to approach the Hon'ble Lokayukta.

Smt Kadiramma Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 6767 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 6767 OF 2022 (LA-KIADB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. KADIRAMMA, W/OLT POOJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT BANDIKODIGEHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TQ, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. NOTE:THE PETITIONER NOT CLAIMED ANY BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZENSHIP

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. P DHANANJAYA.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHETAN B C

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPT OF COMMERCE AND INDSUTRIES, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶16

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BY IS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER, NO 14/3, II FLOOR, R P BUILDING, NRUPTHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶17

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUSITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPENT BOARD, NO 14/3, II FLOOR, R P BUILDING, NRUPTHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶18

¶19

WP No. 6767 of 2022

¶20

ITASCA SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED A COMAPNY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PREMISES NO 18-A/19, DODDANEKUNI INDUSTRIAL AREA, MAHADEVAPURA POST, BANGALORE 560 048. KARNATAKA STATE. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. P V CHANDRASHEKAR.,ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; SMT. KRISHIKA VAISHNAV, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING TO THE SCHEDULED PROPERTY IN PURSUANCE OF FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 7.5.2007 ISSUED BY THE R2 A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN LAPSED SO FAR AS PETITIONERS IS CONCERNED AND ETC.,

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Petitioner – lady is knocking at the doors of Writ

¶27

Court for laying a challenge to the acquisition of land pursuant to Final Notification dated 07.05.2007 made under the provisions of Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966. Learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argues that till date the

¶28

¶29

WP No. 6767 of 2022

¶30

possession of the land remains with his client and therefore, she is entitled to protection under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. He also draws attention of the Court to certain photographs at Annexure-A Series to adumbrate his stand that his client is still in the possession & cultivation of the subject land.

¶31

After service of notice, the 1^st Respondent – State is represented by learned AGA and the Respondent – KIADB & its officials are represented by its learned Sr. Panel Counsel; the 4^th Respondent – Company is represented by its private counsel. All they oppose the Petition making submission in justification of the impugned acquisition proceedings. Learned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for the KIADB submits that the land having been acquired years ago, a sum of Rs.23.25,000/- has been credited to the Bank Account of the Petitioner on 21.07.2008 vide Cheque bearing NO. 0204166 dated 16.07.2008. To substantiate the same, he has produced

¶32

¶33

WP No. 6767 of 2022

¶34

Statement of Account of the Corporation Bank, now Union

¶35

Bank of India.

¶36

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, the Scheme of acquisition envisaged under Section 28 of the 1966 Act contemplates vesting of land once the Final Notification is issued under Section 28(4) notwithstanding an award being passed or compensation being paid, vide Division Bench judgment in W.P.NO.17600/2004 ETC., BETWEEN NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISE LIMITED VS. STATE & OTHERS , disposed off on 15.06.2011. This apart, the acquisition is by agreement under Section 29(2) of the 1966 Act and therefore, the question of laying a challenge to the acquisition would not arise as held by this Court in a catena of decisions.

¶37

There is force in the submission of learned

¶38

Panel Counsel that in light of Apex Court decision in SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB & OTHERS

¶39

¶40

WP No. 6767 of 2022

¶41

vs. ANUSUYA BAI (D)BY LRS., 2017 3 SCC 313, the

¶42

benefit of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not avail to the owners of the land acquired under the statutes other than Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He is also justified in telling that once the land is vested, persons continuing in theoccupation of the land are nothing but tresspassers of first order vide INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. MAHOHAR LAL, 2020 (8) SCC 129.

¶43

In view of the above, the Writ Petition is liable to be disposed off and accordingly it is. Liberty is reserved to the Petitioner to workout her remedy before the Hon’ble Lokayktha wherein proceedings are stated to be pending against the 4^th Respondent – Company and others as well. Nothing stated herein above would prejudice such proceedings.

¶44

No costs.

¶45

Bsv

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

Smt Kadiramma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Kadiramma 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Somashekar N Vs the State of Karnataka

Lokesh K G Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Harish K Vs the Commissioner

Sandeep Shenoy Vs State of Karnataka

Somashekhar Vs the Secretary

Sri Srinivas B R Vs the State of Karnataka