Sri M Veerabhadrappa Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. KHB/LAQ/SN-4 (KA) 17/2013-14 DTD 19.10.2013 ISSUED UNDER SEC 4(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AS PER ANNX-A., AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to

¶27

quash the Preliminary Notification dated 19.10.2013 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'LA Act') at Annexure-A and Final Notification dated 12.03.2015 issued under Section 6(1) of the LA Act at Annexure-B.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:43113 WP No. 15628 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri. H.L.Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3-KHB. Perused the material on record.

¶31

The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner in possession of industrially converted land bearing Survey No.163/2 measuring 2 acres situated at Kaadujakkanahalli Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District (hereinafter referred as 'schedule property'). The said land was acquired by the petitioner under a Registered Gift Deed executed by his mother Smt. Hucchamma on 03.05.2011. It is further seen from the records that the petitioner has developed the schedule property and has obtained general license dated 06.09.2011 from Indlavadi Grama Panchayathi.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that

¶33

the schedule property was converted from agricultural land to non-agricultural industrial use and hence, it cannot be

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:43113 WP No. 15628 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

acquired for the formation of a residential layout. He further submits that the issue involved herein is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of R.GOVINDA REDDY Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA¹ , wherein it has been held that acquisition notification in respect of lands already converted for residential or industrial purpose prior to the Preliminary Notification are liable to be quashed, except in cases where such lands are required for formation of roads under the Comprehensive Development Plan (hereinafter referred as 'CDP') or for connecting layouts being formed by the KHB. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has no objection to the formation of the road as per the CDP but submits that the schedule property being industrially converted, does not form part of the CDP.

¶37

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3-KHB submits that the issue is covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in R.GOVINDA REDDY's

¶38

1 WP.No.43342/2015(LA-KHB) and connected matters, D.D.13.01.2025

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:43113 WP No. 15628 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

case (supra). However, it is submitted that if the land is required for the formation of a road as per the CDP or for connecting the layout being formed by the KHB, the petitioner cannot object. It is further submitted that the notifications may be quashed only subject to the petitioner paying the requisite betterment charges.

¶42

The submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents is recorded.

¶43

The operative portion of the decision in R.GOVINDA REDDY's case ( supra ) reads as under:

¶44

"i. The writ petitions are allowed in part;

¶45

ii. The Preliminary Notification dated 19.10.2013 and Final Notification dated 12.03.2015 are quashed insofar as it relates to the lands which are converted for residential/industrial purposes prior to passing of preliminary notification subject to petitioners paying necessary betterment charges. However, it is clarified that quashment of the notifications does not pertains to the lands which are required for formation of road as per the

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:43113 WP No. 15628 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

comprehensive development plan and or are required for connecting the layout being formed by the KHB;

¶50

iii. The writ petitions insofar as it relates to agricultural lands concerned stand dismissed. However, it is clarified that respondents shall carryout developmental work only after obtaining necessary clearance from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change in respect of the lands concerned and not otherwise

¶51

iv. If a request is made by any of the land losers for grant of compensation in terms of developed land in lieu of monetary compensation as per the policy of the State, same shall be considered favourably by respondents;

¶52

V. In W.P.No.15834/2016, as the petitioners are said to have constructed a house and are agreeable for giving up their land in lieu of compensation by way of developed land by granting them required developed land in their own land which is sought to be acquired, the same shall be considered favourably by the respondents;

¶53

vi. In respect of W.P.No.42394/2015, undertaking of the respondents that land will not be acquired excluding the land that is required for formation of road is recorded and ordered accordingly;

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:43113 WP No. 15628 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

vii. The petitioners shall be liable to pay the necessary betterment charges;

¶57

viii. This order will not come in the way of petitioners making fresh representation to respondents for fresh consideration and the respondents are always at liberty to consider the same in accordance with law;

¶58

ix. In respect of the lands that are acquired for the purpose of road, it is needless to state that respondents are liable to pay necessary comprehensive wither by monetary or by way of developed lands."

¶59

8. On perusal of the decision in R.Govinda Reddy's

¶60

case ( supra ), this Court finds that the issue involved in this petition is squarely covered. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

i) The writ petition is allowed in-part .

¶63

ii) The Preliminary Notification dated 19.10.2013 and Final Notification dated

¶64

8 -

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:43113 WP No. 15628 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

12.03.2015 are quashed insofar as the petitioner's land is concerned subject to the petitioner paying the betterment charges.

¶68

iii) It is however, made clear that if the petitioner's land is required for formation of a road as per the CDP for connecting the layout being formed by respondent Nos.2 and 3-KHB, the benefit of this order shall not enure to the petitioner.

¶69

Sd/-

¶70

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶71

PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Sri M Veerabhadrappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Veerabhadrappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Bhagya B R Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. Vs Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission

Sri H B Muniraj Vs the Commissioner

Sri Krishnegowda Vs Deputy Commissioner

Lexington Terrace Residents Owners Association Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Smt Indira Devi Vs the State of Karnataka