Under Secretary to Government v. Represented by its Principal

S/o. Sri. S.B. Mahadevappa, Aged about 74 years,

2. K. Sriharsha, S/o. K. Kotrappa, Aged about 43 years, Both are residing at No.116/82, Kiravadi Layout, K.B. Extension, Davanagere-577 002. (By Shri. Nagananda, Senior Advocate for Smt. Shwetha Anand, Advocate) AND:

Under Secretary to Government, …PETITIONERS 2 Department of Commerce and Industries, Government of Karnataka.

The Managing Director, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, Bangalore, Karnataka.

Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Multistoried Building, Represented by Managing Director, Bangalore.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, Multistoried Building, 3rd Block, Peenya Industrial Estate, Bangalore.

S.S. Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Davanagere, Represented by its Principal. …RESPONDENTS (By Shri. H.T. Narendra Prasad, Government Pleader for Respondent No.1, Shri Basavaraj V. Sabarad, Advocate for Respondents 2 and 4, Shri C.K. Venkatesh, Advocate for Respondent No.3, Shri Prabhulinga K. Navadgi, Advocate for Respondent No.5) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records pertaining to the acquisition proceedings subsequent to the publication of the preliminary notification dated 13.04.2004, published in the Gazette publication, issued under Section 18 and Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Development Act, 3 issued by 1966 to Government, the Under Secretary Department of Commerce and Industries, for acquisition of the lands in question vide Annexure-M and final notification dated 9.2.2007 issued under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Development Act, 1966 published in Gazette Publication, produced vide Annexure-R and the notices dated 30.3.2008 produced vide Annexure-T and U respectively and notification issued under Section 28(4) alleging acquisition of lands and taking symbolic possession of the lands in question vide Gazette publication dated 26.10.2008, produced vide Annexure-V.7 This Writ Petition is coming on for Hearing this day, the court made the following:

O R D E R The petitioners have challenged the acquisition proceedings pursuant to a preliminary notification dated

13.04.2004 issued under Section 18 and 3(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘KIADB Act’ for brevity), and a final notification dated 9.2.2007 issued under Section 28(4) of the KIADB Act. Petitioner no.1 claims land measuring 8 acres 7 guntas wet land in Sy.No.191/2 of Avaregere, Davanagare Taluk and District. 4 Petitioner no.2 claims land in Sy.No.191/3 measuring 4 acres of wet land in the same village. It is contended that the acquisition was for the benefit of a Hitech hospital. A State Level Single Window Agency had approved the proposal for acquisition with a condition that irrigated wet land would not be acquired. The land of the petitioners is wet land but has been overlooked in proceeding to acquire the same.

2. After hearing the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.S. Naganand, the respondents were called upon to submit a report as to the true state of affairs as alleged by the petitioners namely, that the lands in question were wet lands and were irrigated and therefore, approval granted by the State Level Single Window Clearance Committee specifically laid down a condition that the acquisition would not include wet lands.

3. Now a report is filed into the Court by the counsel for Respondents 2 to 4 to state that the land in Sy.Nos.191/2, 191/3 5 are irrigated and that there is arecanut garden in one portion while there is paddy in the other and there are also poultry sheds in the land and on all four sides of the land, there are channels supplying water to the field. In this view of the matter, the lands in question being wet lands, would clearly be exempt from acquisition in terms of the approval granted by the State Level Single Window Clearance Committee. On that ground alone, the petition would have to be allowed. Though from the record it was sought to be urged that the lands were not wet lands, the report now filed by the respondents 2 and 4 would belie that contention and a finding would necessarily have to be given in favour of the petitioners that the lands in question are wet lands and therefore, were exempt from acquisition.