Allowed

Smt. Gopamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2024WP/5634/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition sought quashing of the 1999 preliminary notification under the KIADB Act acquiring the petitioner's land for the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project. As a coordinate bench had found the acquisition lapsed after 22 years without declaration or final notification, this court quashed the notification as to petitioner's land.

What did the court decide?

Preliminary notification dated 03.07.1999 quashed in respect of Sy.No.380 measuring 15 guntas at Kesare Village, Mysuru Taluk; writ petition allowed.

Smt. Gopamma Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:11024 WP No. 5634 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 5634 OF 2024 (LA-KIADB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. GOPAMMA W/O SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS NO 317, MAHADEVAPURA ROAD RAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU 570019.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. K R LINGARAJU., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE M S BUILDING, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU 560001.

¶12

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

¶13

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER NO 49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU 560001.

¶14

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BORD (BMICP) NO 2083/2, 1ST CROSS SUBASH NAGARA, MANDYA 571401.

¶15

THE BENGALURUD MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:11024 WP No. 5634 of 2024

¶18

REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY NO 5, 2ND FLOOR, LOOP LANE RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU 560009.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R-1; SRI. GOPAL V.BILALMANE, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3; SRI. RAVINDRA V.REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETTION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.CI 196 SPQ 98 DATED 03/07/1999 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION PART-III NO.762, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, PUBLISHED UNDER SECTION 28(1) OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACT., 1966 FOR FORMATION OF BENGALURU MYSURU INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR PROJECT IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER LAND BEARING SY.NO.380 MEASURING 15 GUNTAS SITUATED AT KESARE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT (SL.NO.18 IN THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION) IN TERMS OF ORDERS IN WRIT PETITION NO.6877/2021 (LA-KIADB) DATED 22/04/2021, VIDE ANNEXURE-F.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed seeking quashing of the preliminary notification dated 03.07.1999 published under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short, “ the Act ”) in respect of land bearing Sy.No.380 measuring 15 guntas situated at

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11024 WP No. 5634 of 2024

¶26

Kesare Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk and District, which belongs to the petitioner, in terms of the order dated 22.04.2021 passed in W.P.No.6877/2021.

¶27

It is not in dispute that in W.P.No.6877/2021, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, has recorded a clear finding that though the preliminary notification was issued on 03.07.1999, neither an order under Section 28(3) of the Act, nor a final notification was issued even though 22 years had elapsed and therefore, the acquisition proceedings had stood abandoned and lapsed.

¶28

In my view, since the impugned notification insofar as the petitioner therein had already been quashed, on the same analogy and principle, the present writ petition also deserves to be allowed.

¶29

The argument of the KIADB that the declaration could not be issued due to administrative lapses cannot be taken into consideration after this Court has recorded a clear finding in the aforementioned order that non-

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:11024 WP No. 5634 of 2024

¶32

issuance of declaration after long lapse of 22 years has rendered the acquisition proceedings invalid.

¶33

Accordingly, the preliminary notification dated 03.07.1999 insofar as petitioner’s land bearing Sy.No.380 measuring 15 guntas situate at Kesare Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk and District stands quashed.

¶34

Writ Petition is accordingly allowed .

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49

Smt. Gopamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Gopamma v. 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

Smt Jayamma Vs Sri Vikas S Reddy

Sri. Venkatappa Vs State of Karnataka

Smt.Narayanamma Vs M/S the Prince Builders and Developers

Sri Govindaraju Vs the Prl Secretary

C. Shanthamma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Smt Ashwathamma Since Dead Represented by Her Lr Sri Purushotham Vs Sri T N Rudresh