Allowed

Gomedh Ambika Girinar Bhakthi Dham Trust v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Mar 2024WP/2554/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A trust challenged a KIADB preliminary acquisition notification covering its land. The Board admitted the land was omitted from the Section 28(4) final notification, showing it did not intend to acquire it. The Court quashed the preliminary and related notifications qua the land and directed issue of an NOC if sought.

What did the court decide?

Preliminary Notification dated 07.02.2022 and Notifications under Sections 1(3) and 3(1) of the KIAD Act quashed qua petitioner's land; NOC to be issued on request.

Gomedh Ambika Girinar Bhakthi Dham Trust Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:9992 WP No. 2554 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 2554 OF 2024 (LA-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

GOMEDH AMBIKA GIRINAR BHAKTHI DHAM TRUST A REGISTERED RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE TRUST, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT OPP TO VEER NURSERY, GROVER ZAMPA VINEYARD DEVANAHALLI ROAD, RAGHUNATHAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 561203 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE SRI ANIL KUMAR C JAIN S/O CHANGALAL P JAIN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 5/1, ”UMA KRUPA”, UPPER PIPELINE ROAD, OPP TO SIHA PLAY HOME, KUMARA PARK WEST SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU 560020. …PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001.

¶13

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:9992 WP No. 2554 of 2024

¶15

DEVELOPMENT BOARD BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER, NO 49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACECOURSE ROAD BENGALURU 560001.

¶16

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AREA NO 49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACECOURSE ROAD BENGALURU 560001.

¶17

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER 2 KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO 14/3, CFC BUILDING, MAHARSHI ARVIND BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE 560001.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT.B.P.RADHA., AGA FOR R-1; SRI.B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-4)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THR PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. CI 17 SPQC 2022 DATED 07.02.22 ISSUED BY R2 IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS LAND BEARING SY.NO. 127/6 MEASURING 1 ACRE 09 GUNTAS SITUATED AT KONAGHATTA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT ANNEXURE-D, ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner is seeking quashing of the Preliminary

¶24

Notification dated 07.02.2022 insofar as it relates to the petitioner’s land bearing Sy.No.127/6 measuring 1 acre 09

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9992 WP No. 2554 of 2024

¶26

guntas situated at Konaghatta village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk. The petitioner is also seeking quashing of the endorsement dated 16.09.2023 by which the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (for short, “the KIADB”) has stated that his lands have been included in the Notification issued under Sections 3(1), 1(1) and 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short, “the Act”).

¶27

It is the case of the petitioner that his lands were declared as industrial area and was thereafter notified to be acquired for the purpose of establishing the industrial area. However, on objections being filed to the effect that the petitioner had constructed a temple, the Land Acquisition Officer while considering the objections passed an order under Section 28(3) of the Act stating that it would be appropriate to delete said lands while issuing a declaration under Section 28(4) of the Act, and despite this, the endorsement has been issued that the lands are the subject matter of the Notification under Section 28(1).

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:9992 WP No. 2554 of 2024

¶30

The KIADB has filed its counter, in which it is stated

¶31

as follows –

¶32

“5. It is submitted that, admittedly, the answering respondent has issued the notices under Section 28(2) of the KIAD Act, 1966 and the petitioners herein have participated in the acquisition proceedings and have filed their objections. It is submitted that the answering respondent has passed an order under Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act, 1966 considering the objections of the petitioners and has proposed the state government to consider the objections of the petitioners while issuing the notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act, 1966. The respondent no.1 has issued the notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act, 1966 sans the lands of the petitioners. A copy of the order under Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act, 1966 is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-R1 and a Copy of the Final Notification is produced along with the writ petition at ANNEXURE-H.”

¶33

As could be seen from the above, the KIADB has admitted that while issuing the declaration under Section 28(4) of the Act, the lands of the petitioner have been omitted, thereby indicating that the KIADB does not intend

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:9992 WP No. 2554 of 2024

¶35

to acquire the lands of the petitioner for the purpose of establishing the industrial area.

¶36

In view of the above, it would be necessary to quash the Preliminary Notification and also the Notifications issued under Section 1(3) and 3(1) of the Act, insofar as it relates to the petitioner’s land and if the petitioner to seek grant of an NOC, the KIADB shall issue the same since the lands are not notified for the purpose of establishing the industrial area. Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed .

¶37

SD/JUDGE

¶38

HNM

¶39

LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 29

Gomedh Ambika Girinar Bhakthi Dham Trust v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gomedh Ambika Girinar Bhakthi Dham Trust 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

Sri. Jagadish Vs Smt. Munimaramma

Sri. Thimme Gowda Vs the Principal Secretary

Vasantha Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

C P Venkatesh Vs Nagarathnamma

Mr. P Diwakar Rao Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Gangegowda Vs Sri Manjunatha