Allowed

B. M. Anjaneya Murthy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Dec 2024WP/12470/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A landowner challenged the KIADB final notification acquiring his land and the endorsement rejecting his objections without a joint survey. The court set aside the final notification and remanded the matter to the Special Land Acquisition Officer to consider the petitioner's objections and pass a fresh final notification within three months.

What did the court decide?

Final Notification dated 07.03.2023 set aside; matter remanded to respondent No.2 to consider objections dated 26.04.2022 and pass fresh Final Notification within three months.

B. M. Anjaneya Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:50671 WP No. 12470 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 12470 OF 2024 (LA-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

B.M. ANJANEYA MURTHY, S/O LATE H. MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT BYRADENAHALLI VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VISHWANATH R. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA

¶13

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT.

¶15

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.39, 'SHANTHIGRAHA', 4TH FLOOR, BHARATH SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:50671 WP No. 12470 of 2024

¶18

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL

¶19

AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, 4TH AND 5TH FLOORS, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001,

¶20

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH B, AGA FOR R1; SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.CL 198 S.P.Q(E) 2023 DATED 07.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS (ANNEXURE-F) AND ETC.,

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶28

In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the Notification dated 07.03.2023 (Annexure-F) passed by respondent No.1-State and Endorsement dated 05.02.2024 (Annexure-P), issued by the respondent-Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (for short, KIADB).

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:50671 WP No. 12470 of 2024

¶31

Sri. Vishwanath R.Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, the Impugned Endorsement dated 05.02.2024 (Annexure-P) issued by respondent No.2, rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner, opposing the acquisition proceedings, while issuing Final Notification dated 07.03.2023, under Section 28(4) of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short, KIAD Act) is not proceeded by an enquiry and therefore, sought for joint measurement to be made insofar as the land in question and take decision in the matter in accordance with law.

¶32

The said submission was opposed by Sri.B.B.Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 that, the Award Notice has already issued under Section 29(2) of KIAD Act.

¶33

In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful examination of the Endorsement dated 05.02.2024 (Annexure-P), would indicate

¶34

that no joint survey has been conducted at the instance of the petitioner to determine the compensation that may be paid or

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:50671 WP No. 12470 of 2024

¶37

in respect of the validity of acquisition proceedings are concerned.

¶38

In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the declaration of law made by this Court in WP.No.26546/2023 disposed of on 26.09.2024, I am of the view that, the respondent-KIADB be permitted to consider the objections filed by the petitioner at Annexure-D dated 26.04.2022 and take decision in the matter by passing the Final Notification there under. In the result, I pass the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

i. Writ petition is allowed .

¶41

ii. Final Notification dated 07.03.2023 (Annexure-F) passed by respondent-authorities, under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act, is hereby set-aside and the matter stands remanded to respondent No.2 to take decision in the matter, after considering the Objection dated 26.04.2022 (Annexure-D), filed by the petitioner and to take decision accordingly.

¶42

iii. The said exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶43

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶44

B. M. Anjaneya Murthy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. M. Anjaneya Murthy 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G H Nagaraj Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Santosh P. G. Vs the Commissioner

Narayanaswamy C Vs M/S Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation

Smt. Varalakshmamma Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Manju N Jadav Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Susan Cherian Vs State of Karnataka