Allowed

The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2024RP/402/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a review petition filed by the KIADB. The court condoned a 409-day delay due to inadvertence in not placing a final notification on record during the earlier proceedings. The original writ petition was dismissed on these grounds, but liberty to challenge the notification was reserved.

What did the court decide?

The review petition is allowed; the original writ petition dated 25/05/2022 is recalled and dismissed; liberty is reserved to challenge the final notification.

The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Vs the… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:5080 RP No. 402 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶5

REVIEW PETITION NO.402 OF 2023

¶6

¶7

W.P.NO.6230/2022(LA-KIADB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 4^TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶10

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, K.I.A.D.B., 4^TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560001.

¶11

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, K.I.A.D.B., 4^TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. GOPALA B.V., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶17

SMT. GULABJAN W/O. LATE MAHBOOB SAB, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.18^TH WARD, BAGEPALLY TOWN, BAGEPALLY TALUK – 561207, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, AGA FOR R1; SRI. SHRAVAN S. LOKRE, ADV. FOR R2)

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:5080 RP No. 402 of 2023

¶22

THIS REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 25/05/2022, PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P. NO.6230/2022(LA-KIADB), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶26

WHEREFORE, it most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble court be pleased to review the order dated 25/05/2022, passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.6230/2022(LAKIADB) in the interest of justice and equity.

¶27

Grant such other relief’s as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity.

¶28

Sri. Gopal B.V, learned counsel for the petitioners

¶29

would submit that by inadvertence, the final notification under sub-Section (4) of Section 28 The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 issued on 08.03.2007 could not be brought to the notice of this Court when the order dated 25.05.2022 in W.P.No.6230/2022 (LA-KIADB) was passed. He

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:5080 RP No. 402 of 2023

¶32

submits that the final notification having been issued, the grounds on which the writ petition was allowed, could not be available.

¶33

In that view of the matter, the delay of 409 days is condoned by accepting the statement made in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1/2023. Accepting the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.2/2023, the additional documents are taken on record.

¶34

In that view of the matter, when a final notification has been issued and there is a mistake which has occurred on behalf of KIADB and its counsel placing the same on record, a gazette notification having been issued, I am of the considered opinion that the reasoning given by this Court while allowing W.P.No.6230/2022, would not survive. As such, I pass the following:

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:5080 RP No. 402 of 2023

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i) The Review Petition is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- payable to the respondents. The said cost to be deposited by the KIADB and recovered from the errant officer/s, who failed in placing the final notification on record before this Court.

¶39

ii) The order dated 25.05.2022 in W.P.No.6230/2022 stands recalled. The only ground in the said petition is that the final notification has not been issued and now that the final notification has been issued, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶40

iii) Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to challenge the final notification.

¶41

¶42

List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board 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

M/S Bhalkeshwar Sugars Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka and Ors.

Chandrakant S/O Ramchandra Sutar, Vs Smt.Radha W/O Chandrakant Sutar

Mallinath M. Yarandoli Vs the Zilla Panchayat Belagavi

Basavant S/O Basavanneppa Nelagali Vs the Chairman

H.Soubhagyamma Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Op Societies

H.Soubhagyamma W/O H Rajgopal Reddy Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Op Socieites