The Karnataka Industrial Areas Vs Sri G Byrappa

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE SINGLE JUDGE DATED 07.11.2013 IN W.P.No.1761017611/2011 (LA-KIADB) AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT.

¶27

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶31

The present intra Court appeal has been filed

¶32

impugning the judgment and order dated 07.11.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.1761017611/2011 (LA-KIADB) filed by the 1^st respondent herein.

¶33

3 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:3546-DB WA No. 43 of 2014

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

The parties are referred to as per their ranking before

¶37

the writ Court, for the sake of convenience.

¶38

The State Government had issued notifications under

¶39

Section 3(1) and 1(3) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for brevity referred to as 'the Act' ) declaring certain lands at Shanamangala Village Bidadi Hobli as Industrial Area. The Preliminary Notification came to be issued on 31.08.1998 under Section 28(1) of the Act including the land in Sy.No.32 measuring 6 Acres 25 guntas. The Final Notification came to be issued on 31.08.2004 under Section 28(4) of the Act acquiring 442.23 1/2 acres of lands including the land bearing Sy.No.32. A number of writ petitions came to be filed by the land owners challenging the land acquisition proceedings including W.P.No.7044/2008 filed by the petitioner. The writ Court dismissed the writ petitions including W.P.No.7044/2008 vide judgment and order dated 05.08.2010. The writ appeal

¶40

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:3546-DB WA No. 43 of 2014

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

No.3256/2010 including the writ appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 05.08.2010 in W.P.No.7044/2008, came to be dismissed by the Division Bench on 25.11.2022. Aggrieved by the decision of the Division Bench in writ appeals, the land owners including the petitioner, had filed SLP No.2177/2023 before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 27.03.2023 has not interfered with the impugned order dated 25.11.2022 passed in Writ Appeal No.3256/2010 (LA-KIADB) C/w Others, however, granted liberty to the petitioners/land owners to stage their claims for higher compensation in respect of the plants stated to be standing on their lands. The petitioner was also granted liberty to represent the Competent Authority for release of his land, claiming parity with the adjoining land where it has been stated that now a tourist resort has been set up.

¶43

While writ appeals filed by the petitioner and other appellants were pending before the Division Bench in

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:3546-DB WA No. 43 of 2014

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

respect of the land in Sy.No.32 situated at Sanamangala Village, Ramanagara District, the petitioner filed W.P.Nos.17610-17611/2011 stating that the Department of Industries and Commerce, Government of Karnataka had issued notification dated 03.03.2007, wherein it was specified that wherever existing industrial units stood, the same should be excluded from the acquisition notification and therefore, in view of the aforesaid notification the petitioner's land measuring 31 guntas ought to have been excluded from final notification as the petitioner had been running industries on the said lands. The learned Single Judge though noted the fact that the land acquisition proceedings were challenged in respect of the said Sy.No.32, which was subject matter of W.P.No.7044/2008, had allowed the writ petition and set aside the notification issued under Section 28(4) of the Act. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the impugned judgment and order read as under :-

¶47

"7. In the light of the above factual scenario,

¶48

if the petitioner’s case for exclusion from the acquisition on the ground that the land held by the

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:3546-DB WA No. 43 of 2014

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

petitioner, (to an extent of 11 guntas) consisted of an existing industrial unit was never considered in the light of the notifications issued by the State government from time to time, whether the petitioner’s earlier challenge to the acquisition in WP 7044 of 2008 and the dismissal of the same, would preclude the petitioner from bringing the present petition, is an aspect that does arise. However, the peculiar circumstance of the case whereby the petitioner continues to retain possession of the land and the fortuitous circumstance that the land is part of the buffer zone, which has enabled the petitioner to continue in undisturbed possession is material in this court proceeding to consider the case of the petitioner.

¶53

As admittedly, the land has vested in the State Government, it would be precluded from withdrawing from the acquisition and considering the representations of the petitioner as prayed for by the petitioner in the light of the fact that the case of the petitioner was never projected in the manner as now canvassed . And the obvious benefit of the policy adopted by the State Government was never extended to the petitioner. The added fact that the petitioner claims to be a non-polluting industry which may not affect the environs, notwithstanding that it is in a “buffer zone” of the industrial layout, as orally

¶54

7 -

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:3546-DB WA No. 43 of 2014

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

expressed by the counsel for the respondent, it is necessary to set aside the notification under Section 28 (4) of the KIAD Act, in so far as the petitioner is concerned to the extent of the land covered under the Sale deed at Annexure –A to the writ petition. Hence, the same is accordingly set aside. The respondents shall reconsider the claim of the petitioner with reference to Annexures – F & G and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The respondents shall proceed to consider the same with expedition and shall pass appropriate orders within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order."

¶58

We have considered the submissions Sri Basavaraj V. Sabarad, learned Senior Counsel for Sri H.L. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the KIADB as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶59

On the ground that the Government had come up with a notification dated 03.03.2007, the second writ petition in respect of the very same land in Sy.No.32, which was the subject matter of W.P.No.7044/2008 was not maintainable

¶60

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:3546-DB WA No. 43 of 2014

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

The learned Single Judge however, had quashed the

¶63

notification issued under Section 28(4) of the Act in respect of 11 guntas of land in Sy.No.32 on the ground that the petitioner's industry was non-polluting industry, which would not affect the environment and the said industry was in buffer zone of the industrial layout.

¶64

9We are of the view that the learned Single Judge was not correct in setting aside the land acquisition in respect of Sy.No.32 situated in Sanamangala Village, Ramanagara District, particularly when the earlier writ petition got dismissed and thereafter, the writ appeal as well as the SLP filed by the petitioner was also disposed.

¶65

In view of the aforesaid, we allow this writ appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 07.11.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶66

As the Supreme Court has granted liberty to the petitioner to file a representation for higher compensation as well as for deleting his land, he is at liberty to file

¶67

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:3546-DB WA No. 43 of 2014

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

appropriate representation before the KIADB within a period of six weeks from today. The KIADB should consider the representation in all earnest and may also take into consideration the notification dated 03.03.2007 if

¶70

applicable for excluding his land from the final notification issued under Section 28(4) of the Act.

¶71