Dismissed

Sri K H Bommalingaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Oct 2024RP/367/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition against the dismissal of a writ appeal concerning KIADB land acquisition. The court held no error was apparent on the face of the record: the acquired land was needed for road widening and industrial township contiguity, and the subsequent allotment notification gave no entitlement to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

None; review petition dismissed, pending applications rejected, no order as to costs.

Sri K H Bommalingaiah Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:42547-DB RP No.367/2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL REVIEW PETITION NO.367/2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. K.H. BOMMALINGAIAH S/O LATE HONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. NOW DEAD BY LR'S SRI. RENUKAPRASAD .B ALREADY ON RECORD AS PETITIONER NO.2.

¶9

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SRI. RENUKAPRASAD .B S/O LATE K.H. BOMMALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/A NO.3318/A, 5TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN GAYATHRINAGAR, BENGALURU-560021.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. R.P. SOMASHEKHARAIAH, ADV.,)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE GROUND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT.

¶15

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.45, 4TH AND 5TH FLOORS KHANIJA BHAVANA RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001 REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:42547-DB RP No.367/2023

¶17

THE SPECIAL LAO KIADB NIMZ, N.H.206 NEAR SIT MAIN GATE BATAWADI TUMKURU-572103.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH B, AGA FOR R1 SRI. ASHOK N. NAIK, ADV., FOR R2 & R3)

¶20

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 14/02/2023 IN WRIT APPEAL NO.1165/2021 AND ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶21

THIS REVIEW PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. MUDAGAL and

¶23

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

¶26

This review petition is filed seeking to review the judgment dated 14.02.2023 passed in W.A.No.1165/2021 wherein the coordinate bench of this Court has dismissed the said appeal.

¶27

Sri.R.P.Somashekaraiah, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner submits that though several facts and grounds are pleaded he is seeking review of the judgment dated 14.02.2023 only on two grounds, firstly that the

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:42547-DB RP No.367/2023

¶29

coordinate bench has not considered the fact that the respondent authorities have acquired excess land which is not required for the establishment of 220 KV line by KPTCL and remaining land ought to have been ordered for return to the petitioner. The second ground is that subsequently the respondent authorities have issued notification dated 27.11.2023 inviting the applications for allotment of the same land to other entrepreneurs, and they ought to have allotted the said land to the petitioners. Hence, he seeks to review the judgment dated 14.02.2023.

¶30

Sri.Ashok N.Naik, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 submit that in the order under review at para No.5 has clearly recorded the finding that the acquisition is not only for establishment or setting up of KPTCL-220 KV high tension line but also for the purpose of road widening and the land is also required for the purpose of contiguity of industrial area viz., Japanese Industrial Township. Hence, they submit that there is no error apparent on the face of the record to call for interference in the present review petition.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:42547-DB RP No.367/2023

¶33

We have heard the arguments of learned counsel

¶34

for the parties and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶35

Insofar as the first contention of the petitioner that he is entitled for return of excess land is concerned, the order under review at para No.5 has clearly dealt with the said issue and recorded the finding that the land held by the appellant/review petitioner is not only required for setting up of KPTCL-22 KV high tension line but also for the purpose of road widening and to complete the compactness and contiguity of industrial area viz., Japanese Industrial Township. In view of the clear finding of the coordinate bench in the judgment dated 14.02.2023, the order sought to be revived does not find any error or there is no merit in the contention urged by the learned counsel for the review petitioner.

¶36

Insofar as the second contention is concerned, the petitioner has now filed the application for production of additional documents and along with the said application he produced notification dated 27.11.2023 wherein the KIADB has issued notification inviting applications of the entrepreneurs of

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:42547-DB RP No.367/2023

¶39

all categories for allotment of the industrial plots. It is always open for the petitioner to make an application if he is eligible. The inviting of applications by the KIADB for allotment of industrial plots has nothing to do with the entitlement of return of land of the petitioner nor has any bearing on the present lis. The petitioner cannot contend that his land in the acquisition be left out from the acquisition proceedings or the same land be allotted to him. This ground of the petitioner was neither pleaded nor argued before the Court while deciding the writ appeal. Hence, on this ground also we do not find any merit in the contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record calling for interference in the impugned order dated 14.02.2023, accordingly the review petition is dismissed. Consequently, pending applications stand rejected.

¶40

No order as to costs.

¶41

Sd/(K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE

¶42

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶43

BSR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Sri K H Bommalingaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K H Bommalingaiah 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

Smt. Puttadevamma Vs Harisha

Ayub Khan Vs the Proprietor

P B Nagaraj @ Pujara Nagaraja Vs the Partner

L Kiran Kumar Vs Managing Partner

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Indiramma

Smt Rajamma Vs Sri Nagaraj K