The petitioner, who asserts that she owned certain

extents of land in Sy.No.36 of Talakuppe Village, Bidadi

Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk (for short, 8the subject

property9) and her property is assessed for revenue with

3

the Manchenayakanahalli Panchyath, has sought for

the following relief:

<Grant a Writ of Certiorari to quash the acquisition

proceedings

under

Gazette

Notification

as

Annexure-A

dated

18.01.2006

bearing

No.CI/372/SPQ/2005 and consequently declare

that the acquisition proceedings does not bind the

petitioners right, title and interest over the schedule

land.=

2.

It is undisputed that the petitioner had

impugned the acquisition proceedings commenced

under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas

Development Act, 1966 (for short, 8the KIADB Act9) in

W.P.No.35813/2013 (LA-KIADB) and this writ petition is

rejected by the order dated 23.04.2018 and is later

confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court with the

dismissal of the writ appeal in W.A.No.1491/2018 (LA-

KIADB) on 13.03.2019.

4

3.

The petitioner9s present grievance with the

acquisition proceedings is premised in the assertion

that the land acquired under the provisions of KIADB

Act cannot be utilized for the purposes of <Ashraya

Scheme=. If this contention is urged and considered by

this Court in the earlier writ proceedings, the petitioner

cannot succeed in this petition.

4.

Sri. Pradeep Kumar H.L., learned counsel

who appears for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and

Sri. J.Sathish Kumar, learned Additional Government

Advocate who appears for the respondent No.1, point

out that the petitioner had urged similar ground in the

earlier round of litigation and this Court has found,

answering the petitioner9s grievance, that the land is

utilized for the purposes of developing residential sites

for poorer sections of the society under the <Ashraya

Scheme= cannot defeat the public purpose pursued by

the KIADB and this cannot be a ground of attack to

5

challenge the acquisition proceedings. The learned

counsels rely upon paragraph Nos.13 and 14 of this

Court9s order in W.P.No.35813/2013 (LA-KIADB), which

reads as under:

<13.

As far as the subsequent user of the

land by the concerned Grama Panchayats for

formation of Sites and allotment under the <Ashraya

Scheme= is concerned, this also is not a ground for

assailing the land acquisition itself.

14.

The user of land for public purposes

other than setting up of an industry by allotment of

industrial Plots rather by developing the Residential

Sites for poorer Sections of the Society under the

<Ashraya Scheme= is concerned, that cannot be

said to be defeating the public purpose of the

Respondent 3 KIADB in question and therefore, even

that ground of attack is not considered sufficient for

challenging the said land acquisition in question.=

5.

It cannot be gainsaid that the petitioner9s

grievance, which is canvassed in the present petition,

has already been considered and answered by this

6

Court against the petitioner and therefore, there is no

reason for interference. The petition stands rejected

and consequentially, all the pending applications stand

rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

RB