R PURUSHOTHAM v. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIES AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD

(By SRI. SUDHAKAR G V., ADV.) AND : 1 KARNATAKA INDUSTRIES AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.143/3, 2ND FLOOR NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 2 THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL ...APPELLANT 2 W.A. No. 17178/2011 (LA-KIADB) AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.3, 1ST CROSS KHANNI BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR GANDHINAGAR BANGALORE-560009 3 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001. ...RESPONDENTS ( By SRI. R SHIVACHANDRA NAIK, ADV. FOR C/R-1) This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the records; allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 17412/2008 dated 21.09.2011 as illegal and consequently, allow the writ petition and grant the prayer as sought for. This Writ Appeal coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, K.L.MANJUNATH.J., delivered the following : JUDGMENT Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The appellant is challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 17412/2008 dated 21st September 3 W.A. No. 17178/2011 (LA-KIADB) 2011, wherein the petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

2. The facts leading to this appeal are as hereunder : The appellant is the owner of 3 acres 23 guntas of land in Sy.No. 116 of Medamaranahalli Village in Kanakapura Taluk. Under the Preliminary Notification dated 22.07.2006 several lands in the said village and other two villages were notified for acquisition for establishment of an Industrial Area. The appellant filed his objection on 30th September 2006 stating that on an earlier occasion his remaining extent of land was acquired and the compensation received by him in entirety has been invested on the land in question and developed the same and therefore, he sought for deletion from the acquisition proceedings and that he has no other source for his livelyhood.

3. Final Notification was issued on 31.01.2007. Thereafter, several farmers filed writ petition along with the appellant in W.P. No.260/2010 and other connected writ petitions. The learned Single Judge heard all the cases together. Considering the arguments advanced by the parties as the KIADB had left out certain lands while issuing final notification on the ground that those lands were 4 W.A. No. 17178/2011 (LA-KIADB) developed. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that wherever the lands are developed and coconut garden and fruit bearing trees are there are required to be considered for deletion by the KIADB. Accordingly, some of the writ petitions were allowed with a direction to take appropriate decision afresh.

4. Considering the decision taken by the KIADB in regard to other survey numbers and the case of the appellant was not considered by the learned Single Judge on the ground that in the writ petition the appellant had not placed any material to show that his land was also developed and it was a garden land. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed.

5. During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the appellant brought to the notice of the Court that though the appellant had not stated in detail the existence of the coconut garden and other fruit bearing trees and houses are situated in the land, the appellant had only stated that the compensation received by him due to acquisition of adjoining land was invested on this land in entirety and only because of that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ 5 W.A. No. 17178/2011 (LA-KIADB) petition of the appellant.

6. According to him, if the appellant had given the details of the developmental activities taken place on the land in question, the learned Single Judge would have granted the relief to the appellant also by directing the respondents to consider the case of the appellant on par with other farmers whose cases are to be reconsidered by the KIADB. In the circumstances, he requests the Court to allow the appeal and direct the KIADB to consider his case as ordered in W.P. No.260/2010, 13263/2009.

7. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the appellant has not given the details of the development made by him and in the circumstances, this Court cannot find fault with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, he requests the Court to dismiss the appeal.

8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the objections filed by the appellant before the Land Acquisition Officer, we have noticed that the appellant had only stated that he has invested entire compensation received by him from the KIADB due to acquisition of the adjoining land. In other words, 6 W.A. No. 17178/2011 (LA-KIADB) he has stated that he has developed the land by making lot of investments. He was required to state in detail the nature of developments made by him and if any constructions were there was also required to be stated in the objection statement. Annexure 'J' series are the photographs of the land of the appellant which discloses the existence of a residential building and the entire land is covered by silver oak and teak trees and other trees and coconut trees are also in existence. Therefore, it is clear that the case of the appellant stands on par with other farmers whose writ petition has been allowed by the learned Single Judge and the appellant stands in the same footing on par with other farmers.

9. If we direct the KIADB to consider the case of the appellant to avoid discrimination as Court is not suppose to use different yardstick for different persons and in order to maintain the consistency ends of justice would meet.

10. Therefore this appeal requires to be allowed by directing the KIADB to consider the case of the appellant along with the case of other writ petitioners in W.P. No.260/2010 and other connected matter and if the appellant has also developed his land and his lands 7 W.A. No. 17178/2011 (LA-KIADB) are similarly situated to that of other farmers, the KIADB shall take the same decision which may be taken in the other cases.

11. With the above observations, this appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.17412/2008 is set aside. Sd/- JUDGE. Sd/- JUDGE. Rbv