Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.
T. Kavita W/o Somashekhar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka – Respondent
Writ Petition No.61622 of 2010(LA-KIADB)
Decided on : 18-01-2021
Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act - Sections 28, 28(1), 28(2), 28(3) and 28(4) – Acquisition of Land - Owner and in possession of land - Seeking for permission to convert the agricultural land into the non agricultural land - Petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner and in possession of land said lands have been purchased by the petitioner under register sale deed from its earlier owner said lands in question were sought to be converted for industrial purpose. Petitioner has given application seeking for permission to convert the agricultural land into the non agricultural land and to utilize the same for industrial purpose. The Deputy Commissioner has passed an order and converted the agricultural land into non agricultural land. The petitioner wanted to own her own establishment. Respondent No.2 issued a notice under Section 28 of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act (for short ‘KIADB’) calling upon the petitioner to handover the possession, failing which, it was threatened that respondent No.2 will take possession on 11.03.2010. The petitioner submitted a representation to the office of respondent No.2 to make an enquiry - Officials of Respondent No.2 have been properly apprised of. Respondent No.2 have more particularly recommended for dropping of acquisition of the lands as they were not conducive and some portions have been converted into non agriculture – Held, petitioner was not the owner as he has purchased the property lapse of more than three years from date of issuance of notification under Section 28(1). Hence, the question of issuing notice under Section 28(2) of the Act to the petitioner does not arise as per the judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case and Court has held that the person whose land was acquired meant the owner as on the date the notification was notified for acquisition - Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that subsequently respondent No.2 after taking into consideration the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner, respondent No.2 has issued final notification under Section 28(4) of the Act showing the name of the petitioner as owner of the land under reference - petitioner has been shown as owner in respect of the said land was acquired. Hence, the petitioner being the purchaser, subsequent to notification, is only entitled for the compensation for acquired land - Court is of the opinion that petitioner is entitled for compensation in respect of land acquired by virtue of sale made in his favour of petitioner - Respondent No.2 has already issued a final notification under Section 28(4) of the Act - Judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the present case on hand - Writ petition is dismissed.
ORDER :
Petitioner aggrieved by the notification issued in gazette dated 26.12.2009 as per Annexure-L insofar as petitioner’s lands are concerned and consequent upon quashing Annexure-L, the subsequent notices issued by respondent No.2 as per Annexures-G and H has filed this writ petition seeking for quashing the above said Annexures.
2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner and in possession of land bearing Sy.No.167/7, measuring 1-64 cents, 167/6 measuring 1-62 cents and 167/2 measuring 0-72 cents. The above said lands have been purchased by the petitioner under register sale deed dated 07.01.2005 from its earlier owner Tharthappa. The said lands in question were sought to be converted for industrial purpose. The petitioner has given application seeking for permission to convert the agricultural land into the non agricultural land and to utilize the same for industrial purpose. The Deputy Commissioner has passed an order and converted the agricultural land into non agricultural land. The petitioner wanted to own her own establishment. Respondent No.2 issued a notice under Section 28 of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act (for short ‘KIADB’) calling upon the petitioner to handover the possession, failing which, it was threatened that respondent No.2 will take possession on 11.03.2010. The petitioner submitted a representation to the office of respondent No.2 to make an enquiry. The officials of Respondent No.2 have been properly apprised of. The respondent No.2 have more particularly recommended for dropping of acquisition of the lands in Sy.No.167 as they were not conducive and some portions have been converted into non agriculture. Respondent No.2 has sent his recommendation to respondent No.1 for taking necessary action. The lands of the petitioner are adjacent to the Sy.No.167/2 and 3. The petitioner aggrieved by the notification issued by the respondents filed this writ petition.
3. Respondent No.2 filed the statement of objection stating that the preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of KIADB Act was issued on 11.09.2002 and was published in Karnataka Gazette on 17.09.2002, thereby notifying the lands, including block No.167/2, measuring 5 Acres 5 guntas. The lands were required for the purpose of development of Industrial establishment. Hence, notification was issued under Section 28(2) of KIADB Act. It is further notified that sale/mortgage, exchange or any other types of agreement or developmental work shall not be made after the date of publication. As on the date of notification, the land block No.167/2 stood in the names of following persons:
b. Mrs. Bande Yankamma w/o. Late Dharmappa Hospet and
c. Mrs. Bande Renukamma w/o. Late Hanumantappa Hospet.
The respondents issued a notice to the owner of the land under Section 28 (2) of KIADB Act. The said notice was served by the Tahasildar, through the concerned Village Accountant, on the land owners. The above said land owners have filed their objections to the said notification. Respondent No.2 after considering the objections filed by the owners have passed an order under Section 28(3) of KIADB Act on 19.04.2006. Thereafter the respondent issued a notification under Section 28(4) on 11.02.2009. It is further stated that the petitioner has purchased the property after commencement of all acquisition proceedings under Section 28(1) i.e., the petitioner has purchased the property on 07.01.2005. The petitioner is a subsequent purchaser of land in question that too after the preliminary notification published on 17.09.2002. Hence, the petitioner cannot be said to be the owner as on the date of notification and the petitioner has no right to challenge the acquisition itself and it is stated that the petitioner may be entitled to claim a compensation by virtue of sale agreement in favour of the petitioner in accordance with law. It is also stated that lands are transferred by resp
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
