Munegowda S Vs the State of Karnataka

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BENGALURU RURAL NO.14/3, CFC BUILINDG, MAHARSHI ARAVIND BHAVAN, 1^ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:4635 WP No. 19238 of 2023

¶18

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, OFFICE 2, SEPCIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER AND BANGALORE RURAL, NO.14/3, C.F.C BUILDING, MAHARSHI ARAVINDA BHAVANA, 1^ST FLOOR,NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE -560 001.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N.,HCGP FOR R1 & R2, SRI.B.S.SUDHINDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-C THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. CI 17 SPQ (E) 2022 DATED 07/02/2022 GAZETTED ON 10/02/2022 AND ALSO ANNEXURE-F, THE FINAL NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. CI17 SPQ(E) 2022 DATED 27.02.2023 INSOFAR AS PETITIONERS LANDS ARE CONCERNED AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Petitioner claiming to be the owner of land in Sy.No.78/9 measuring 10 guntas and Sy.No.78/12 measuring 14 guntas of Adhinarayana Hosahalli Village, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, which was originally numbered as Sy.No.64/3, having acquired the same in terms of deed of partition dated 24.04.2019 is before this Court seeking following reliefs:

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:4635 WP No. 19238 of 2023

¶27

''i. issue a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure-C, the preliminary notification bearing No.CI.17.SPQ.(E).2022 dated 7.2.2022 Gazetted on 10.2.2022 and also Annexure-F, the final notification bearing No.CI.17.SPQ(E).2022 dated 27.2.2023 insofar as petitioner's lands are concerned;

¶28

il. issue a writ of mandamus directing the 4th respondent to consider Annexure-D objection dated 26.4.2022 given by the petitioner to the 4th respondent and drop petitioner's land from acquisition on par with neighbouring land in Sy No. 78/13 and 78/11 of Adhinarayana Hosahalli Village.

¶29

iii. issue a writ of mandamus directing the 4th respondent to drop petitioner's land from acquisition as per Annexure- K the circular dated 16.3.2013.

¶30

iv. issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. ''

¶31

That the respondent-State issued a notification

¶32

dated 10.02.2022 under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 seeking to acquire the aforesaid land. The petitioner has filed the objection statement seeking dropping of his land from the acquisition proceedings on the premise that the said lands are situated within the Gramatana area and there are houses, borewell and agriculture activities being carried on by the petitioner,

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:4635 WP No. 19238 of 2023

¶35

which is only source of income to the petitioner. Petitioner had also obtained change of land usage from the concerned authority as per the order dated 31.01.2023 and had even put up warehouse, shed thereon.

¶36

However without considering the said statement of objections, respondent-State issued a notification under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1966') calling upon the land owners to hand over the possession of acquired land including the lands of the petitioner within 30 days from the date of publication of the notice.

¶37

Smt. Vinitha P.C, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have adopted discriminatory method in acquiring the lands. In that, land belonging to the neighboring owners, who are similarly situated with that of the petitioner have been dropped from the acquisition by the respondent-Authorities. However, the respondentAuthorities have not considered the objections filed by the petitioner, which is identical and similar to the one filed by the neighboring owners of the petitioner. Learned counsel for

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4635 WP No. 19238 of 2023

¶39

the petitioner also furnished a memo dated 22.01.2025 along with layout plan, pointing out the exclusion of the land situated adjacent to the land belonging to the petitioner. She also refers to the Circular dated 16.03.2013 to contend that the petitioner stands qualified for consideration of dropping of his lands, even in terms of said circular, which is not taken note of by the respondent-Authorities. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition.

¶40

Per contra, Sri. Spoorthy Hegde, learned HCGP appearing for the respondents submits that the land of the neighboring owners were dropped, inasmuch as the same came within 100 meters distance of Gramatana limits and that they were consisting of agricultural activities and food bearing trees. He submits that the lands of the petitioner when the preliminary notification issued were being used for agricultural purposes, however, subsequently the petitioner has obtained order changing the nature of lands from agricultural to industrial purposes. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner cannot take advantage of the circular dated 16.03.2013 and seeks for dismissal of the petition.

¶41

6 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:4635 WP No. 19238 of 2023

¶43

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-

¶44

KIADB supplements the submission made by the learned AGA.

¶45

Heard and perused the records.

¶46

There is no dispute of the fact that the petitioner is the owner of the lands and the same was made subject matter of the acquisition in terms of the preliminary notification and final notification referred to hereinabove. The lands belonging to the petitioner bears Sy.No.78/9 and Sy.No.78/12. However, the land bearing Sy.No.78/11 measuring to 14 guntas belonging to Sri. Ugam Raj son of Sri. Shon Raj Ji which is situated adjacent to the property of the petitioner has been left out of the acquisition as per the order dated 20.01.2023 passed by the respondent-SLAO under Section 28(3) of the Act, 1966 which is found mention at Sl.No.64. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the same submits that when the petitioner's land is similarly situated with that of the said Sri. Ugam Raj, there was no reason for the respondent-Authorities to apply different yardsticks. Similar is the case in respect of the land in

¶47

7 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:4635 WP No. 19238 of 2023

¶49

Sy.No.78/13 belonging to one Sri.Mariyappa whose land is situated adjacent to the land of the petitioner has been left out from the acquisition as found at Sl.No.66 of the aforesaid order. Thereby, petitioner has been subjected to deliberate discrimination at the hands of the respondent-authorities.

¶50

There is a considerable force in the submission being made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. When the lands in Sy.No.78/11 and Sy.No.78/13 belonging to Sri.Ugam Raj and Sri.Mariyappa, situated on either side of the lands belonging to the petitioner have been dropped from the acquisition as shown at Sl.No.64 and Sl.No.66 of the order passed under Section 28(3) of the Act, 1966 for the reasons of the said lands being situated within the Gramatana limits, there is no justifiable reasons for respondent-Authorities to acquire the lands of the petitioner in Sy.Nos.78/9 and 78/12 which are also situated within the Gramatana limits.

¶51

Learned counsel for the respondent-KIADB and learned AGA at this juncture submits that they have no objection in quashing the final notification to the extent

¶52

8 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:4635 WP No. 19238 of 2023

¶54

pertaining to the land of the petitioner with an opportunity to

¶55

the respondent-Authorities to reconsider the objections/representation made by the petitioner and

¶56

appropriate order in this regard will be passed.

¶57

Submissions taken on record.

¶58

Accordingly, following:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

(i). Writ petition is allowed in part.

¶61

(ii). Final notification dated 27.02.2023 as

¶62

per Annexure-F to the extent of the property of the petitioner is quashed.

¶63

(iii). Respondent-authority is directed to consider the statement of objections dated 26.04.2024 as per Annexure-D filed by the petitioner and shall afford personal hearing opportunity to the petitioner with a prior intimation.

¶64

9 -

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:4635 WP No. 19238 of 2023

¶66

(iv). Petitioner is also at the liberty to furnish such additional documents as may be available, only on consideration of the same, the respondent-authorities shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioner.

¶67

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

¶68

RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

Munegowda S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munegowda S 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Afzal Pasha Vs the Commissioner

Dodda Narayana Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

M Ramaiah Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

Sri v Rama Rao Nimbalkar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Malathi S. Shetty Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

Smt C v Bhagya Vs the Commissioner