IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT …judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgments/bitstream/123456789/...@ Jothe Muniyappa, Son of Late Muniyellappa, Aged about 69 years, All are residing at Hebbala

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 19Th

DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012

BEFORE:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

WRIT PETITION No. 17819 OF 2005 (LA-KIADB)

CONNECTED WITH

WRIT PETITION No.7029 OF 2007 (LA-KIADB)

WRIT PETITION No.27002 of 2005 (LA-KIADB)




WRIT PETITION Nos.8576 OF 2011 AND 8887-90 OF 2011

(LA-KIADB)

WRIT PETITION Nos. 8575 of 2011 AND 8883-86 OF 2011

(LA-KIADB)

WRIT PETITION Nos. 8574 of 2011 AND 8768-71 OF 2011

(LA-KIADB)


IN W.P.No.17819 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

1. Shri. Chikkavenkatappa

@ Venkatappa,

Age: 70 years,

2

Son of Late Muniswamappa

@ Murthappa,

2. Shri. C. Prakash,

Age: 40 years,

Son of Chikkavenkatappa

@ Venkatappa,

Both are residing at No.611,

3rd

Cross, Police Station Road,

Hebbal,

Bangalore – 560 024. …PETITIONERS

(By Shri. G.Papi Reddy, Advocate)

AND:

1. State of Karnataka,

Represented by its Secretary,

Department of Commerce and

Industry, M.S.Building,

Bangalore – 560 001.

2. The Karnataka Industrial

Development Board,

By its Managing Director,

2nd

Floor, Rashtrathona Parishath,

No.14/3A, Nrupathunga Road,


3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,

Karnataka Industrial Development

Board, 2nd

Floor,

Rashtrathona Parishath,

No.14 / 3A, Nrupathunga Road,

3


4. M/s. Lake View Tourism Corporation,

Represented by its

Director Sri. Dayananda Pai,

No.10/1, Lakshminarayana Complex,

Ground Floor, Palace Road,

Bangalore – 560 052. …RESPONDENTS

(By Shri. Jayakumar S. Pail, Senior Advocate for Shri.

H.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.4

Shri. P.M.Padmanabha, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3

Shri. H.T.Narendra Prasad, Government Pleader for Respondent

No.1 )

*****

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, praying to quash or set aside the

Notification dated 25.11.2002 vide Annexure – D and D1,

Notification vide Annexure-E and Notification dated 11.5.2004

vide Annexure-F and all further proceedings and etc;

IN W.P.NO.7029 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

1. Sri. Muniyappa,

Son of Late Hemanna,

Aged about 44 years,

2. Sri. Venkatappa

@ Venkataram,

Son of Late Muniyellappa,


4

3. Sri. Muniyappa

@ Jothe Muniyappa,

Son of Late Muniyellappa,


All are residing at Hebbala Grama,

Kasaba Hobli,

Bangalore North Taluk. …PETITIONERS

(By Shri. N.J.Ramesh, Advocate)

AND:




Industries, M.S.Building,



Area Development Board,

Represented by its

Chief Executive Officer and

Executive Member,

Situated at No.14/3,

II Floor, Rashtrothana Parished Bhavan,

Nrupathunga Road,


3. The Special Land Acquisition

Officer,

Karnataka Industrial Area

Development Board,

Plot No.488/B, 14th

Cross,

KIADB Complex,

5

3rd

Block, 4th

Phase,

Peenya Industrial Area,

II Stage, Bangalore – 560 058.

4. M/s. Lake View Tourism

Corporation,

Represented by its Director,

No.10/1, Lakshminarayana

Complex, Ground Floor,

Palace Road,


(By Shri. H.T.Narendra Prasad, Government Pleader for

Respondent No.1

Shri. Jayakumar S.Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. H.Srinivasa

Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.4

Shri. P.V.Chandrashekar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3)

*****


Constitution of India, praying to set aside the Notification dated

25.11.2002 issued under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Industrial

Area Development Board Act, 1966, produced at Annexure-H and

preliminary Notification dated 25.11.2002 issued under Section

28(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act,

1966 produced at Annexure-J in respect of petitioners land shown

at item No.34 at page-17 and also the final Notification dated

11.5.2004, for acquisition issued under Section 28(4) of the

Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act, 1966

produced at Annexure-O in respect of the petitioners land shown

at item No.33 in page-5 and etc;

6

IN W.P.No.27002 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

M.Shankrappa,

Son of Late Munidasappa,

Aged 55 years,

No.425, ‘Shiva Krupa’,

2nd

Cross, S.B.Layout,

1st Main Road, Hebbal,

Bangalore – 560 024. …PETITIONER

(By Shri. M.S.Varadarajan, Advocate)

AND:

1. The Secretary to Government,

Commerce and Industries Department,

M.S.Building,

Bangalore.

2. Industrial Area Development

Board by its Secretary,

Peenya Industrial Estate,

Peenya, Bangalore.

3. The Land Acquisition Officer,


Development Board,

Peenya Industrial Estate,

Bangalore. …RESPONDENTS

(By Shri. H.T. Narendra Prasad, Government Pleader for

Respondent No.1

7

Shri. Basavaraj V.Sabarad, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and

3)

*****

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary

Notification dated 25.11.2002 vide Annexure-E and quash the

final Notification dated 11.5.2004 in No.CI 148 SCQ:2004

(Annexure-G) in so far as both the notifications relate to the

petitioner’s land bearing Sy.No.82/2, S.No.83/3 and S.No.59/5

situate in Hebbal Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk.

IN W.P.No.40661 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

1. Sri. Krishna Reddy,

Son of Papaiah Reddy,


Legal representatives of

Deceased petitioner No.1

1a)Papaiah Reddy,


2nd

Cross, Papaiah Reddy Layout,

Mannarayana Palya,

R.T.Nagar, Bangalore – 560 032.

1b)Chandra Reddy,


2nd

Cross, No.21,

Papaiah Reddy Layout,

Mannarayana Palya,

8


1c)Muni Reddy,


No.2/9, Papaiah Reddy Lay out,

II Cross, Mannarayana Palya,


1d)Venkatesh Reddy,


No.2/9, Papaiah Reddy Layout,

Mannarayana Palya,

R.T.Nagar,


[cause title amended

vide court order dated 31.10.2012]

2. Sri. Umesh,

Son of Late Abbaiah Reddy,


3. Sri. Ravi Kumar,

Son of Late Iyappa Reddy,


4. Sri. P.Venkataswamy Reddy,

Son of Late Papaiah Reddy,


5. Muniswamy Reddy,

Son of Papaiah Reddy,


All residents of

9

Papaiah Reddy Layout,

Mannarayana Palya,

R.T.Nagar Post,


(By Shri. S.N.Aswathanarayana, Advocate)

AND:

1. State of Karnataka

By its Principal Secretary

To the Government,

Commerce and Industries Department,

M.S.Building,

Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,


2. Karnataka Industrial Area

Development Board,

Represented by its

Executive Member Rashtrothana

Parishad Building,

Nrupathunga Road,


3. Bangalore Development Authority,


Kumara Park West,



No.10/1, Lakshminarayan Complex,

Ground Floor,

Palace Road,

10



vide court order dated 22.8.2009] …RESPONDENTS

(By Shri. P.V.Chandrashekar, Advocate for Respondent No.2




No.1)

*****


Constitution of India praying to quash the notification dated

11.5.2004 by first respondent vide Annexure-G in so far as it

pertains to land in Sy.No.2/11A, 2/16 of Hebbal Village, Kasaba

Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore mentioned at Sl.No.13

and 20 of the impugned Notification and grant all consequential

benefits.

IN W.P.No.45960 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

1. Sri. V.Muniraju,


Son of Venkataswamy,

2. Sri. Balakrishna,



3. Sri. V.Srinivas,



11

All are residing at No.415,

1st Main Road, Hebbala,

Kasaba Hobli,

Bangalore North Taluk.

4. Sri. Marisonnappa,


Son of Late Papanna,

5. Sri. G.Gopal,


Son of Jayanna,

Both are residing at Hebbala,


(By Shri. S. Chennaraya Reddy, Advocate)

AND:


Represented by its Principal Secretary,

Commerce and Industries

Department,

[Industries Development]

M.S.Building,

Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,


2. The Karnataka Industrial Area

Development Board,

Rashtrothana Buildings,

N.R.Road,

12

Bangalore – 560 001,

Represented by its

Executive Member.


Officer, 10A, 5th Floor,

Chandra Kiran Building,

Kasturba Road,


4. Bangalore Development

Authority,

Represented by its Commissioner,

Chowdaiah Road,

Kumara Park West,



vide court order dated

11.7.2008 in W.P.No.39231/04]


Corporation, No.10/1,

Lakshminarayana Complex,

Ground Floor,

Palace Road,



as per court order

dated 21.8.2009] …. RESPONDENTS


Respondent No.1

Shri. B.R.Srinivasa Gowda, Advocate for Respondent No.2

13



Shri. Praveen Kumar Raikote, Advocate for Respondent No.3

Shri. K.Krishna, Advocate for Respondent No.4)

*****


Constitution of India praying to quash the set aside the impugned

notifications dated 25.11.2002 and dated 11.5.2004 vide

Annexure-C and F respectively in so far as it relates to the lands in

Sy.No.83/3 of Hebbala Village, measuring 22 guntas, situated at

Hebbala Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk belong to

the petitioners in the first Writ Petition, Sy. No.82/4 measuring 6

guntas situated at Hebbala Village and Sy.No.2/7 measuring 4

guntas of Hebbala Amanikere Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore

North Taluk belong to the petitioners.

IN W.P.No.7030 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

Smt. Chinnamma,

Wife of Venkatappa alias

Venkataram,


Residing at Hebbal Grama,

Kasaba Hobli,

Bangalore North Taluk. …PETITIONER

(By Shri. N.J. Ramesh, Advocate)

AND:


14



Industries, M.S.Building,


2. The Karnataka Industrial Area

Development Board,

Represented by its

Chief Executive Officer and

Executive Member,

Situated at No.14/3, II Floor,

Rashtrothana Parishad Bhavan,

Nrupathunga Road,



Officer,


Development Board,

Plot No.488/B,

14th Cross, KIADB Complex,

3rd

Block, 4th

Phase,

Peenya Industrial Area,

II Stage, Bangalore – 560 058.


Corporation,

Represented by its Director,

No.10/1, Lakshminarayana Complex,

Ground Floor,

Palace Road,


(By Shri. P.V.Chandrashekar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2

and 3

15




No.1)

*****



notifications dated 25.11.2002 issued under Section 3(1) of the

Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act, 1966

produced at Annexure-H, in respect of the petitioner’s land shown

at serial No.38 and preliminary notification dated 25.11.2002

issued under Section 28(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Area

Development Board Act, 1966 produced at Annexure-J in respect

of petitioner’s land shown at item No.38 at page-18 and also the

final notification dated 11.5.2004 for acquisition issued under

Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development

Board Act, 1966 produced at Annexure-N in respect of the

petitioner’s land shown at item No.36 in page – 6 and etc;

IN W.P.Nos.8576/2011 AND 8887-90/2011

BETWEEN:

1. Chandrashekar,

Son of Late Venkataramanappa,


Resident of no.123,

Behind Government School,

4th

‘A’ Cross,

Asrama Road,


2. M. Bhojaraja Reddy,

Son of Muniswamy Reddy,

16


Residing at No.39,

2nd

Cross, Rathnamma Layout,

Mannorayanapalya,

R.T.Nagar,


3. J. Syed Khaiyum,

Son of R.S.Jalal,


Residing at No.93,

Weaver’s Street,

Hosur – 635 109,

Tamil Nadu. …PETITIONERS

(By Shri. S.N.Ashwathanarayana, Advocate)

AND:



Industries and Commerce Department,

Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi,

M.S.Building,


2. Karnataka Industrial Area

Development Board,

Represented by its

Executive Member,

Rashtrothana Parishad Building,

Nrupathunga Road,


17

3. M/s. Lakeview Tourism Corporation,

No.10/1, Laxminarayana Complex,



Represented by Secretary. …RESPONDENTS


Respondent No.1

Shri. P.M. Padmanabha, Advocate for Respondent No.2


Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.3)

*****

These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of

the Constitution of India praying to call for records leading to the

notification dated 11.05.2004 and quash the Notification dated

11.5.2004 issued by the first respondent vide Annexure-D in so far

as it pertains to land in Sy. No.59/5, 82/2, 83/3, 84/3 of Hebbal

village and Sy.No.2/17 of Hebbal Amanikere Kasaba Hobli,

Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore District, mentioned at Sl.No.5,

37, 42, 45 of Hebbal Village and at Sl.No.23 of Hebbal

Amanikere in the impugned Notification, by issue of a writ of

certiorari and grant all consequential benefits.

IN W.P.Nos. 8575/2011 and 8883-86/2011

BETWEEN:

1. Ravi Kumar,

Son of Late Shamaiah,


2. Ramu,

Son of Late Shamaiah,


18

Both are residing at No.10,

Eshwar Temple Road,

Near Ring Road,

Hebbal,


3. M. Bhojaraja Reddy,



Residing at No.39,

2nd


Mannorayanapalya,

R.T.Nagar,


4. J. Syed Kaiyum,

Son of R.S.Jalal,


Residing at No.93,

Weaver’s Street,

Hosur – 635 109,



AND:





M.S.Building,


19

2. Karnataka Industrial


Represented by its

Executive Member,


Nrupathunga Road,




Grond Floor, Palace Road,


By its Secretary. …RESPONDENTS


Respondent No.1

Shri. P.M.Padmanabha, Advocate for Respondent No.2



These Writ Petitions are filed under articles 226 and 227 of


notification dated 11.5.2004 and quash the notification dated

11.5.2004 issued by the first respondent vide Annexure-D, in so

far as it pertains to land in Sy.No.59/5, 82/2, 83/3, 84/3 of Hebbal

Village, and Sy.No.2/17 of Hebbal Amanikere Kasaba Hobli,

Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore District, mentioned at Sl.No.5,


Amanikere in the impugned notification and grant all

consequential benefits.

20

IN W.P.Nos.8574/2011 AND 8768-71/2011

BETWEEN:

1. Jagadish,

Son of Late Krishnappa,


2. Suresh,

Son of Late Krishnappa,


Both are residing at

No.10, Eshwar Temple Road,

Near Ring Road,

Hebbal,


3. Bhojaraja Reddy,



Residing at No.39,

2nd


Mannorayanapalya,

R.T.Nagar,


4. J. Syed Kaiyum,

Son of R.S.Jalal,


Residing at No.93,

Weaver’s Street,

Hosur – 635 109,


21


AND:





M.S.Building,


2. Karnataka Industrial


Represented by its

Executive Member,


Nrupathunga Road,




Grond Floor, Palace Road,



Respondent No.1

Shri. P.M.Padmanabha, Advocate for Respondent No.2

Shri. Jayakumar S.Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. H. Srinivasa


These Writ Petitions are filed under articles 226 and 227 of


notification dated 11.5.2004 and quash the notification dated

11.5.2004 issued by the first respondent vide Annexure-D, in so

22

far as it pertains to land in Sy.No.59/5, 82/2, 83/3, 84/3 of Hebbal

Village, and Sy.No.2/17 of Hebbal Amanikere Kasaba Hobli,

Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore District, mentioned at Sl.No.


Amanikere in the impugned notification and grant all

consequential benefits.

IN W.P.No.17815 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

1. Smt. Narayanamma,

Wife of Neerabhavi Muniyappa,


2. Sri. H.M.Krishnappa,

Son of Late Neerabhavi Muniyappa,


3. Smt. Munirathnamma,

Wife of Late Byregowda,


4. Sri. H.M.Raghu,



5. Sri. M.Devaraj,



6. Smt. Hanumakka,

Wife of Late Neerbhavi Kempanna,


23

[petitioner Nos. 1 to 6

rejected vide order dated 9.7.2010]

7. Smt. K. Chandrakala,

Daughter of Late Neerbhavi Kempanna,


All are residents of No.645,

2nd

Main Road,

Hebbal,


(By Shri. Y.R.Sadashiva Reddy, Advocate for Petitioner No.7)

AND:



Department of Commerce and Industry,

M.S.Building,



Development Board,

By its Managing Director,

2nd

floor, Rashtrathona Parishath,



3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,

Karnataka Industrial Development Board,

2nd

Floor, Rashtrathona Parishath,



24


Represented by its Director

Sri. Dayananda Pai, No.10/1,

Lakshminarayana Complex,




Respondent No.1

Shri. Jayakumar S.Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. H. Srinivasa


Shri. P.M. Padmanabha, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)



notifications dated 25.11.2002 vide Annexure-D and D1,

notification vide Annexure-E and Notification dated 11.5.2004

vide Annexure-F and all further proceedings.

These petitions, having been heard and reserved on

31.10.2012 and coming on for Pronouncement of Orders this day,

the Court delivered the following:-

25

O R D E R

These petitions are heard together and disposed of by this

common order.

2. The brief particulars of each of the petitions are

mentioned, before addressing the common contentions raised in

each of these petitions.

WP 7029/2007: The petitioners claim that they are the

absolute owners of land bearing Survey no.75/1 of Hebbal Grama,

Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore, measuring 23

guntas. They claim to be jointly holding the same by inheritance

under their ancestors. The petitioners are earning their livelihood

by growing vegetables on the said land.

WP 7030/2007 : The petitioner is said to be the owner in

possession of land measuring 7 guntas in survey no.82/3 of

Hebbal Grama, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, having

acquired the same in the year 1960 under a registered sale deed.

26

She is said to be carrying on agricultural operations on the said

land.

WP 17819/2005 : The petitioners are said to be the owners

of land bearing survey no. 74 measuring 25 guntas of Hebbal

village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk.

WP 27002 /2005 : The petitioner is said to be the owner of

three items of agricultural land bearing Survey no. 82/2 , 83/3 and

59/5 measuring 5½ guntas, 9½ guntas and 10¼ guntas,

respectively, of Hebbal village. The petitioner claims that the

same has fallen to his share at a family partition.

WP 40661/2004 : The petitioners claim as the members of

a Hindu joint family and are said to be holding land bearing

survey no. 2/11 A measuring 31 guntas and survey no. 2/16 A

measuring 6 guntas of Hebbal Village.

27

WP 8575 & WP 8883 to 8886/2011 : The first and second

petitioner claim to have acquired lands bearing Survey no. 59/5,

82/2, 83/3, 84/3 and 2/17 of Hebbal, Bangalore North Taluk,

measuring 2½ guntas, 1¾ guntas, 20¼ guntas, 2¼ guntas and 3¾

guntas, respectively, at a family partition. It is stated that

petitioners 1 and 2 have entered into an agreement of sale in

respect of the said lands under an agreement dated 18-12-2004 .

WP 8576 & WP 8887 to 8890/2011: The first petitioner

claims under one Venkataramanappa, who during his life time is

said to have acquired the following lands at a family partition,

bearing survey nos. 59/5, 82/2, 83/3 and 84/3 and 2/17 measuring

2½ guntas, 1¾ guntas, 2¼ guntas, 2¼ guntas and 3¾ guntas,

respectively, of Hebbal Amanikere Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore

North Taluk. The first petitioner has in turn entered into an

agreement of sale in respect of the same with petitioner nos.2 and

3 under a deed dated 18-12-2004.

28

WP 45960/2004 & WP 540/2005: The petitioners in the

first of these petitions are said to be the owners of land measuring

22 guntas in survey number 83/3 of Hebbal, with a farm house

thereon.

The petitioners in the second of these petitions are said to

be the joint owners of land bearing survey no.82/4 measuring 6

guntas of Hebbal Village and survey no.2/7 measuring 4 guntas

of Hebbal Amanikere village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North

Taluk. They claim to be rearing milk cattle on the land and eking

out their livelihood.

WP 8574 & 8768 to WP 8771/2011 : Petitioner nos. 1 and

2 claim to have inherited the following items of land from one

Krishnappa, who in turn, had acquired the same at a family

partition, namely, lands in survey nos. 59/5, 82/2, 83/3, 84/3 of

Hebbal village, measuring – 2½ guntas, 1¾ guntas, 2¼ guntas and

2¼ guntas, respectively, and land in survey no.2/17 of Hebbal

Amanikere Village measuring 3¾ guntas. It is stated that

29

petitioners 1 and 2 have entered into an agreement of sale in

respect of the lands with petitioners 3 and 4 under an agreement

dated 18-12-2004.

WP 17815/2005 : The petitioners are said to be owners of

land bearing survey no.65/7, measuring 1 acre and 14 guntas of

Hebbal village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. Except

petitioner no.7, all other petitioners have abandoned the

proceedings.

3. The petitioners in all the above petitions are commonly

aggrieved by their respective lands being declared as part of an

industrial area under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development

Act, 1966 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘KIAD Act’ for brevity),

and the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Special Land

Acquisition Officer, KIADB- for the benefit of M/s Lakeview

Tourism Corporation, (Hereinafter referred to as ' the LTC' for

30

brevity) a private limited company, incorporated under the

Companies Act, 1956.

It is stated that the promoters of LTC had approached the

State Government of Karnataka, during the year 2000 claiming

that the said company intended to establish a “Unicare Tourist

Centre” comprising a resort, a five-star hotel, an amusement park,

water park, health club, recreation facilities, convention centre,

Indian arts and crafts exhibition, restaurants, shopping complexes,

etc., and that it had already negotiated with land owners of

Hebbal and Hebbal Ammanikere villages to purchase 33 acres of

land. These lands were off the National Highway no.7. LTC had

expressed that it required another 37 acres of land in the same

area, in addition to the above extent of lands to establish its

project. The State Government in turn is said to have placed the

proposal before a State High Level Committee to examine the

same. The said Committee by its order dated 28-6-2000, had

recommended that the 37 acres of land required by LTC could be

acquired and allotted by recourse to the KIAD Act. The State

31

Government had accepted the recommendation by its order dated

10-7-2000.

It transpires that the Committee had by a further order dated

14-8-2001, opined that the entire extent of 70 acres of land

required by LTC , be acquired by the State under the provisions of

the KIAD Act. It is pursuant to the same that a notification dated

25-11-2002 , was issued declaring an extent of 63 acres and 33

guntas of land under Section 3 (1) and Section 1 (3) of the KIAD

Act, as Industrial Area. The lands of all the petitioners were

included therein.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, had then

issued a notification under Section 28 (1) of the KIAD Act, dated

25-11-2002, proposing to acquire 46 acres and 20 guntas of land

in Hebbal village and an extent of 15 acres and 22 guntas of land

in Hebbal Ammanikere village, in all measuring about 62.02

acres. Objections were called for from the land owners.

32

Notwithstanding the several objections filed, a notification under

Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act, dated 11-5-2004, was issued

proposing to acquire 53 acres 26 guntas of land, of which, 40

acres 12 guntas was of Hebbal village and the other 13 acres and

14 guntas was of Hebbal Ammanikere village.

Incidentally, the State Government had also issued a

notification under Section 17 of the Bangalore Development

Authority Act, 1976, (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘BDA Act’,

for brevity), dated 3-2-2003, proposing to acquire the very lands

which were the subject matter of acquisition proceedings as

aforesaid, purportedly for the formation of a residential layout

known as the Arkavathi Layout. A further notification under

Section 19 of the BDA Act, had also been issued as on 3-2-2004.

As these acquisition proceedings overlapped, the same were

subject to challenge before this court in writ proceedings. This

court had, by an order dated 20-5-2005 quashed the acquisition

proceedings initiated under the provisions of the BDA Act.

33

When the proceedings under the KIAD Act were sought to

be pursued further, the present writ petitions were filed from time

to time.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, Shriyuths

G.Papi Reddy, N.J.Ramesh, M.S.Varadarajan,

S.N. Aswathanarayana, S. Channaraya Reddy, M.V. Vedachala,

G. Papi Reddy, and Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate,

appearing for the counsel for LTC and the learned Government

Pleader Shri H.T. Narendra Prasad.

It is contended by the petitioners that the acquisition

proceedings are initiated with the sole motive of benefitting LTC ,

a private company. The entire machinery of the State Government

is mobilized to deprive the petitioners of their land, which is their

only source of livelihood, only to confer it on the respondent

company for its private profit- in the guise of serving a public

purpose.

34

It is contended that having regard to the tenor of Section

28(1) of the KIADB Act, the State Government should form an

opinion, in every given case , that the land sought to be acquired is

required for development by the Board or for a similar purpose

and only thereafter notify its intention to acquire such land. It is

contended that the State Government had not at all acted

independently. On the other hand, it had abdicated its statutory

duty in this regard, by conferring the complete decision making

process as regards the necessity and object of the acquisition of

land and whether such acquisition for the benefit of LTC, would

in any manner sub-serve public good, in the hands of the “State

High Level Committee” – whose decision was treated as final , on

all aspects – including the extent of land to be acquired for the

benefit of LTC. The said Committee was not a body created

under any statute and could have hardly prompted the State to

invoke its power under Section 28(1) of the Act, on the basis of

the decision of the High Level Committee. It is emphasized that

the role attributed to the High level committee is not of an

35

advisory character, but that of a final authority on every aspect of

the proposed project of LTC and particularly of the extent of land

to be acquired for the purpose. It is hence contended that the State

government having clearly abdicated its statutory duty in an

independent application of mind there is a clear violation of

Section 28 (1) of the KIADB Act.

It is contended that the State High Level Clearance

Committee was conferred any statutory power only under the

Karnataka Industries (Facilitation) Act, 2002, (Hereinafter

referred to as the ‘KIF Act’, for brevity), which came into force

with effect from 22-12-2003 . Hence the said Committee was not

competent to recommend the acquisition of any land which has in

fact been acquired under an expropriatory legislation such as the

KIAD Act.

It is contended that the entire acquisition proceedings

having been engineered by LTC is evident from the glaring and

admitted circumstances. The initiative to acquire land for forming

36

an industrial area is certainly that of the State, as contemplated

under the provisions of the KIAD Act. In the instant case

however, it is LTC which has taken the initiative from inception.

It is LTC which has prompted the State government to proceed

with the acquisition proceedings of the pre-determined extent

sought by it for its project. It is LTC which has identified the

location of the lands. But the proceedings itself having been

initiated without reference to the actual beneficiary , when the

entire exercise was to meet the specific requirement of LTC, being

glossed over in the acquisition proceedings – as the Scheme of the

KIADB Act does not envisage such pre-meditated acquisition for

the benefit and at the instance of a private party. In the result, it is

contended, that the process and procedure of acquisition

contemplated under the Act is subverted and the State government

has reduced itself to the status of an agent to acquire land for the

benefit of LTC.

37

It is contended that the owner or occupier of the land which

is proposed to be acquired is provided with a right under Sub-

section (2) of Section 28 of the KIADB Act, to object to the

proposed acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Act.

The same is to be considered and decided under Sub-section (3).

This process partakes a quasi-judicial character. This right of the

petitioners to an impartial consideration of objections is

completely eliminated as the decision to acquire the land of the

petitioners is pre-meditated and certain.

It is pointed out that in terms of the Comprehensive

Development Plan under the Karnataka Town and Country

Planning Act, 1961, (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘KTCP Act’,

for brevity), the lands sought to be acquired fall within a zone

earmarked as Park Zone . As any development as proposed by the

beneficiary, LTC , is impermissible in that Zone, the acquisition

proceedings are a futility. The state government has remained

oblivious to this glaring circumstance. It is apparent that this

38

aspect of the matter has not been addressed at any level in either

initiating the acquisition nor even thereafter.

It is vehemently contended by the petitioners that the real

object of LTC is to acquire real property through the medium of

the State at a fraction of the cost and to ultimately deal with the

property as real estate. In this regard it is pointed out that

admittedly the company had negotiated with many land owners to

purchase their lands, which were to be utilized for the project

along with other lands to be acquired – it is asserted that when the

promoters of LTC were ready and willing to pay in excess of

Rs. 1.50 crore per acre of land to such land owners in private

transactions – were only too happy to have similar lands of the

other land owners , including the petitioners , being acquired at a

nominal rate of Rs.15 lakh per acre. It is alleged that the

promoters intended to have the said lands which were subject

matter of private agreements – denotified , to be dealt with as real

39

estate, which explains the phenomenal amounts of initial

investments made.

The learned counsel for the petitioners rely on a large

number of decisions in support of the above contentions and seek

that the acquisition proceedings be set at naught.

5. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the

respondents that the petitioners have not addressed all the facts

and circumstances in seeking to project a dim view of the actions

of the State government and the alleged mala fides of the private

respondent. It is sought to be pointed out that the State

government had called a Global Investors Meet in June 2000,

requesting entrepreneurs to invest substantial amounts for

industrial development in the State. It is claimed that LTC had

proposed to set up a Tourism related project, with an initial

investment of Rs. 250 crore. There was no illegality or

irregularity in LTC also having proposed that the land requirement

40

was about 70 acres and the same also having been identified by

the said LTC, with a further proposal that the same be acquired for

the purpose. The state government which was not bound by such

a proposal, had subjected the same to scrutiny by a State Level

High Power Committee headed by several Ministers and

comprising of other heads of Departments, which ultimately

approved the project. It was incidental that the project envisaged

the need for acquisition of about 70 acres of land – which was in

turn approved by the Committee. This exercise, which was

carried out in a transparent manner, is not an illegal departure

from the known process of the state government identifying an

area and declaring it as an industrial area and after completing the

acquisition proceedings in respect of the same and forming an

industrial area to allot the same to prospective entrepreneurs to set

up their industries as envisaged under the provisions of the

KIADB Act. The prior identification of an entrepreneur and its

project and the exact land required for its project cannot be

characterized as a sell out in favour of a private party by the State

41

Government. As claimed above, the State government had found

the proposal of LTC to be feasible and had thus accepted the

proposal of the High Level Committee to acquire land as required

by LTC and therefore had called upon the said company to deposit

Rs.1.08 crore, which was substantially complied with. It is also

contended that the High Level committee constituted by the State

Government was in exercise of power under Article 162 of the

constitution of India , and therefore is statutory in nature . Further

the constitution of the Committee was in order to hasten the

process of clearance of projects and to minimize bureaucratic

delays .

It is contended that the High Level Committee constituted

by the State Government and which recommended the approval

of the project of LTC consisted of four ministers and several heads

of departments of the State Government who had taken a

conscious decision and that there was no application of mind in

the decision making process is a baseless allegation.

42

It is emphasized that the State government has duly verified

the proposal as approved by the State level committee at various

levels, including that of a Sub-committee of the State cabinet. It is

also asserted that to characterize the proposal as a private deal

involving real property and that there is only private interest

involved and that no public purpose is served, etc., is an unfair

allegation in the face of the huge investment of finances by LTC

and the potential for creation of atleast 2000 jobs.

It is contended that as regards the objection that the land in

question falls within the Park Zone and hence cannot be utilized

for any industrial purpose, is not relevant, as the classification

under the CDP, is not significant, if once the land is declared and

notified as an industrial area under the provisions of the KIADB

Act. Section 47 of the Act overrides anything to the contrary

contained in the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act.

It is also refuted that the project lacks any public purpose.

The purpose of acquisition is for establishing a tourism related

43

project sanctioned by the state government. Any such project

would invite tourists from other parts of the world and would

augment the revenue of the state.

It is contended that the total extent of land acquired is 55

acres and 13 guntas, whereas the entire extent of land of all the

petitioners included does not exceed 2 acres and 35 guntas. The

other land owners have not opposed the acquisition proceedings

and therefore the same requires to be kept in view.

On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances

and the material available on record, the rival contentions may be

broadly met by the following conclusions:

In so far as the departure from the usual circumstances of an

entrepreneur having approached the State Government with a

proposal of establishing a “ Unicare Tourist Centre “ is as a result

of the participation of LTC at the Global Investors Meet held by

the State Government in the year 2000. And LTC having offered

to invest substantial amounts of money in the project. The

44

decisions thereafter by the State government to refer the project

proposal to the State High Level Committee and to acquire land

by recourse to the provisions of the KIADB Act, is entirely of the

State government. The promoters of LTC at the relevant point of

time being partners of a firm or directors of private limited

companies is not at all relevant. It is on record that the promoters

have deposited substantial amounts of money (Rs.10 crore )

towards the cost of land acquisition to establish their bona fides.

The contention that the State Government had abdicated its

statutory power to the State High Level Committee in having

sought its approval not only as regards the viability of the project

proposal of LTC but also of the extent of land required and the

decision to acquire land by recourse to the KIADB Act, does not

give rise to any such presumption. There is material on record to

demonstrate that the State Government has acted independently in

arriving at its decisions – which may have been consistent with

the opinion expressed by the committee. This need not be viewed

45

with any suspicion – having regard to its composition and the role

assigned to the Committee by the State Government.

That in so far as the acquisition proceedings initiated under

the provisions of the BDA Act, which overlapped with the

acquisition proceedings initiated under the provisions of the KIAD

Act, is concerned, the same having been challenged by LTC in

writ proceedings before this court in WP 46785/2004, the same

was allowed by an order dated 23-10-2010 . The said order was

affirmed by a Division Bench of this court, in appeal, holding that

the property stood vested in the State even prior to the proceedings

initiated under the BDA Act.

The contention that the lands in question are within the Park

Zone as classified under the Comprehensive Development Plan

and hence were not available for development is concerned, is

incorrect. The setting up of a tourism related project was in

consonance with the then zoning regulations. Notwithstanding

that the lands are declared as an industrial area- the industry

contemplated was not in the nature of a manufacturing industry

46

and there was no intended change of user which was counter to

the permissible activity. In any event, having regard to the law as

laid down by the apex court in the case of Bhagath Singh v. State

of UP (1999) 2 SCC 384, it is not necessary that the land proposed

for acquisition by the government for public purpose should be for

the same purpose or use mentioned in the Master plan or Zonal

Plan for the area.

The allegations as to the respondent company or its

promoters indulging in profiteering, by seeking to deal with the

lands in question as real estate and that they are not likely to

utilize any portion of the same for the project, is apparent

speculation. In the usual course of things, the land would be

transferred only by way of a lease in the first instance. The State

Government is in a position to ensure that the land shall not be

transferred unless the project is fully implemented within a time

frame, failing which the allotted land shall stand forfeited to the

State.

47

6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners have cited

a large number of decisions seeking to draw sustenance from

various observations made in those decisions- the same are not in

the context bearing any relevance to the facts and circumstances

of the present case and therefore, are not referred to or addressed.

Incidentally, the contention of the petitioners that certain

lands, which were notified for acquisition were denotified and

hence would render the acquisition bad in law, is also not tenable.

The respondent company has challenged the de-notification in a

pending writ petition, in WP 22888 /2010, before this court.

In the result, the petitions are without merit and are hereby

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

nv*

Documents

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT …judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgments/bitstream/123456789/...@ Jothe Muniyappa, Son of Late Muniyellappa, Aged about 69 years, All are residing at Hebbala