NANJAPPA v. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

SMT. SARASWATHI G, W/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 1B. KUM. SHANTHALA N, D/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 1C. KUM. HEMALATHA N, D/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 1D. KUM. ASHWINI G N, D/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, ALL ARE PRESENTLY R/AT NO.26, POORNAPRAJNA ROAD, HAVANUR LAYOUT, NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU-560 073. VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38-DB WA No. 111 of 2023

2. SRI. A RAMANJANAPPA, S/O LATE DODDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT AREHALLI GUDDADAHALLI, BASHETTIHALLI POST, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. VIDYASHREE K S.,ADVOCATE) AND:

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, MULTISTORIED BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 009.

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD(KIADB), NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.NILOUFER AKBAR., AGA FOR R1) THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.08.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No-21794/2013 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WA IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38-DB WA No. 111 of 2023 JUDGEMENT This intra-Court appeal calls in question a learned Single Judge’s order dated 01.08.2022 whereby, their W.P No.21794/2013 (LA-KIADB) having being dismissed the prayer for the quashment of acquisition proceedings has been negatived, on the ground that the challenge was highly belated and it was hit by the rule enacted in Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned AGA appearing for the State, we decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the views of the learned Single Judge. The preliminary notification expressing the intent to acquire the land in question was issued on 22.02.2005; the final notification came to be issued on 01.03.2006; the possession of the land was taken on 19.06.2006 and the Government transferred the same to the KIADB on 01.07.2006. Subsequently, the award came to be passed on 14.09.2011. All these were under the provisions of Section 28 of the KIAD Act, 1966 - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38-DB WA No. 111 of 2023 which envisages a scheme of acquisition different from the ones enacted under the BDA Act, 1976 and the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Appellants had laid a challenge to the notice dated 15.03.2006 by filing W.P No.11204/2007 without challenging the acquisition process, though they could. The challenge failed vide order dated 30.07.2007. Thus, the general rule enacted in Order II Rule 2 of CPC comes in the way of any relief being granted to the appellants as rightly held by the learned Single Judge.

The above apart, the subject writ petition came to be the year 2013, having lost another W.P No.18147/2007 wherein the prayer for de-notification of the lands from acquisition was made and the petition was dismissed on 07.06.2010 itself. The fact that the predecessor of the appellants had acquiesced in the process of acquisition is demonstrated by virtue of the stand taken up in W.P No.18147/2007, whatever be the stage. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38-DB WA No. 111 of 2023 present writ petition is filed in the year 2013 challenging the acquisition process that commenced in the year 2005 and culminated into vesting of the land on possession being taken in June 2006 itself, in terms of the statutory scheme under the 1966 Act, the award having been passed in September 2011, notwithstanding. Added, the compensation amount was already remitted to the reference court in LAC No.7/2012, in terms of the award that followed taking of possession pursuant to notice, challenge to which proved futile. In the above circumstances, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and accordingly dismissed. Registry to send a copy of this judgement to respondent No.2 – KIADB. Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE Snb,