M Mahesh Reddy Vs Chief Executive Officer

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED SKETCH (ANNEXURE-F) IN RELATING TO PLOT NO.1A AT VEERASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA AND BRING IT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ACQUISITION OF LANDS MADE BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE FORMATION OF THE SAID INDUSTRIAL AREA, BY ISSUING A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT.

¶21

IN WRIT PETITION No.55481 OF 2017 BETWEEN:

¶22

SAGE ENTERPRISES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS PRESENTLY AT: NO.325, 8^TH CROSS, HAL 2^ND STAGE INDRA NAGAR, BENGALURU – 38. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER DR.N.SAILESWARAN S/O K.T.S. NAGAMANICKAM AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.8/1, GANDHI ROAD, SALEM – 636 007. TAMILNADU.

¶23

... PETITIONER

¶24

(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

¶25

3

¶26

AND:

¶27

1 . KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB) 2^ND FLOOR, R.P BUILDING NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 01 REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER.

¶28

2 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KIADB, NO.14/3, KIADB, 2^ND FLOOR R.P.BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 01.

¶29

3 . SECRETARY -3 KIADB, NO.14/3, KIADB 2^ND FLOOR, R.P.BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 01.

¶30

4 . DEVELOPMENT OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE ENGINEER-II KIADB, NO.14/3, KIADB 2^ND FLOOR, R.P.BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 01.

¶31

5 . ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KIADB, NO.14/3, KIADB 2^ND FLOOR, R.P.BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 01.

¶32

6 . SURVEYOR AND ASST.ENGINEER KIADB, NO.14/3, KIADB

¶33

4

¶34

2^ND FLOOR, R.P.BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 01.

¶35

... RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI B.R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-3; SRI H.L.PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2, R-4 TO R-6)

¶37

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY DTD 14.11.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-S; DIRECT THE R-1 TO EXECUTE THE SALE DEED TO THE REMAINING EXTENT OF LAND OUT OF 9992 SQ.MS. TO THE EXTENT OF LAND AVAILABLE IN 5870 SQ.MS BY FIXING THE BOUNDARIES AND EVICTING THE ENCROACHERS AS PER THE STATEMENT VIDE ANNEXURE-P SERIES.

¶38

THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 13.12.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶39

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶40

CAV ORDER

¶41

The petitioner in W.P.No.14732 of 2022 seeks modification of

¶42

the impugned sketch relating to Plot No.1A of Veerasandra Industrial Area to bring it in conformity with the acquisition of land made by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (‘the

¶43

5

¶44

Board’ for short). Petitioner in W.P.No.55481 of 2017 prefers the petition calling in question an order of the Board dated 14-11-2017 which denies registration of sale deed and has sought consequential direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to the Board to execute the sale deed of the remaining extent of land as obtaining in the prayer. Since both these petitions relate to the very piece of land, they are taken up together and considered by this common order.

¶45

Heard Sri A.S. Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.14732 of 2022, Sri T. Hareesh Bhandary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.55481 of 2017; Sri H.L. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent in Writ Petition No.14732 of 2022 and respondent No.2, 4 to 6 in Writ Petition No.55481 of 2017, and Sri B.R. Srinivasa Gowda, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 3 in Writ Petition No.55481 of 2017.

¶46

6

¶47

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows;-

¶48

WRIT PETITION NO. 14732 OF 2022:

¶49

The petitioner claims to be the owner of gramatana land bearing Kaneshmari Nos. 61 and 62 measuring 44,200 sq.ft. and Kaneshmari No.65/A measuring 20,000 sq.ft. both situated in Veerasandra Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District. On 28-02-1981 the Board issues a preliminary notification for acquisition of lands in Attibele Hobli for the formation of Veerasandra Industrial Area which included 4.02 acres of gramatana lands. In those 4.02 acres fell the property of the petitioner. On 22-08-1981, six months thereafter, the said gramatana lands were excluded from acquisition. The excluded lands from acquisition included the lands of the petitioner. Therefore, it is the averment in the petition that the lands of the petitioner were never a part of Veerasandra Industrial Area. It is the further averment in the petition that the Board prepares a sketch of the Industrial Area in which formation of plot 1A was shown to be Sy.Nos. 17, 18 and 19 which included portion of the land of the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that it was never a

¶50

7

¶51

part of acquisition. When things stood thus, the National Highway Authority of India issues a notification for acquisition of lands for widening of the road. A portion of the property in Kaneshmari Nos. 61 and 62 was notified for acquisition. The sketch prepared by the Board, according to the petitioner, is erroneous on a plain comparison of village map of Veerasandra village and the sketch of Veerasandra Industrial Area. The petitioner then claims to have submitted several representations seeking modification of the sketch of Veerasandra Industrial Area, to show that Plot No.1A was wrongly shown as acquired property, notwithstanding it being given up from acquisition. It is this prayer that is sought in the petition.

¶52

WRIT PETITION NO. 55481 OF 2017 :

¶53

This writ petition springs from the said property of Veerasandra Industrial Area Plot No.1A. This is provisionally allotted to the petitioner on 13-07-1981 and confirmatory letter was also issued on 24-11-1981. The petitioner is said to have then requested eviction of few families which were in the industrial estate and several litigations that galore which form part of the pleadings in the petition. A representation is made in the year

¶54

8

¶55

2017, in particular on 07-07-2017, requesting execution of a sale deed of an allotment that took place in the year 1981 and for possession certificate issued thereon. The representation submitted met its consideration on 14-11-2017 and a joint inspection was sought to be conducted to fix the boundaries and the result was resumption of entire land measuring 9992 sq.mts. which was allotted to the petitioner in the year 1981. Therefore, the aforesaid prayer in this petition.

¶56

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.14732 of 2022 would vehemently contend that his property was initially notified but subsequently dropped from acquisition proceedings. The present petitioner’s father had purchased the property in question and the petitioner had succeeded to the property, all of which have happened pursuant to dropping of land from acquisition. Therefore, he would submit that the question of his right to property would be violated if the sketch is not altered by the Board. The learned counsel for the petitioner in the companion petition W.P.No.55481 of 2017 would contend that he has been allotted the property by the Board. Therefore, a sale deed must be

¶57

9

¶58

executed in his favour. The order of resumption of the property that was allotted to the petitioner is, on the face of it, erroneous. He would submit that correspondences between the petitioner and the Board galore, as the Board did not bother to evict persons who were in unauthorized occupation of the land which was allotted to him. Therefore, it has taken close to 35 years to complete the process of allotment.

¶59

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Board would now submit that the land of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.14732 of 2022 was not included in the acquisition out of inadvertence and one Sri B.A. Ramakrishna Shetty has received compensation for the land but would admit that he has no document to show that the said Ramakrishna Shetty had been paid the compensation. He would contend that the petitioner in the companion petition has no right to claim the land, as the conditions of allotment are not even fulfilled by the petitioner. Therefore, he would seek dismissal of both these writ petitions.

¶60

10

¶61

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

¶62

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The Board in

¶63

the year 1981 takes up the issue of acquisition of lands in the aforesaid area by issuance of a preliminary notification which included a proposal of 4.02 acres of gramatana land of Veerasandra Village of Anekal Taluk. The preliminary notification dated 28-02-1981 reads as follows:

¶64

“KARNATAKA GAZETTE, MARCH 5, 1981

¶65

NO.CI 157 SPQ 80 DATED 28^th February 1981.

¶66

WHEREAS the Government of Karnataka is of the opinion that the lands specified in the schedule below are required for development by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board for the establishment of industries therein.

¶67

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 28 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act 1966, (Act No.18 of 1966) the Government of Karnataka hereby gives notice of its intention to acquire the said lands.

¶68

All persons interested in the said lands are hereby warned not to obstract or interfere with any persons entering upon such lands for the purposes specified in section 35 of the said Act. Any contract for, the disposal of the said lands by sale, lease, mortgage, exchange or otherwise or any outlay or improvements made therein without the sanction of the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub-Division,

¶69

11

¶70

Bangalore after the date of publication of this Notification will under section 24 (clauses 7) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1/1894) as amended by Karnataka Act, 17/1961, read with Section 30 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, be disregarded by the officer assessing compensation for such parts of the lands as may be finally acquired.

¶71

A plan of the lands is kept in the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub-Division, for inspection.

¶72

SCHEDULE

¶73

Village-Veerasandra Hobli-Attibele

¶74

Taluk-Anekal District-Bangalore

¶75

	Name of the	Name of				Boundar	ies
Sl. NO.	Khatedar	the Anubhava dar	Kind	Sy. NO.	East	West	North	South	Approximate Area required	Assessment
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
										Rs. Ps.
1	Muniswamy bin Munilingaiah	Muniswamy	Khuskhi	19/1	Sy.No.20	Sy.No.17	Sy. Nos. 18 and 25	NH 7 Bangalore Hosur Road	3-09	4 – 71
2	Sharadamma W/o N.Ramachandra	Sharadamma	Dry	19/2	"	"	"	"	1-03	1-59
3	"	"	"	19/3	"	"	"	"	1-09	1-81
4	Mohammed Yakub Sait	Mohammed Yakub Sait	"	19/4	"	"	"	"	0-22	0-81
5	Sharadamma W/o N.Ramachandra	Sharadamma	"	20/1	Sy. Nos. 21, 22	Sy. Nos. 19, 25, 24	Sy. No.23	Sy. No.19	2-00	2-69
6	"	"	"	20/2	"	"	"	"	1-32	2-60
7	H.Manjunath, S/o N.Honnurappa	H.Manjunath	"	20/3	"	"	"	"	2-14	2-43
8	"	"	"	20/4	"	"	"	"	1-02	1-52
9	Mohammed Yakub Sait	Mohammed Yakub Sait	"	20/1	Sy. No.22	Sy. Nos. 20, 19	Sy. Nos. 20, 22	NH Banga - lore Hosur Road	1-08	1-62
10	Patel Thimmaiah s/o Muniyappa	Patel Thimmaiah	"	21/2	"	"	"	"	5-00	7-25
11	Achamma Kutti W/o H.Jacob	Achamma Kutti W/o H.Jacob	"	22/1	Sy. No.36 and 23	Sy. No. 21 and 20	Sy. No. 23 and 20	NH 7 Banga- lore Hosur Road	0-31	0-56

¶76

12

¶77

12	N.Honnurappa S/o Motappa	Vijayendra S/o N.Honnurappa	"	22/2	"	"	"	"	1-24	2-36
13	"	"	"	22/3	"	"	"	"	1-36	2-80
14	P.Poojappa S/o Chikka Yallappa	P.Poojappa	"	23/1	Sy. No.36, 35	Sy. No.24	Sy. No.34 and 24P	Sy. No.22 and 20	2-18	3-61
15	Ramaiah S/o Chikkamuthappa	Ramaiah	"	23/2	"	"	"	"	1-12	1-84
16	"	"	"	23/3	"	"	"	"	0-30	….
17	"	"	"	36 (P)	Hebba- godi Village Boun- dary	Sy. No.22	KIADB land	NH 7 Banga- lore Hosur Road	0-10	….
18	"	"	Villag e Site	Grama -thana	Sy. No. 17	Konappa na Agrahara Village Boundary S	y. No. 17	"	4-02 32.22	….

¶78

By Order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka T.VENKATAIAH, Desk Officer, Commerce & Industries Dept. (I.D.)”

¶79

(Emphasis added)

¶80

A final notification comes to be issued on 22-09-1981. It

¶81

reads as follows:

¶82

“KARNATAKA GAZETTE, OCTOBER 1, 1981

¶83

NO.CI 157 SPQ 80 DATED 22^ND September, 1981.

¶84

WHEREAS by Notification No. CI 157 SPQ 80 dated 28^th February 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the said notification) issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (Karnataka Act, 18 of 1966) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and published at page 44 of Part III-1 of the Karnataka Gazette dated 5^th March 1981, the Government of Karnataka notified its intention to acquire the land specified therein for the purposes specified in the said Notification.

¶85

AND WHEREAS, order under sub-section (3) of Section 28 of the said Act have been passed.

¶86

13

¶87

AND WHEREAS, the Government of Karnataka is satisfied that the lands specified in the Schedule below which had been specified in the said Notification should be acquired for the purposes specified in the said Notification.

¶88

NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of Section 28 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (Karnataka Act 18 of 1966), the Government of Karnataka hereby declared that the lands specified in the Schedule below should be acquired for the purposes specified in the said Notification.

¶89

SCHEDULE

¶90

District-Bangalore Taluk-Anekal Hobli-Attibele Village-Veerasandra

¶91

	Name of the	r				Boundar	ies
Sl. NO.	Khatedar	Name of the Anubhavada	Kind	Sy. NO.	East	West	North	South	Approximate Area required	Assessment
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
								A.	G	Rs. P.
1	Muniswamy bin Munilingaiah	Muniswamy	Khuski	19/1	20	17	18 & 25	NH 7 B’lore Hosur Road	3-09	4-71
2	Sharadamma w/o N.Ramachandra	Sharadamma	Dry	19/2	"	"	"	"	1-03	1-59
3	R.N.Lalitha	R.N.Lalitha	"	19/3	"	"	"	"	1-09	1-81
4	Mohammed Yakub Sait	Mohammed Yakub Sait	"	19/4	"	"	"	"	1-22	0-81
5	Sharadamma w/o N.Ramachandra	Sharadamma	"	20/1	21, 22	19, 25, 24	23	19	2-00	2-69
6	"	"	"	20/2	"	"	"	"	1-32	2-60
7	H.Manjunath S/o N.Honnurappa	H.Manjunath	"	20/3	"	"	"	"	2-14	2-43
8	R.N.Lalitha	R.N.Lalitha	"	20/4	"	"	"	"	1-02	1-52
9	Mohammed Yakub Sait	Mohammed Yakub Sait	"	20/1	22	19, 20	20, 22	NH 7 B’lore Hosur Road	1-08	1-62
10	Patel Thimmaiah s/o Muniyappa	Patel Thimmaiah	"	21/2	"	"	"	"	5-00	7-25
11	Achamma Kutti w/o H.Jacob	Achamma Kutti w/o H.Jacob	"	22/1	36 & 23	21 & 20	23 & 20	"	0-31	0-56

¶92

14

¶93

12	N.Honnurappa s/o Metappa	Vijayendra s/o Honnurappa	"	22/2	"	"	"	"	1-24	2-36
13	R.N.Lalitha	R.N.Lalitha	"	22/3	"	"	"	"	1-36	2-80
14	P.Poojappa s/o Chikkayalappa	P.Poojappa	"	23/1	36 & 35	24	34 & 24P	22 & 20	2-18	3-61
15	Ramaiah s/o Chikkamuthappa	Ramaiah	"	23/2	"	"	"	"	1-12	1-84
16	R.N.Lalitha	R.N.Lalitha	"	23/3	"	"	"	"	0-30	…
17	H.Honnurappa	H.Honnurappa	"	36(P)	Hebba- godi village Boundary	22	KIADB Land	NH 7 B’LORE Hosur Road	0-10 29.20	…

¶94

By Order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka, T.VENKATAIAH, Desk Officer, Commerce & Industries Dept. (I.D.)”

¶95

In juxtaposition of both the notifications what is discernable is that gramatana land of 4.02 aces does not find place in the final notification, as the preliminary notification at Sl.No.18 contains gramatana land. The final notification ends at Sl.No.17. The Board draws a sketch. In the said sketch, the land of the petitioner which had been given up from acquisition figures. This alleged mischief on the part of the Board has generated this litigation. In the interregnum, it appears, the petitioner’s father in terms of a sale deed executed on 24-05-2003 purchases the subject property and the petitioner succeeds to the said property. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the property even as on date of notification by the National Highways Authority of India.

¶96

15

¶97

The issue now is, whether the lands of the petitioner were acquired or not. It was not acquired, as it was dropped from acquisition is very clear from two notifications – preliminary and final. It is pursuant to those notifications the rights of the Board would spring. If the final notification has given up gramatana lands in which the land of the petitioner comes, the specious plea of the Board that out of inadvertence the land of the petitioner was left out cannot be countenanced, after 40 years of dropping of the lands of the petitioner from acquisition. This mischief has led to the illusory right of the petitioner in the companion petition W.P.No. 55481 of 2017. The very same property which has been dropped from acquisition is allotted to the petitioner in the companion petition. The sketch appended to the petition is clear that this very property is allotted to the petitioner in the companion petition.

¶98

If the Board had not acquired the property, there was no question of allotment of the same in favour of any third party. Therefore, it is a case which is plain and simple, having dropped from acquisition in the year 1981, the Board cannot now contend

¶99

16

¶100

that dropping was out of inadvertence and that mistake would enure to the benefit of the petitioner in W.P.No.55481 of 2017. Therefore, the prayer that is sought in Writ Petition No.14732 of 2022 merits acceptance and not the prayer that is sought in the companion petition W.P. No.55481 of 2017.

¶101

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶102

O R D E R

¶103

(i) Writ Petition No.14732 of 2022 is allowed.

¶104

(ii) Mandamus issues to the respondent/Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board to act in conformity with the final notification dated 22-09-1981 and bring about changes in the nature of holding of the land.

¶105

(iii) Writ Petition No.55481 of 2017 stands dismissed.

¶106

Sd/-

¶107

______________________ JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶108

bkp CT:MJ

M Mahesh Reddy v. Chief Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Mahesh Reddy v. Chief Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Azad Saw Mill Vs the State of Karnataka

Usha W/O. Kushalchandra Jain Vs Jana Swall Finance Bank Limited

Dhanyakumar H. Gokak Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Vinay R Kulkarni Vs State of Karnataka by

Apoorv Katiyar Vs State of Karnataka

R. Akhanda Srinivasa Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka