Dismissed

The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board v. R. Ramakrishna

Karnataka HC11 Mar 2024WA/39/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal filed by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board. The court upheld the Single Judge's judgment that set aside notifications for land acquisition. The acquisition was quashed because the notified lands had been converted to residential use, violating mandatory circulars prohibiting such acquisition without a survey.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed; the Single Judge's judgment setting aside the acquisition notifications under Section 3(1) and 28(1) of the KIAD Act was upheld.

The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Vs… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:13025-DB WA No. 39 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT WRIT APPEAL NO. 39 OF 2024 (LA-KIADB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN,

¶10

RACECOURSE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

¶11

Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR SWETHA KRISHNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO 49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, KANIJA BHVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO 14/3, MAHARSHI ARAVINDS BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶14

REP BY ITS SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER -2.

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI. B.B PATIL.,ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:13025-DB WA No. 39 of 2024

¶18

AND:

¶19

R. RAMAKRISHNA, S/O S. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, NO 54, SRINIVASA GARDEN LAYOUT, NEAR COUNTRY CLUB, SATANURU VILLAGE, BAGALUR POST, JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 063. REP BY GPA HOLDER.

¶20

SHREELAKSHMI, W/O R. RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO 476, SAROVARA STREET, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL - 562 110. REP BY GPA HOLDER.

¶21

MAMATHA R., D/O R. RAMAKRISHNA, W/O SURESH B. S., AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO 4, “KANASU”, SAI BABA TEMPLE ROAD, KADUGODI PLANTATION, BEGNALURU - 560 067. REP BY GPA HOLDER.

¶22

DEEPA PRASHANTHA, D/O R. RAMAKRISHNA, W/O PRASHANTH S. N., AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO 84 36TH MAIN 4TH ‘A’ CROSS,

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:13025-DB WA No. 39 of 2024

¶25

B.T.M. DOLLARS LAYOUT,

¶26

MADIVALA BENGALURU - 560 068

¶27

REP BY GPA HOLDER.

¶28

PUNEETH R., S/O R RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT 2ND WARD, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL - 562 110 REP BY GPA HOLDER.

¶29

M/S. TRIDENT DEVELOPERS, NO 15, C A TOWRS, OPP TO COUNTY CLUB, SATHNUR VILLAGE, BAGALUR POST, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU - 562 119.

¶30

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKR VEEDHI BENGALRU - 560 001.

¶31

BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI.AJAY J. NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6; SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R7)

¶34

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO CF INSUFFICIENT/SUFFICIENTAPPEAL IS IN TIME/BARRED BY TIME THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT HAS NOT COMPLIED OFFICE OBJECTIONS 1. COURT FEE TO BE MADE GOOD 2.BLANK INDEX TO BE FILLED IN BOTH SETS OF WRIT APPEAL 3. COPY TO GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE TO BE SERVED AND ETC.

¶35

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:13025-DB WA No. 39 of 2024

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

Heard learned advocate Mr. B.B. Patil for the appellants, learned advocate Mr. Ajay J. Nandalike for respondent Nos.1 to 6 and learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for respondent No.7 - State.

¶40

The appellants are the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board and its authorities, who, by filing the present writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, have called in question the judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated 07.11.2023 in Writ Petition No.19906 of 2023.

¶41

2.1 The writ petition came to be allowed setting aside the notification dated 30.08.2021 issued under Section 3(1) and the second notification of even date under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Act’ for the sake of brevity).

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:13025-DB WA No. 39 of 2024

¶44

2.2 The prayer in the writ petition was to set aside the said notifications and further to declare that the acquisition of the lands of the petitioners initiated under the provisions of the Act had lapsed.

¶45

The case of the petitioners, as could be gathered from the pleadings, are inter alia that they had been owning lands bearing Survey Nos.58, 59, 61, 62/2, 63/P2, 66, 69, 70 and 71 situated at Soothriyatellohalli Village, Devanahalli Taluk, Channarayapatna Hobli, Bengaluru Rural District. It was also their case that they were in possession of the said lands. It was stated that in order to develop the lands, the petitioners entered into joint development agreement with one Mr. Deepak S C Chandrashekar and General Power of Attorney dated 23.10.2020 was executed along therewith.

¶46

3.1 It was further stated that the petitioners had also made an application before the Special Land Acquisition Officer of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’ for the sake of brevity)

¶47

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:13025-DB WA No. 39 of 2024

¶48

and that the Board had informed the petitioners that the lands comprising of the aforesaid survey numbers were not the subject matter of acquisition. The petitioners stated that they also obtained the conversion certificate for change of land from agricultural use to residential use; the zone change certificate was also obtained. It was stated that the competent planning authority, Bengaluru had also allowed change of designation of the land. It was further the case that the conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural as required under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 was also certified. The maps were approved by the planning authority.

¶49

3.2 In other words, it was the case of the petitioners that in respect of the lands in question, not only the joint development agreement was executed, but all the formalities were also completed and statutory certifications were obtained for using the land for the proposed developmental purpose.

¶50

3.3 It was the aforementioned lands which were sought to be acquired by issuing the notifications under Section 3(1) as

¶51

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:13025-DB WA No. 39 of 2024

¶52

well as under Section 28(1) of the Act, which notifications came to be changed in the writ petition for their validity and legality.

¶53

3.4 The main ground of challenge to the said notifications was that the acquisition of lands of the petitioners acted upon thereunder was in violation of the circulars dated 03.03.2007 and 18.03.2013 issued by respondent No.1. It was contended before learned Single Judge that this Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs Sri Venkateshappa and others, which was Writ Appeal No.461 of 2016, held that carrying out of survey under the said circular before adverting to the acquisition of land was mandatory requirement.

¶54

In the present appeal, same arguments were canvassed

¶55

by both the sides, which were advanced before learned Single Judge.

¶56

The circulars dated 03.03.2007 and 18.03.2013, on which challenge to the legality of acquisition of the petitioners’

¶57

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:13025-DB WA No. 39 of 2024

¶58

lands is rested, are on record. Both the circulars deal with the procedure to be adopted for acquisition of land on behalf of the Board for industrial purpose. The circular dated 03.03.2007 was issued since it was noticed by the authorities that the lands were being acquired without verification and that certain lands and structures such as, temples, schools, crematoriums, residential houses, industrial units etc., were also used to be unmindfully included for the purpose of acquisition and even the hospitals, basic amenity areas, farms and fertile lands were got confiscated in the acquisition process.

¶59

5.1 The Department of Commerce and Industries, Government of Karnataka, therefore, by issuing the said circular dated 03.03.2007, laid down the procedure to be undergone before preparing the preliminary notification for acquiring the land for industrial purpose. It provided that survey should be conducted. It contemplated that temple, memorial, school, playground, dwelling houses etc., should not be included in the preliminary notification, so also the

¶60

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:13025-DB WA No. 39 of 2024

¶61

industrial units should be excluded. It was also stated that where the local planning authorities and competent authorities have given permission for change of land be also not included in the acquisition. The categories of hospital, petrol station, farms, fertile lands and the core village area were also provided to be excluded from the acquisition.

¶62

5.2 Similarly, the subsequent circular dated 18.03.2013 was clarificatory and was issued to eliminate the lacuna in the earlier circular. It again warned that the lands were acquired by the Board without proper verification. Therefore, it was reiterated that various categories of lands as indicated should be excluded from the preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the Act. It may be stated at the cost of repetition that the categories of lands provided to be kept out of the purview of the notifications included the lands approved for residential purposes by the local authorities and lands where conversion was granted by the competent authorities.

¶63

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:13025-DB WA No. 39 of 2024

¶64

5.3 Reverting to the facts of the present case, the above described lands of the petitioners were allowed to be converted and final conversion order was issued on 29.09.2021 permitting to switch over to residential use of the land from agricultural use by the District Collector, Bengaluru Rural District.

¶65

5.3.1 The provisional layout plan was sanctioned by the competent planning authority on 07.01.2022. The application was filed on 09.02.2021 for change of use before the Urban Development Department of the government and after scrutinizing the application, the order was passed on 22.07.2021. On 27.08.2021, the District Collector and other competent authorities declared the land to be the industrial area on behalf of the Board by issuing the notification under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Act and also issued the notice dated 22.01.2022 subsequently.

¶66

5.4 The above are the admitted dates which demonstrated

¶67

that the lands of the petitioners were converted from

¶68

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:13025-DB WA No. 39 of 2024

¶69

agricultural use to residential use and necessary certifications were also issued before issuance of the notification under Section 28(1) of the Act.

¶70

5.5 When the aforesaid circulars dated 03.03.2007 and 18.03.2013 provided not to subject the lands for which conversion was permitted for acquisition purpose under the Act and not to include in the preliminary notification, the respondents-authorities, in including the petitioners’ lands for acquisition, conducted themselves contrary to the provisions of the said circulars.

¶71

5.6 In Sri Venkateshappa ( supra ), this Court held that the said circulars contained the command for the authorities not to subject the lands categorized therein and that the classified lands to be excluded from the acquisition. In the said case, the land was converted for non-agricultural purpose and garden land and yet, they were brought under acquisition. Learned Single Judge, dealing with the said case, set aside the acquisition which was confirmed by the Division Bench.

¶72

12 -

¶73

NC: 2024:KHC:13025-DB WA No. 39 of 2024

¶74

Learned Single Judge, in his judgment and order, observed that the petitioners had not only obtained No-Objection Certificate for change of land use and the conversion was permitted, the endorsement suggested that the procedure contemplated under the circulars was not complied with.

¶75

6.1 Noticing the law laid down in Writ Appeal No.461 of 2016 as above, learned Single Judge observed thus,

¶76

“8…it would appear that main ground of challenge against acquisition proceedings initiated by respondents is on ground of nonapplication of mind prior to issuance of notification under Section 1(3) and Section 3(1) of KIAD Act, due to failure to comply with circulars dated 03.03.2007 and 18.03.2013. In W.P.no.17836/2013, this Court has held that a duty was cast on SLAO to submit report after spot inspection as contemplated under circulars dated 03.03.2007 and 18.03.2013. In W.A.no.461/2016, a Division Bench of this Court rejected contention of respondents that circular would not have statutory flavor and therefore cannot be invoked against acquisition. Consequently, order of learned Single Judge quashing acquisition notifications was upheld.”

¶77

13 -

¶78

NC: 2024:KHC:13025-DB WA No. 39 of 2024

¶79

In the above view, no error could be brooked in the judgment and order of learned Single Judge in setting aside the notifications dated 30.08.2021 under Section 3(1) and 28(1) of the Act. The writ appeal stands meritless and is hereby dismissed.

¶80

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶81

Sd/JUDGE

¶82

THM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59

The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board v. R. Ramakrishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board v. R. Ramakrishna

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

Smt Yashodhamma Vs Sri Rajendra Kumar Kataria IAS

Sri Vijaykumar S a Vs Smt C Shikha

Sri Gopala Reddy Y Vs Rajendra Kataria