Disposed

Mrs C Shashikala v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Feb 2024WP/2946/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge disposed of a writ petition challenging the acquisition and possession of agricultural land. Seeking to restrain KIADB, the court left petitioner's rights open and dissolved the interim status quo order pending the Division Bench decision in connected contempt matter. No final order on possession was made.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; interim status quo order dissolved; rights of petitioner left open for determination by Division Bench.

Mrs C Shashikala Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:4700 WP No. 2946 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 2946 OF 2024 (GM-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MRS. C.SHASHIKALA W/O M.JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O IGGALURU VILLAGE ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 560 081.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. DR.S.ARUMUGHAM, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD RASHTROTHANA BUILDING NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER.

¶15

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:4700 WP No. 2946 of 2024

¶18

NO.3/1, ARAVIND BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD

¶19

BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶20

M/S. PALRECHA INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPERS, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM OFFICE NO. 203 2^ND FLOOR, BATAVIA CHAMBERS KUMARA PARK ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR. PRAVEEN SHAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.286, 17^TH CROSS 8^TH MAIN, UPPER PALACE ORCHIDS SADASHIVANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 080.

¶21

THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR SURYANAGAR POLICE STATION ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 560 105.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 AND R5; SRI. B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R3 AND 4 AND THE POLICE TO TAKE POSSESSION OF AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY IN SY. NO. 83/4 MEASURING 1 ACRE 39 GUNTAS WITH RAISED CROPS THEREON OF IGGLUR VILLAGE, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, WITHOUT APPLICATION OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

¶25

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

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:4700 WP No. 2946 of 2024

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from taking possession of the agricultural property in Sy.No.83/4 measuring 1 acre 39 guntas of Igglur village, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Rural district.

¶29

Heard Sri.Dr.S.Arumugham, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Sri.Manjunath.K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 5 and Sri.B.B.Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3.

¶30

It transpires that the petitioner was owner in possession of the agricultural land which becomes the subject matter of possession at the hands of the KIADB by issuance of a preliminary notification under Section 28(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘Act’ for short) on 13-02-1996, after which a final notification comes to be issued under Section 28(4) of the Act on 19-04-1997.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:4700 WP No. 2946 of 2024

¶33

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents/Board that the Board took possession of the land way back in the year 1998 i.e., on 16-07-1998. The petitioner,

¶34

the land owner, has been agitating the rights since then and claims to be in possession of the property. The allottee had knocked at the doors of the Division Bench by filing a contempt in CCC No.252 of 2022 on the score that the possession of the land that is allotted is yet to be handed over to him. The Division Bench on 17-01-2024 has passed the following order:

¶35

“ORDER IN CCC No.252/2022

¶36

Learned Advocate for the complainant submits that physical possession of the land is not given to the complainant.

¶37

Shri T. Somashekar, learned Advocate for accused No.2-KIADB submits that physical possession was in fact given, but there was disturbance from third-parties and KIADB has approached Police for help.

¶38

Learned Advocates on both sides agree that acquisition was made in the year 1996. Challenging the acquisition, Writ Petitions were filed in the year 2016 by the appellants in connected Writ Appeals. The said Writ Petitions have been dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Judge.

¶39

Admittedly, complainant has paid money to the KIADB to purchase land in the year 2013. Nearly 11 years have been elapsed. Complainant's claim is that physical possession of the land has not been given to the purchaser by the KIADB which is an instrument of State. This is unfortunate.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:4700 WP No. 2946 of 2024

¶42

KIADB shall ensure that possession of the land is handed over to the complainant forthwith. If it is not possible, we direct the KIADB to deposit the amount received from the complainant along with 18% interest per annum from the date of receipt of money till the date of deposit, on or before 22.01.2024 with the Registrar General of this Court subject to further orders.

¶43

List these matters on 23.01.2024.”

¶44

On 31.01.2024 the matter is moved projecting urgency

¶45

and this Court grants an interim order of status quo . In the light of the order of Division Bench directing handing over of the possession of the land to the allottee, the order runs counter to what the Division bench has held in the contempt proceedings.

¶46

Therefore, leaving open the rights of the petitioner if any to be agitated before the Division Bench, the petition stands disposed. Interim order subsisting shall stand dissolved.

¶47

Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2024 stands disposed.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

BKP/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 33

Mrs C Shashikala v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs C Shashikala 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. Venkatesh S Vs Union Bank of India

Smt. Chandramma N Vs Bank of India

Lotus International Vs Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board

Mahila Fishermen Co. Operative Society (Ltd) Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ameerul Murtuza Vs Canara Bank

Sri. Sanjay S Kamath Vs Reliance Commercial Finance Ltd.