SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Kar) 219

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Alok Aradhe, Nataraj Rangaswamy, JJ.
Roy Rodrigues Rep. By His Power Of Attorney Holder Ramesh V Shetty S/O Vittal Shetty – Appellant
Versus
The Government Of Karnataka Rep. By Its Secretary Revenue Department And Ors. – Respondents
W.A. NO.159 OF 2010 & 4537 OF 2009 (LA-KIADB)
Decided On : 08-01-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. H.N.M. Prasad, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, Aga, Mr. D.N. Nanjunda Reddy, Senior Counsel, Mr. P.V. Chandrashekar, Adv., Mrs. S.R. Anuradha, Adv.

Headnote:

Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 – Section 4 - Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 – Section 28(1),28(4) and 28(6) – Land – Sales Deed - Appellant purchased land by registered sale deed - Land of appellant of land was required for formation of industrial layout - Thereupon a preliminary notification under section 28(1) of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 was issued by which the land of appellant as well as land measuring 1,884 acres was sought to be acquired for formation of industrial layout – Whether Notification under Section 28(4) of the Act has been issued within reasonable time and to deal with the issue with regard to delay and laches in filing writ petition, in light of submission made by learned senior counsel for respondent – Held, now court may deal with issue of delay and laches in filing writ petition - Appellant was fully aware of acquisition proceedings - It is pertinent to note that land of appellant of survey was also acquired and in respect of land bearing survey declaration was issued - However, the appellant has not challenged acquisition of the aforesaid lands - Appellant has also not responded to personal notices sent to him - So far as grievance of the appellant that notice under Section 28(6) of the Act was not served on him personally but was pasted on land is concerned, suffice it to say that even if the same is accepted, it does invalidate the proceeding under Act - In view of preceding analysis, court do not find any ground to differ with view taken by learned Single Judge - In the result, court do not any merit in the appeal - However, same is disposed of with the liberty to appellant to take recourse to seek remedy of enhancement of the compensation if so advised in accordance with law - Appeal is disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK ARADHE, J.

In this intra court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 the appellant has assailed the validity of the order dated 01.07.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge by which challenges were made to the Notification dated 25.11.2005 as well as the subsequent allotment of the sites made in favour of respondent Nos.3 & 4 has been repelled by learned Single Judge and the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed. In order to appreciate the appellant’s challenge to the impugned order, relevant facts need mention which are stated hereinafter.

2. The appellant purchased 2 acres and 23 guntas of land of Survey No.225 situate at Banandur Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk, by registered sale deed dated 16.10.1995. The land of the appellant measuring 2 acres and 23 guntas as well as 1,884 acres of land was required for formation of industrial layout. Thereupon a preliminary notification under section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) was issued on 15.04.1997, by which the land of appellant as well as the land measuring 1,884 acres was sought to be acquired for formation of industrial layout. Thereafter, the aforesaid Notification was published in daily “Prajavani” dated 30.04.1997, by which objections were invited in respect of acquisition of land in question. The appellant did not prefer any objection in response to the aforesaid Notification. On 19.05.1997, notice of personal hearing was sent to the appellant under certificate of posting and thereafter, another notice was sent on 09.06.1997 under certificate of posting to the appellant. All the aforesaid notices were in respect of land measuring 2 acres and 23 guntas and were not received back by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board' for short).

3. A declaration under section 28(4) of the Act was issued on 03.04.1998, by which only 21 guntas was sought to be acquired. Thereafter, on 04.04.1998 the Board acquired 21 guntas of land and on 15.05.1998 the appellant handed over the possession of 21 guntas of land. The appellant thereafter, submitted a representation on 23.12.1999, in which inter alia it was stated that though in the Notification issued under Section 28(1) of the Act on 31.01.1998, land measuring 2 acres and 23 guntas was mentioned but declaration under Section 28(4) of the Act has been issued only in respect of land measuring 21 guntas. It was further stated that either suitable orders be passed to release the land or action should be taken to make immediate arrangement for payment of compensation. The State Government thereafter, issued a declaration on 25.11.2005 in respect of the land measuring 219 acres and 11 guntas, which included the land of the appellant measuring 2 acres and 2 guntas. The lands of the appellant were allotted to respondent No.4 and respondent No.3 respectively on 19.03.2008 and 28.03.2008 for setting up of an industry. The appellant thereafter, filed a writ petition on or about 18.02.2009, in which a writ of certiorari was sought seeking quashment of declaration issued under Section 28(4) of the Act. The appellant also sought a writ of mandamus directing the Board to revoke the orders of allotment of sites in favour of respondent Nos.3 & 4 and to de-notify land measuring 2 acres and 2 guntas. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge vide order dated 01.07.2009. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that after a long period of 8 years, declaration under Section 28(4) of the Act was issued and remaining 2 acres and 2 guntas of the land was acquired in pursuance of earlier Notification dated 15.04.1997 issued under Section 28(1) of the Act. It is further submitted that issuance of Notification beyond a period of 2 years is not permissible in law. It is pointed out

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    Judicial Analysis

    SupremeToday

    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top