2010 Supreme(Kar) 1209

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.
Veerabadraiah and other etc —Appellant
Vs.
State of Karnataka & Ors —Respondent
Writ Petition No. 11822 of 2009
Decided on : 05-08-2010

Headnote:KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966 - Section 28 (3): [Mohan Shantanagoudar, J] Negative equality - Deletion of land from acquisition - Petitioner’s land was not eligible for deletion under Rules or scheme relating to deletion - Held, Their lands cannot be deleted merely on ground that some other lands similarly situated had been deleted. In as much as that would amount to enforcing negative equality. More so when on account of deletion of petitioners land, development scheme for area has not become inexecutable. Records nowhere reveal that lands of rich and powerful persons are deleted based on request or order made by Minister. Non-deletion of petitioners land from acquisition does not amount to discrimination, mala fide action or arbitrariness.

       KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966 - Section 28 (3): [Mohan Shantanagoudar, J] Objections filed by landowners - Power to consider objections - State Government has delegated it powers relating to Section 28 (3) to concerned Land Acquisition Officers - Held, Said officers are empowered to receive, decided considers treatment of objections filed by land owners. They can also pass orders under Section 28(3) of Act.

       KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACT, 1966 - Acquisition for formation of Bidadi Industrial Layout: [Mohan Shantanagoudar,J] Challenge to - Held, The lands are deleted from acquisition based on the fact situation not with ulterior motive.Even assuming that such deletion of certain lands from acquisition is improper, the same will not be interfered with by High Court as the Notification/order relating to deletion of lands is not under challenge. It is now by well settled that if the order in favour of the other person is found to be contrary to law or not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case, such illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made the basis for issuing a Writ compelling Respondent/Board to repeat the illegality or to pass another unwarranted order. The extra-ordinary and discretionary power of the High Court cannot be exercised for such a purpose. Further, Merely because the Respondent/Authority has passed an illegal/Unwarranted order, the same does not entitle the High Court to compel the authority to repeat that illegality over again and again refusing to direct the Respondent/Board to repeat the illegality the Court is not condoning the earlier illegal act/order no can such illegal order constitute the basis for a legitimate complaint of discrimination. In the matter on hand, the authorities of the board have examined the request of aforementioned land owners for deletion, for long length of two years of time, and only after getting themselves satisfied, the order of deletion came to be passed.-For deletion of lands, there should be absolute parity between the lands deleted and the lands proposed to be acquired. Whether the lands deleted are similarly situated to the lands proposed to be acquired, is a pure question of fact, which has to be decided by the concerned authority. High Court cannot sit as an appellate Authority to decide the aspect of similarity of the lands.

       KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACT, 1966 - Acquisition of land for Public purpose: [Mohan Shantanagoudar,J] Suitable modification of the Master Plan - Permissibility in law - Held, There is no need that the land proposed to be acquired by the Government for a particular public purpose should be reserved for the same purpose or use mentioned in the Master plan or Zonal Plan for the said area. Nor will the acquisition be invalid merely because the land proposed to be acquired is for a purpose other than the one permitted by the Master Plan or Zonal Plan applicable to that locality. Acquisition will be valid if it is for a public purpose even if it is not for the type of user permitted by the Master Plan or Zonal Plan in force at the time the acquisition is made. Further, it will be for the beneficiary of the acquisition to move the competent Authority under the Development Act and obtain the sanction of the said authority for suitable modification of the Master Plan so as to permit the use of the land for the public purpose for which the land is acquired. In fact, it may be difficult for the beneficiary of the acquisition to move the competent authority under the Development Act seeking permission to change of land use even before the land is acquired or before possession is given to the beneficiary.

       KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACT, 1966 - Section 29 (2), (3), (6), (7) & (8) & Section 28 & Section 29 (1), (2), & (3): [Mohan Shantanagoudar,J] Powers under - Delegation of such powers - Held, Section 31 of the KIAD Act makes it amply clear that the state Government may if it thinks fit delegate its power to be exercised in Chapter-VII to any of its Officers, by Rules made in that behalf. Rule 14 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Rules framed under the KIAD Act, reveals that the powers of the State Government under sub-Sections (2), (3), (6), (7) and (8) of Section 28 of the KIAD Act and sub-Sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 28 of the KIAD Act and sub-Sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 29 of the KIAD Act are delegated to the Assistant Commissioner incharge of Revenue Sub-Division within their respective jurisdiction, or to the Special Land Acquisition Officers in the Board with such jurisdiction as the State Government may specify from time to time.-Further, Therefore, it is clear that the state Government had delegated its powers relating to Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act to the concerned Land Acquisition Officers and it is clear that the concerned Land Acquisition Officers are empowered to receive , decide and consider the statement of objections filed by the land owners. They can also pass orders under Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act.