Sri Yellappa @ Beemapura Yellappa Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:2394 WP No. 26117 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 26117 OF 2024 (LA-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI YELLAPPA @ BEEMAPURA YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS S/O LATE CHINNAPPA RESIDENT OF BYALAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 130.

¶9

SRI ANAND REDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O LATE NANJAREDDY RESIDENT OF H.HOSKOTE LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130.

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

SRI MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS S/O LATE PERUMANNA RESIDENT OF BYALAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 130.

¶12

SRI NAGESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O LATE AYYANNA RESIDENT OF BYALAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 130.

¶13

2 -

¶14

NC: 2025:KHC:2394 WP No. 26117 of 2024

¶15

SRI SRINIVASA REDDY S/O LATE CHINNAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDENT OF BYALAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 130.

¶16

SRI NARAYANA SWAMY S/O LATE PUJAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDENT OF BYALAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 130.

¶17

SMT. KANTHAMMA W/O LATE PUJAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS RESIDENT OF BYALAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 130.

¶18

SRI MUNISHAMAPPA S/O LATE MOTAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS RESIDENT OF BYALAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 130.

¶19

SRI MARIYAPPA S/O LATE MOTAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS RESIDENT OF BYALAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 130.

¶20

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2394 WP No. 26117 of 2024

¶21

SRI MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE MOTAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDENT OF BYALAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 130.

¶22

SRI RAMAPPA S/O LATE MOTAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDENT OF BYALAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 130.

¶23

SRI VENKATESH S/O LATE MOTAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDENT OF BYALAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 130.

¶24

SMT MUNIYAMMA W/O CHINNAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDENT OF BYALAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 130.

¶25

SRI NARAYANA REDDY S/O NANJA REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDENT OF HULIMANGALA VILLAGE LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 130.

¶26

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2394 WP No. 26117 of 2024

¶27

SRI SATHISH BABU S/O LATE RATHNAKAR AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESIDENT OF HULIMANGALA VILLAGE LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 130.

¶28

SRI CHANDRAREDDY S/O LATE RAMASWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDENT OF HULIMANGALA VILLAGE LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 130

¶29

…PETITIONERS

¶30

(BY SRI SOMASEKHARA K. H., ADVOCATE)

¶31

AND:

¶32

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶33

BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE M.S.BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶34

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶35

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD VTC BUILDING, 1^ST FLOOR

¶36

5 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:2394 WP No. 26117 of 2024

¶38

VISVESWARAIAH MUSUEM BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶39

…RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1; SRI P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶41

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN PASSING OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KIADB ACT.

¶42

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

¶43

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶44

ORAL ORDER

¶45

The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following

¶46

reliefs:

¶47

“a. Call for the records from the respondents which ultimately resulted in passing of the Notification issued by respondents 2 and 3 under section 4 of the KIADB Act.

¶48

b. Issue an order, direction or Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the general award dated 24.02.2023 issued by the respondent No.3 made in KIADB/LAQ/202223, Vide Annexure – Petition by not giving effect to the Notification issued under section 4 of the land Acquisition Act.

¶49

c. Issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to consider the direction issued by this Hon’ble court dated 22.11.2022 passed in W.P.No.29136/2019 and to accept the notification issued by the respondents 2 and 3 under section 4 of the KIADB Act for deletion of lands of the petitioners from the acquisition as per Annexure – L.

¶50

6 -

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:2394 WP No. 26117 of 2024

¶52

Consequently, declare that the Preliminary Notification bearing No.CI/36/SPQ/2006, dated 25.07.2006, Under Section 28(1) of the Act, vide ANNEXURE-D issued by Respondent No.1, and the Final Notification bearing No.CI/24/SPQ/2007, dated 08.03.2007, under Section 28(4) of the Act, vide ANNEXURE-E issued by Respondent No.1, are abandoned in so far as the petitioners lands are concerned.

¶53

d. Grant such other relief or reliefs as the situation demands to meet the ends of justice.”

¶54

Petitioner Nos.1 to 13 claiming to be the residents of Byalahalli village and petitioner Nos.14 to 16 claiming to be the residents of Hulimangala village, Lakkur Hobli, Malur taluk, Kolar district are before this Court contending that they are the owners of the lands bearing different survey numbers, situated within the aforesaid villages as described in paragraph Nos.1 to 11 of the petition.

¶55

It is their case that, respondent No.1 – State issued two notifications under Sections 3(1) and 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Ac, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) declaring and notifying that

¶56

the aforesaid lands would be acquired for the purpose of setting up an industrial area. That petitioners had filed their objections

¶57

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2394 WP No. 26117 of 2024

¶58

to the said notifications. On consideration of the said objections, a draft final notification was issued. Thereafter, respondent No.1 – the State issued a final notification under Section 28(4) of the Act, which was challenged by the petitioners by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.11032/2007.

¶59

That during the pendency of the said proceedings, respondent Nos.2 and 3 – Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’ for short) stated to have conducted a spot inspection and on considering the location of the lands coming within the Grama Thana of Byalahalli and also taking into consideration the development of the said lands, have recommended for deletion of the lands of the petitioners from acquisition and issued a draft notification in this regard as per Annexure ‘G’. In view of the said issuance of Annexure ‘G’, the petitioners had withdrawn the said writ petition on 16.09.2010, vide Annexure ‘H’. However, respondent No.2 had not given effect to the aforesaid draft notification that was issued under Section 28(4) of the Act and the possession is also not taken.

¶60

8 -

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:2394 WP No. 26117 of 2024

¶62

That on 21.07.2010, the respondent No.1 – the State had taken a decision not to delete the lands belonging to the petitioners, which was acquired, which fact was made known to the petitioners only on 20.06.2019, constraining the petitioners to approach this Court in W.P.Nos.29136-157/2019.

¶63

This Court by an order dated 22.11.2022, set aside the government order dated 21.07.2010 and directed respondent No.1 – State to reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with law, with a specific reference to the draft notification that was issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3 – the Board under Section 4 of the Act, recommending to delete the lands of the petitioners. That in furtherance of the said order passed by the co-ordinate bench, the petitioners herein made representation dated 10.01.2023 to respondent No.1 – State and another representation dated 12.04.2024 to respondent Nos.2 and 3 – the Board, as per Annexures ‘M’ and ‘N’.

¶64

The grievance of the petitioners is that, till date, neither respondent No.1 – the State nor respondent Nos.2 and 3 - the Board has taken any decision or have communicated

¶65

9 -

¶66

NC: 2025:KHC:2394 WP No. 26117 of 2024

¶67

anything in this regard to the petitioners. However, respondent Nos.2 and 3 - the Board have passed a general award as per Annexure ‘P' dated 24.02.2023, after lapse of 17 years.

¶68

Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the aforesaid facts and grounds urged in the petition, submits that the inaction of the respondents, the State as well as the Board despite there being a specific direction in the order dated 22.11.2022, passed by the co-ordinate bench, the respondents - authorities have not considered the representations. On the other hand have illegally issued the general award as per Annexure ‘P’. Hence, the petitioners are seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

¶69

In response, Sri P.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 referring to the contents of the statement of objections would submit that the possession of the lands are taken long back on 01.10.2007, in terms of the final notification. However, he fairly submits that no order has been passed in respect of the representation made by the petitioners on 12.04.2024 as per Annexure ‘N’. He hastened to

¶70

10 -

¶71

NC: 2025:KHC:2394 WP No. 26117 of 2024

¶72

add that since there is a statutory obligation on respondent Nos.2 and 3 – the Board to pass an award, has passed a general award as per Annexure ‘P'.

¶73

On the other hand, Smt. B. Sukanya Baliga, learned Additional Government Advocate fairly submits that though the representation as per Annexure ‘M’ dated 10.01.2023 is submitted by the petitioners, in furtherance of the order passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.29136157/2019, dated 22.11.2022, no action has been taken / no order has been passed by respondent No.1 – the State. She submits that it is for the reason that the State had already declined / rejected the request of the petitioners to delete their lands from acquisition in its earlier order dated 21.07.2010, as such there was no requirement in passing another order. However, she fairly submits that since a subsequent direction is issued by the coordinate bench in terms of the order dated 22.11.2022, produced at Annexure ‘L’, respondent No.1 – State

¶74

be given some time to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders. The submission is taken on record.

¶75

11 -

¶76

NC: 2025:KHC:2394 WP No. 26117 of 2024

¶77

Since the only grievance of the petitioners is nonconsideration of the representation at Annexure ‘M’ by the respondent – the State, which is authorized and empowered under the statute to take appropriate decision and in view of the admitted fact that they not having taken any decision / action, despite there being an earlier direction of this Court vide order dated 22.11.2022, passed in W.P.Nos.29136-157/2019, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents – State authorities be directed to pass appropriate orders on the said representation.

¶78

Accordingly, the following:

¶79

ORDER

¶80

a. The petition is allowed in-part.

¶81

b. Respondent No.1 – the State shall consider the representation produced at Annexure ‘M’ dated 10.01.2023, and shall pass appropriate orders keeping in mind the earlier direction issued by this Court vide order dated 22.11.2022, passed in W.P.Nos.29136-

¶82

12 -

¶83

NC: 2025:KHC:2394 WP No. 26117 of 2024

¶84

157/2019, within an outer limit of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶85

c. Inasmuch as respondent Nos.2 and 3 – the Board has already passed the general award, produced at Annexure ‘P' dated 24.02.2023, the same shall be kept in abeyance, until the orders are passed by the respondent No.1 – the State, as directed hereinabove.

¶86

d. The parties are at liberty to submit / furnish additional version or documents if any, respondent No.1 – the State shall provide sufficient opportunity to both the parties, consider the representation and pass necessary orders, in accordance with law, as directed hereinabove.

¶87

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

¶88

NVJ

¶89

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Sri Yellappa @ Beemapura Yellappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Yellappa @ Beemapura Yellappa v. 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

N.Sampath Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M Yallappa Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Sunandamma Vs Bengaluru Development Authority

Smt Rajamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M Nanjundaswamy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Afzal Pasha Vs the Commissioner