Dismissed

Smt Nagamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Jun 2024WP/6685/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged KIADB acquisition of lands forfeited to the State in 1950 under Section 163 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Court held they must first have the forfeiture order set aside; writ petition dismissed with liberty to challenge the Section 163 proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty reserved to challenge Section 163 forfeiture proceedings and, if successful, claim compensation.

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

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:21552 WP No. 6685 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 6685 OF 2022 (LA-KIADB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. NAGAMMA W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶8

SRI MANJUNATH S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶9

SRI SHIVASHANKAR S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶10

SRI RAJANNA

¶11

S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶12

Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SRI SRINIVASA S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶14

SRI JAGANNATHA S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶15

THE PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT GOWDANAHALLI GRAMA, TUMKUR TALUK, BELLAVI HOBLI - 572128

¶16

SRI GUNDAIAH S/O BALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:21552 WP No. 6685 of 2022

¶19

SRI LOKESH S/O GUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶20

SRI DHARNESH S/O GUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶21

THE PETITIONERS NO.7 TO 9 ARE RESIDING AT GOWDANAHALLI GRAMA, TUMKUR TALUK, BELLAVI HOBLI-572128

¶22

…PETITIONERS

¶23

(BY SRI. RAJESWARA P.N., ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, Dr. B.R. AMBEDKAR BEEDI, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY

¶26

THE THASILDAR TUMKURU DISTRICT TUMKURU-572102

¶27

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD IV AND V FLOORS, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER

¶28

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-NIMZ KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:21552 WP No. 6685 of 2022

¶31

MARUTHI TOWERS, 1^ST FLOOR NEXT TO SIT COLLEGE, B.H. ROAD, TUMKUR-572102

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI. YOGESH D NAIK, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2;

¶34

SRI. P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4)

¶35

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE FINAL NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.CI.10 SPQ 2014 DATED 30.10.2014 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE DATED 06.11.2014, ISSUED UNDER SECTION 28(4) OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966 (ANNEXURE-A) BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 3 IS IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LANDS ARE CONCERNED.

¶36

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

¶37

ORDER

¶38

Petitioners in the instant writ petition have

¶39

challenged the acquisition of their lands situated in several survey numbers of Gowdanahalli village, Bellavi hobli, Tumakuru Taluk and District.

¶40

The case of the petitioners is that they were the owners of the lands concerned. However, in the year 1950 itself, on the ground that the land revenue to the lands concerned have not been paid, the State

¶41

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:21552 WP No. 6685 of 2022

¶42

Government under the provisions of Section 163 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 ('the Act' for short) forfeited the lands and declared the same as 'Sarkari pada'. It is submitted that the said declaration has not been done in accordance with law, because of which the petitioners are still in possession of the properties concerned and are tilling the same. In the meanwhile, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board ('KIADB' for short) has sought to acquire the lands and has issued preliminary as well as final notifications. However, the names of the petitioners are not shown as the owners of the properties and no compensation is paid to them as their names were not reflected in the revenue documents. It is contended that the declaration under Section 163 of the Act being not done in a proper manner, petitioners reserve their rights to approach the State and pay the necessary dues and get back their lands. That being the position, it is submitted that they have locus to challenge the acquisition.

¶43

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:21552 WP No. 6685 of 2022

¶44

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State as well as the learned counsel for the KIADB contend that once an order is passed under Section 163 of the Act, the land stand forfeited in favour of the Government and the State becomes the owner of the property concerned. The State has no objection for the same to be transferred in favour of KIADB for forming an industrial layout for public purpose. It is further submitted that the lands stood transferred in favour of the State way back in the year 1950 as admitted by the petitioners themselves and they have not challenged the same and cannot maintain the present writ petition.

¶45

The contention of the petitioners is that their ancestors were the owners of the properties concerned. The lands have been forfeited under Section 163 of the Act. It is the contention of the petitioners that the order of forfeiture under Section 163 of the Act is erroneous and they could challenge the same. The lands have been acquired for the purpose of KIADB. Admittedly, the

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:21552 WP No. 6685 of 2022

¶48

concerned lands stand in the name of the State. Under the circumstances, unless the petitioners have the order passed under Section 163 of the Act set aside, the question of challenging the acquisition does not arise.

¶49

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to challenge the proceedings under Section 163 of the Act in the manner known to law and if they succeed, they can pray for compensation be awarded in their favour.

¶50

If any application is made for challenging the order under Section 163 of the Act, the same shall be decided by the concerned Authority without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove and will consider the

¶51

same in accordance with law.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

SMA

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Smt Nagamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Nagamma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Omprakash Pancharya Vs Sri N Prem Kumar

Sri. Ramaiah Reddy Vs Smt. Nagamma

Sri. Manjunath H Vs M/S Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.

Smt Venkatamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Hanumakka Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Dundegowda Vs the State of Karnataka