THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. ASHOK N NAYAK.,ADVOCATE) …APPELLANTS AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. DEPT. OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001 - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:21150-DB WA No. 3137 of 2014

2. SRI. CHIKKA HOUSURAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. 2(A) LAKSHMANNA W/O LATE CHIKKA HOSURAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT PEMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, NELAMANGALA – 562 123 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 2(B) MANJAIAH.C S/O LATE CHIKKA HOSURAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT VENUGOPALA SWAMY LAYOUT, KAKOLU ROAD RAJANUKUNTE, BANGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU – 560 064. 2(C) SMT. PUSHPALATHA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS. 2C(i) SMT. SHWETHASHREE D/O LATE PUSHPALATHA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, 2C(ii) SRI VIJAYKUMAR.N S/O LATE PUSHPALATHA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT VENUGOPALA SWAMY LAYOUT, KAKOLU ROAD RAJANUKUNTE, DODDABELLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU TALUK – 560 064. AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 28/05/2024. 2(D) RAJAMMA D/O LATE CHIKKA HOSURAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT KUABARABEEDI, - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:21150-DB WA No. 3137 of 2014 BHUVANESHWARI SARKAL, THYAMAGODLU, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 123. 2(E) YALLAPPA N C D/O LATE CHIKKA HOUSURAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT VENUGOPALA SWAMY LAYOUT, KAKOLU ROAD RAJANUKUNTE, BANGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU – 560 064. 2(F) GANGABEKE N.C D/O LATE CHIKKA HOUSURAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.43, 5TH CROSS, VINAYAKA BLOCK A SECTOR, AMRUTHANAGARA, SHAHAKARANAGARA, BENGALURU – 560 092. AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 09/04/2019.

3. SRI. RAMAIAH S/O LATE DODDA HOSURAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT SY NO. 47, PEMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK-562 123, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. (BY SRI. SPOORTHI HEGDE, H.C.G.P. FOR R-1; SMT. VAIBHAVI BHAT FOR; SRI K.S. NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2(A) TO 2(D) AND C/R-3; R-2(E) AND R-2(F) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.18185-86/2013 DATED 17/6/2014. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:21150-DB WA No. 3137 of 2014 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, KRISHNA S DIXIT.J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal seeks to lay a challenge to the learned Single Judge's order dated 17.06.2014 whereby the respondent land owners' W.P.No.18185-86/2013 (LA- KIADB) having been favoured two pieces of land, namely 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.47 and another 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.51 of Pemmanahalli Village, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, came to be released from acquisition process, other lands having been retained in the acquisition process.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argues that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside in as much as it failed to notice that even the Government was justified in issuing the second Final Notification dated 21.07.2010 to cover what was left in the earlier Final Notification dated

17.02.2007. In other words, he clarifies that it is open to the State, in exercising the power of Eminent Domain, to - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:21150-DB WA No. 3137 of 2014 adopt instalment procedures whilst accomplishing the acquisition process. This aspect having not been duly considered by the learned Single Judge, according to him, there is an error apparent face of the record warranting interference of this Court.

3. Learned Advocates appearing for the land owners vehemently resist the writ appeal making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been constructed. It is also stated that the SLAO having conducted the enquiry & spot inspection, has recorded a finding that the structures do exist in the two excluded pieces of land and therefore, he had recommended for not going ahead with the acquisition process in respect of them. It is also argued that the government once having issued Final Notification in terms of SLAO's recommendation, subsequently cannot turn around and issue one more such Notification to include excluded lands, that too years after. So contending, they seek dismissal of the appeal. - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:21150-DB WA No. 3137 of 2014

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the appeal papers, we are inclined to interfere in the matter in the following fact matrix.

5. The Preliminary Notification dated 02.08.2006 was issued for acquisition of inter alia 5 acres & 25 guntas of land in Sy.No.47 and 4 acres & 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.51 of Pemmanahalli Village, Nelamangala Taluk. Apparently, it was done under Section 28(1) of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966, which provision approximates to Section 4(1) of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Thereafter, Section 28(2) notice was sent to the land owners, calling upon them to file their objections, and accordingly they had filed one, is not in dispute.

6. The SLAO being the delegate in terms of Section 14 of 1966 Act, held the enquiry proceedings with the participation of land owners and recommended for dropping of 20 guntas of land in each of the survey numbers and for retaining the rest in the acquisition - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:21150-DB WA No. 3137 of 2014 process. This he did because there existed structures, dwelling houses, etc. Even this fact is vouched prima facie from the photographs produced along with the affidavit during the pendency of appeal. This affidavit cannot be excluded from consideration, no counter affidavit having been filed.

7. What impresses this Court is that in terms of SLAO's recommendation

16.01.2007, Government had issued a Final Notification on 17.02.2007 u/s 28(4) of 1966 Act which approximates to Section 6(1) of the 1894 Act. It may be true that the said notification in so many words, does not refer to the recommendation of SLAO. However, there is a presumption in law that the Governments discharge their duties consistent with the legal requirement. Therefore, we presume that the recommendation of the SLAO having been considered, was accepted and therefore, the first Final Notification was issued leaving 20 guntas of land in each of the survey numbers, retaining the rest. - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:21150-DB WA No. 3137 of 2014

8. The matter did not end with Notification of 2007. Strangely, as it always happens with the Government, it issued another Final Notification dated

21.07.2010 to include the aforesaid 20 guntas of lands that were excluded in the earlier Notification. We are not impressed with the submission of learned Panel Counsel appearing for the KIADB that the Government can proceed the acquisition process on instalment basis. Acquisition of private property is a serious matter. Once a part of lands in acquisition process is dropped, a legitimate expectation arises in the land owner that it would not be subsequently touched in the very same acquisition process. It is more so when he has lost other bigger land in the said acquisition. Added, we notice that the gap between the first Final Notification and the second Final Notification is more than three years; there is not even a whisper explaining this long delay. No explanation is offered as to why the instalmental way was adopted, either. Less said is better and more may expose quarters that be to the sunlight. - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC:21150-DB WA No. 3137 of 2014 In the above circumstances, this appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly dismissed, costs having reluctantly made easy. The Jurisdictional Authority in terms of this order shall effect & correct mutation of entries in the property records keeping in view only the 2007 Notification, notwithstanding that they are not the parties eo nominee to these proceedings, within eight weeks, failing which they run the risk of contempt action. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6