Partly allowed

Munishamanna. B v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2024WP/4782/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged preliminary (S.28(1)) and final (S.28(4)) notifications acquiring his land by KIADB, contending the land had been converted for non-agricultural use before notification and his objections were ignored. Following an earlier writ petition on the same notification, the court allowed the petition and remanded the matter.

What did the court decide?

Final Notification dated 21.01.2023 under S.28(4) set aside qua the subject land; matter remanded to KIADB; petitioner permitted to file additional objections by 13.01.2025.

Munishamanna. B Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:50334 WP No. 4782 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 4782 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MUNISHAMANNA. B, S/O LATE BYRAPPA, AGED 48 YEARS, R/AT MALLIYAPPANAHALLI, VEMGAL HOBLI, KURUGAL POST, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR - 563 102.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. RAHUL S. REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO AND MEMBER, NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR, R.P. BUILDING, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-1, THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR, R.P. BUILDING, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI M. RAO, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:50334 WP No. 4782 of 2023

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE NOTIFICATION DATED 12/08/2020 IN NO.CI.156.SPQ(E)2020 PASSED BY THE R-1 UNDER SECTION 28(1) OF THE KIAD ACT VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND THE NOTIFICATION DATED 21/01/2023 IN NO.CI.156.SPQ(E)2020 PASSED BY THE R-1 UNDER SEC 28(4) OF THE KIAD ACT VIDE ANNEXURE-H ONLY, WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITIONERS LAND AND ETC.,

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the notification dated 12.08.2020 issued by respondent No.1 under Section 28(1) of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act (for short, the Act) and notification dated 21.01.2023 issued by respondent No.1, under Section 28(4) of the Act, in respect of the subject land.

¶21

It is the case of the petitioner that, the land in question has been converted by the Competent Authority on 23.12.2016, prior to the issuance of the notification referred to above and therefore, the respondent-KIADB has issued the Final Notification without considering the objections filed by the petitioner herein, stating that the land in question has been converted by the Competent Authority prior to the issuance of

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:50334 WP No. 4782 of 2023

¶23

the Preliminary Notification. Accordingly, writ petition is presented.

¶24

Heard Sri. Rahul S.Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Smt. Rashmi M.Rao, learned High Court Government Pleader, appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri.H.L.Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶25

It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the impugned notification under Section 28(4) of the Act was passed on 21.01.2023, without considering the objection filed by the petitioner, insofar as the conversion of the land in question has been made prior to the issuance of final notification and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.

¶26

In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of this Court in WP.No.17039/2022 and connected writ petitions disposed of on 11.09.2024 and submitted that, the very same notification passed under Section 28(3) and 28(4) of the Act, was quashed by this Court.

¶27

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:50334 WP No. 4782 of 2023

¶28

Per contra , Sri.H.L.Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, sought to justify the impugned notification.

¶29

In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that, the land in question has been sought to be acquired by the respondent-KIADB for the purpose of establishment of industrial area and accordingly, preliminary notification was issued under Section 28(1) of the Act on 12.08.2020, followed by the Final Notification dated 21.01.2023 under Section 28(4) of the Act.

¶30

It is the grievance of the petitioner that, the impugned notification has been issued after the land in question has been converted by the petitioner for nonagricultural purpose as per the order dated 23.12.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar (Annexure-B).

¶31

In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the aforementioned aspects, this Court insofar as the very same notification is concerned in WP.No.17039/2022, disposed of on 11.09.2024, allowed the writ petition and accordingly, quashed the Final Notification dated 21.01.2023 and as such,

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:50334 WP No. 4782 of 2023

¶33

remanded the matter to the respondent-KIADB to take decision in the matter, in accordance with law, after considering the objection filed by the petitioner therein, if any. In that view of the matter, I pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i. Writ petition is allowed .

¶36

ii. The Final Notification dated 21.01.2023 issued under Section 28(4) of the Act, insofar as the land in question is hereby set-aside.

¶37

iii. The matter stands remanded to the respondentKIADB for fresh consideration, in the light of the observation made above.

¶38

iv. The petitioner is at liberty to file additional objections, if any, in respect of the land in question on or before 13.01.2025 and the respondent-KIADB is directed to consider the objection, if any, filed by the petitioner, as stated above, in accordance with law and take decision in the matter.

¶39

Sd/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶40

Munishamanna. B v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munishamanna. B 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

Smt. Savithramma Vs Bangalore Development Authority

V S Lakshminarayana Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

R Shashidhar Vs the Commissioner

Sri Ramalingu P Vs Mysore Urban Development Authority

Premakumari K L Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer

Muthamma Vs the State of Karnataka