Partly allowed

Sri Dyavegowda v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Aug 2024WP/5385/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Agriculturists sought compliance with earlier High Court directions requiring KIADB to hear their representations for exclusion of acquired lands from an industrial area and for family employment under lease-cum-sale agreements. The court found no proper notice or hearing was given, permitted fresh representations to KIADB with a 12-week disposal timeline, and rejected cancellation of allotments s

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Dyavegowda Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:31537 WP No. 5385 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5385 OF 2020 (GM-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. DYAVEGOWDA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR

¶9

SRI. DEVARAJ, S/O LATE DYAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶10

SRI NAGARAJU S/O BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶11

SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O BYREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SRI C.B. MANJEGOWDA S/O LATE BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶14

SRI. R. SHIVANNA S/O LATE R RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

¶15

SRI BETTEGOWDA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,

¶16

SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE BETTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,

¶17

SRI DYAVEGOWDA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:31537 WP No. 5385 of 2020

¶20

SRI CHIKKEGOWDA S/O LATE DYAVEGOWDA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

¶21

PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶22

SMT. CHANNAMMA W/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,

¶23

SRI. N. BOREGOWDA S/O NINGEGOWDA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR.

¶24

SRI. C.B. PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶25

SRI MAYEGOWDA S/O SOMBEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,

¶26

SRI NANJEGOWDA S/O BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶27

SRI DYAVEGOWDA S/O NINGAIAH @ NINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,

¶28

SRI PUTTANINGE GOWDA S/O PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

¶29

SRI DEVARAJEGOWDA S/O CHALUVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,

¶30

SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O BASAVEGOWDA,

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:31537 WP No. 5385 of 2020

¶32

AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

¶33

SRI. NINGEGOWDA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR.

¶34

SRI CHANDRA S/O LATE NINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶35

SRI.NINGEGOWDA, SINCE DECEASED, BY HIS LR

¶36

C.N. SATISH S/O LATE NINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶37

SRI. NINGAIAH S/O DYAVAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR.

¶38

RANGASWAMY S/O LATE NINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶39

SRI MANJEGOWDA S/O PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS

¶40

SMT. JAYAMMA W/O DEVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶41

SMT. BETTAMMA W/O NINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS

¶42

SRI. RAMAIAH S/O PUTTASWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS

¶43

SRI MALLAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR.

¶44

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:31537 WP No. 5385 of 2020

¶45

SRI NINGARAJU S/O LATE MALLAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶46

SRI. BASAVEGOWDA S/O BETTEGOWDA

¶47

SRI. KULLEGOWDA S/O LATE BASAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶48

SRI. CHANDREGOWDA S/O SUBBEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶49

SRI THIMMAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR.

¶50

SRI RANGAIAH S/O LATE THIMMAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR.

¶51

SRI SANTHOSH S/O LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶52

ALL PETITIONER NO.1 TO 26 ARE AGRICULTURIST'S PETITIONERS 1 TO 26 ALL ARE

¶53

RESIDING AT CHIKKABASAVANAHALLI, KAUSHIKA POST, SHANTIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 203.

¶54

SRI. SOMBEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR.

¶55

SRI HONNEGOWDA @ SRINIVAS S/O LATE SOMBEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶56

SRI CHUNCHEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR.

¶57

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:31537 WP No. 5385 of 2020

¶58

ASHOK S/O LATE CHUNCHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶59

SRI ANANTHARAJU S/O SIDDABASAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶60

SRI THOTINANJEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR.

¶61

30(A). SOMBEGOWDA S/O LATE THOTINANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶62

30(B). SRI. NINGARAJU S/O. LATE THOTINANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶63

SRI. BOREGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR.

¶64

SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O LATE BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶65

SRI. BETTEGOWDA S/O. BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

¶66

SRI. DYAVEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR.

¶67

SRI CHOEDAPPARA NAGARAJU, S/O. LATE DYAVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶68

SRI BETTEGWODA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR.

¶69

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:31537 WP No. 5385 of 2020

¶70

SRI NINGEGOWDA S/O LATE BETTEGOWDA, AGED 60YEARS,

¶71

SRI DYAVEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR.

¶72

SMT LALITHA W/O. LATE DYAVEGWODA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶73

SRI LAKSHMEGOWDA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR.

¶74

36(A). SRI NAGEGOWDA S/O LATE LAKSHMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶75

36(B). SRI SURESH S/O LATE LAKSHMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶76

SRI. HANUMEGOWDA S/O KARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60YEARS,

¶77

SRI BOREGOWDA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR.

¶78

SRI MARIGOWDA, S/O LATE BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶79

CHUCHEGOWDA SINCE DECEASE BY HIS LR.

¶80

SRI KUNIYAPPANA ANNEGOWDA, S/O LATE CHUCHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58YEARS,

¶81

SRI BOREGOWDA S/O SANNA NANJEGOWDA,

¶82

NC: 2024:KHC:31537 WP No. 5385 of 2020

¶83

¶84

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶85

SRI. JAGADISH S/O AJJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶86

SRI. KEMPEGOWDA S/O VENKATEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶87

OCC: ALL PETITIONER NO.27-42 ARE AGRICULTURISTS PETITIONERS 27 TO 42 ARE RESIDING AT CHIKKABASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE KAUSHIKA, M. HOSAKOPPALU POST SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 203.

¶88

…PETITIONERS

¶89

(BY SRI. NANDA KISHORE, ADVOCATE)

¶90

AND:

¶91

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶92

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB), NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶93

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB), RANGE OFFICE, MYSURU - 570 016.

¶94

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:31537 WP No. 5385 of 2020

¶95

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN - 563 201.

¶96

M/S HASSAN CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS' SOCIETIES UNION LIMITED, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, B.M.ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶97

M/S LAKSHMI RANGANATHA ENGINEERING WORKS, DODDABASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, M. HOSAKOPPALU, HASSAN - 573 201, REPRESETNED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. D.R. KUMARASWAMY, S/O. T. RANGEGOWDA.

¶98

KARANTAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB), NO.49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHVAN RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶99

…RESPONDENTS

¶100

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N, HCGP FOR R1 AND R4; SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R3 AND R7; SRI. B. SUDHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶101

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ALLOTMENT LETTER DATED 24/26.9.2019 AS WELL AS THE CONFIRMATORY LETTER OF ALLOTMENT DATED 10/11.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE R-7 ISSUED TO R-5 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND E AND ETC.

¶102

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶103

¶104

NC: 2024:KHC:31537 WP No. 5385 of 2020

¶105

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶106

ORAL ORDER

¶107

The only grievance of the petitioners is that respondentauthorities have not complied with the directions issued by this

¶108

Court in their earlier Writ Petition in W.P.Nos.4704447069/2012 along with connected matters in its order dated 29.07.2013 produced at Annexure-F and W.P.Nos.4105241072/2013 and connected matters in its order dated 21.03.2019, wherein, this Court at Para No.20 has passed the following order:

¶109

20. Hence, the endorsements impugned bearing No.CI 280 SPQ 2013 dated 05.06.2013, No.BhuSwa (3) C.R./2012-13/1280 dated 25.08.2012, No.CI 39 SPQ 2013 dated 18.11.2013 and No.CI 447 SPQ 2013, dated 05.09.2013 are quashed and the proceedings are restored to the file of respondent No.1 - State to reconsider the representations made by the petitioners seeking exclusion of lands in terms of Section 4 of the Act. Respondent No.1 - State as well as respondent No.2 - Board shall consider the representations to be filed, if any, by the petitioners seeking for employment to any of the family members in accordance with the terms of the lease cum sale agreement entered into between the Board and the lessees. A decision shall be taken by the respondent No.1 - State and respondent No.2 - Board in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. All rights and contentions of the parties are kept

¶110

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:31537 WP No. 5385 of 2020

¶111

open. This exercise shall be done by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in an expedite manner, in any event, not later than four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

¶112

In terms of the aforesaid order the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had directed the respondent-KIADB to consider the representation of the petitioners with regard to the possibility of excluding their lands from the industrial area or to consider the representation for employment to any of the family members in accordance with the terms of the lease cum sale agreements entered into between the Board and the lessees.

¶113

Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition submits that the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioners specifically, as directed. However an order has been passed by the respondent-KIADB on 22.11.2019 rejecting the representation of the persons who are similarly situated as that of the petitioners. He submits that even while passing the said order petitioners have not been given opportunity as directed by this Court. Hence, seeks for direction to the respondent-

¶114

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:31537 WP No. 5385 of 2020

¶115

KIADB for consideration of their representation. As regards the relief sought for quashing of the allotment letters issued by respondent-KIADB in favour of private respondents, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the respondentKIADB have not complied with the directions given by this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petitions, the allotment needs to be cancelled. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition.

¶116

The learned counsel for the respondent-KIADB on the other hands drawing attention of this Court to the contents of the order dated 22.11.2019 more particularly para No.2 of page No.30 submits that, there is a specific reference to the writ petition of the petitioners herein indicating that petitioners were indeed issued with notice and were given opportunity of being heard and only thereafter an order has been passed, warranting no interference in the matter. He further submits that in view of the pendency of this writ petition, respondentKIADB has allotted alternative land to respondent Nos.5 and 6. However, he submits that since petitioners were given opportunity of being heard and their case having been rejected, relief sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶117

12 -

¶118

NC: 2024:KHC:31537 WP No. 5385 of 2020

¶119

Heard, perused the records.

¶120

The order dated 29.07.2013 passed in

¶121

W.P.Nos.47044-47069/2012 along with connected matters produced at Annexure-F and the order dated 21.03.2019 passed in W.P.No.41052-41072/2013 clubbed with connected matters produced at Annexure-A indicates that the respondentKIADB were directed by this Court to consider the representation of the petitioners for exclusion of their lands from the industrial area and also to consider the request for employment of any of the family members in accordance with the terms of lease cum sale agreement entered into between the respondent-KIADB and the lessees. Though as seen at Annexure-R4 dated 22.11.2019 produced by the respondentKIADB in its statement of objections, the respondent-KIADB has taken up enquiry in the case No.LAQ(2)CR-43/2019-2020 and has rejected the representation of the parties referred to in the cause title of the said order. It is not clear whether the petitioners were indeed issued with any notice of the said proceedings or they were given any opportunity of being heard. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that petitioners were neither made parties to the said proceedings

¶122

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:31537 WP No. 5385 of 2020

¶123

nor were issued with any notice, as such question of petitioners having been afforded opportunity would not arise. Though learned counsel for the respondent-KIADB made attempt to pointing out paragraph No.2 of page No.30 of the said order wherein there is a reference to the writ petition filed by the petitioners, that petitioners were also given opportunity, the said submission cannot be accepted as the cause title of the said order at Annexure-R4 do not indicate the names of the petitioners herein. Mere reference of the writ petition in the body of the order cannot be read and construed to be the proceedings providing opportunity to the petitioners to be heard. More particularly in the light of specific direction given by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid order to hear the petitioners personally. Thus there is no compliance of direction given by this Court.

¶124

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that though respondent-KIADB has acquired the land, they are still in continuing the possession of acquired land, which is stoutly disputed by the learned counsel for the respondentKIADB.

¶125

14 -

¶126

NC: 2024:KHC:31537 WP No. 5385 of 2020

¶127

Be that as it is, the petition is required to be allowed for the limited purpose of consideration of representation of the petitioners by the respondent-KIADB as directed by this Court.

¶128

The petitioners have also sought for cancellation of allotment letters issued by the respondent-KIADB against respondent Nos.5 and 6. In view of respondent-KIADB having been allotted alternative land to respondent Nos.5 and 6 the question of cancellation of said allotment would not arise. Accordingly, the said prayers are rejected. For the aforesaid reason, the following:

¶129

ORDER

¶130

(a) The petition is partly allowed .

¶131

(b) The petitioners are permitted to file fresh representation to the respondent-KIADB within thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order in the light of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.47044-47069/2012 and connected matters in its order dated 29.07.2013 produced at Annexure-F and W.P.Nos.4105241072/2013 and connected matters in its dated 21.03.2019 produced at Annexure-A.

¶132

15 -

¶133

NC: 2024:KHC:31537 WP No. 5385 of 2020

¶134

¶135

representation and pass appropriate orders keeping in mind the directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions and communicate the said order to the petitioners within an outer limit of twelve weeks from the date of petitioners submitting the representation as directed therein.

¶136

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶137

GPG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 CT: BHK

Sri Dyavegowda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri Dyavegowda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs Anitha N Vs Mrs N Sunanda Bai

Sri. Prakash Vs Sri. Muniyappa

Athrijalu Sree Mahalingeshwara Temple Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Sham Earth Movers and Construction Company Vs Authorized Officer / Finance Officer

K T Govinde Gowda Vs Union of India

Sri.B.S.Satish Vs the Authorized Officer