SMT. SAROJAMMA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Judgment

1 . 2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO. 14/3, 2ND FLOOR, RASHTROTHANA PARISHAT BUILDING NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & EXECUTIVE MEMBER. 3 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER - I THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ZONAL OFFICE, K.R.S.ROAD, MYSURU – 570 016. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R-1; SRI B.B.PATIL, ADV. FOR R-2 AND R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION NO.CI 222 SPQ 2005, BANGALORE, DATED

07.12.2005, ISSUED UNDER SECTIONS 3[1], 1[3] & 28[1] OF THE KIAD ACT AT ANNEXURE-A, AND FINAL NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.CI 266 SPQ 2006, BANGALORE DATED.31.8.2006, ISSUED 3 UNDER SECTION 28[4] OF THE KIAD ACT, AT ANNEXURE-B, BY THE R-1 ARE SO FAR AS PETITIONERS SCHEDULE PROPERTIES ARE CONCERNED; DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED VIDE NOTIFICATION NO.CI 222 SPQ 2005, BANGALORE, DATED 07.12.2005, ISSUED UNDER SECTIONS 3[1], 1[3] & 28[1] OF THE KIAD ACT AT ANNEX-A AND FINAL NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. CI 266 SPQ 2006, BANGALORE DATED 31.08.2006, ISSUED UNDER SECTION 28[4] OF THE KIAD ACT, AT ANNEXURE-B, BY THE R-1, IN RESPECT OF THE PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTIES ARE CONCERNED AS LAPSED. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CAV ORDER The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayers: - “(i) Issue writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction of similar nature and to quash the notification No.C1 222 SPQ 2005, Bangalore dated 07-12-2005 issued under Sections 3(1), 1(3) & 28(1) of the KIAD Act at Annexure- 4 A, and final notification bearing No.C1 226 SPQ 2006, Bangalore dated 31-08-2006 issued under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act, at Annexure-B by the 1st respondent are so far as petitioners schedule properties are concerned. (ii) Issue an appropriate writ declaring that the acquisition proceedings initiated vide notification No.C1 222 SPQ 2005, Bangalore dated 07-12-2005 issued under Sections 3(1), 1(3) & 28(1) of the KIAD Act at Annexure-A, and final notification bearing No.C1 226 SPQ 2006, Bangalore dated 31-08-2006 issued under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act, at Annexure-B by the 1st respondent in respect of the petition schedule properties are concerned as lapsed. (iii) To grant any other relief/reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant, in the circumstances of the case and award costs, in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. Heard Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri M.Rajakumar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing respondent No.1 and Sri B.B. Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

3.1. The petitioners claim that they are the absolute owners in possession of lands measuring 2 acres 21 guntas in Sy.No.45/1; 39 guntas in Sy.No.45/3; and 4 acres 17 guntas in Sy.No.100 of Mogarahalli Village, Belagola Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District. A preliminary notification comes to be issued by the 1st 5 respondent/Department of Commerce and Industries under Sections 3(1) and 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short ‘the Act’) declaring the notified lands including the lands of the petitioners for the purpose of formation of an industrial area. Therefore, the lands come to be acquired for the benefit of the 2nd respondent/Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board. As obtaining under Section 28(2) of the Act, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the 3rd respondent issued a notice to all the stake holders calling for objections. The petitioners claim to have filed their objections along with relevant documents to the preliminary notification, objecting to the acquisition of lands on the ground that they are eking out their livelihood from out of the said lands. Considering the objections filed by the petitioners, on 18-06-2006 an order under Section 28(3) of the Act comes to be passed, overruling the objections of the petitioners and consequently a final notification under Section 28(4) of the Act comes to be issued. A general award is passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 06-03-2009. There was absolute silence after passing of the general award. 6

3.2. The petitioners then claim to have filed certain applications under the Right to Information Act seeking details of the award passed with regard to the subject lands. An endorsement comes to be issued on 8-08-2016 stating that the award was under process of preparation and the Price Fixation Committee has fixed the price for converted lands at ₹9/- lakhs per acre for agricultural lands and 9.75 lakhs per acre for converted lands. It was indicated that the land owners did not seek any claim for compensation. Therefore, compensation was not paid. The petitioners then filed the subject petition seeking to quash the preliminary and final notifications and for a declaration that acquisition of lands of the petitioners has lapsed. After filing of the writ petition, 2nd and 3rd respondents placed a copy of the award proceedings dated 05-04- 2018 after conducting inspection. The subject petition is heard at that stage.

4.1. The learned senior counsel Sri Ashok Haranahalli appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that acquisition proceedings stood lapsed, as no compensation is paid to the petitioners despite final notification being issued in the year 7 2006 and general award passed in the year 2009. The circulars issued by Government particularly on 03-03-2007 exempting certain categories of lands from being acquired by the Board and those exempted lands included areas acquired for Hospitals, fuel station, garden land and fertile lands. The learned senior counsel submits that the circular also prescribed joint measurement and survey to be done before issuance of the notification under Section 28(1) of the Act, which is not done in the case at hand. He would contend that the lands declared by the State Government as industrial area is not proper, as there is no rationale behind acquiring less than the extent in one village and more land in the other village.

4.2. The learned senior counsel would further submit that the award is not passed within the reasonable time. The award dated 06-03-2009 was three years after the final notification and is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in plethora of cases. The conduct of the respondents for keeping quiet would clearly indicate that the acquisition is abandoned insofar as the lands of the petitioners are concerned. He would submit that a Division Bench of 8 this Court in H.N. SHIVANNA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA – 2013 (4) AKR 163 has held that there is no time limit prescribed under the Act, but that does not mean that the State Government can exercise its power of issuance of final notification without any time limit. It has to be done within a reasonable time.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri B.B. Patil appearing for respondents 2 and 3 would vehemently contend that the purport of the Act is securing establishment of industrial areas and promotion of industrial development. The circular dated 03-03-2007 is only a guiding factor, which does not have any statutory force. The Apex Court in KIADB v. C.KENCHAPPA – (2006) (6) SCC 371 has issued certain directions for ensuring protection of environment and ecology and sustained development of the lands acquired by the Board. From the period from 2016 nothing has happened for the reason that the writ petition was filed and an interim order of status quo was granted, due to which, award could not be passed. He would submit that reasonable period would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case. He would seek to place reliance upon the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Writ Petition 9 No.203585 of 2019 & connected cases, which overruled the judgment in the case of H.N. SHIVANNA. He would contend that land acquisition is happening in phased manner due to which there is some delay in passing the final award.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts and link in the chain of events are all a matter of record. The petitioners claim to be owners of properties as narrated hereinabove. On 07-12-2005 a preliminary notification comes to be issued by the Government/1st respondent for acquisition of certain lands for the purpose of establishment of an industry in the area. The preamble to the notification reads as follows: (cid:25)(cid:26)ೆಂಬ(cid:28) 2005 (cid:21)(cid:22)ಾಂಕ 7(cid:22)ೇ(cid:22)ೇ(cid:22)ೇ(cid:22)ೇ (cid:25)(cid:26)ೆಂಬ(cid:28) (cid:15)ೆಂಗಳ(cid:18)ರು, (cid:21)(cid:22)ಾಂಕ “ಸಂ(cid:5)ೆ(cid:7)ಸಂ(cid:5)ೆ(cid:7)ಸಂ(cid:5)ೆ(cid:7)ಸಂ(cid:5)ೆ(cid:7): (cid:8)ಐ(cid:8)ಐ(cid:8)ಐ(cid:8)ಐ:222:ಎ(cid:11)ಎ(cid:11)ಎ(cid:11)ಎ(cid:11)(cid:12)ಕೂ(cid:7)(cid:12)ಕೂ(cid:7)(cid:12)ಕೂ(cid:7)(cid:12)ಕೂ(cid:7):2005,, (cid:15)ೆಂಗಳ(cid:18)ರು (cid:25)(cid:26)ೆಂಬ(cid:28) (cid:25)(cid:26)ೆಂಬ(cid:28) (cid:21)(cid:22)ಾಂಕ (cid:21)(cid:22)ಾಂಕ (cid:15)ೆಂಗಳ(cid:18)ರು (cid:15)ೆಂಗಳ(cid:18)ರು 1966ರ ಕ(cid:22)ಾ(cid:29)ಟಕ (cid:31)ೈ!ಾ"(cid:31)ಾ ಪ$%ೇ&ಾ’ವೃ(cid:21)* ಅ,-ಯಮದ (1966ರ ಕ(cid:22)ಾ(cid:29)ಟಕ (cid:31)ಾ12 ಸಂ(cid:5)ೆ(cid:7) 18) ಕಲಂ 3(1)ರ45 67ತ9ಾ:ರುವ ಅ,(cid:31)ಾರವನು< ಚ>ಾ?(cid:8) ಕ(cid:22)ಾ(cid:29)ಟಕ @ಾಜ(cid:7) ಸ(cid:31)ಾ(cid:29)ರವB ಈ (cid:31)ೆಳ:ನ Dೆಡೂ(cid:7)Fನ ಅಂಕಣ 2ರ45 (cid:31)ಾH(cid:8)ರುವ ಸ9ೆ(cid:29) ನಂಬರುಗI!ೆ Jೊಂ(cid:21)(cid:31)ೊಂಡಂKೆ ಅಂಕಣ 3ರ45 ನಮೂ(cid:21)(cid:8)ರುವ 6(cid:8)Lೕಣ(cid:29)ವನು< ಒಳ!ೊಂಡ (cid:31)ಾ12ಯ ಉ%ೆ2ೕಶ(cid:31)ಾP: (cid:31)ೈ!ಾ"(cid:31)ಾ ಪ$%ೇಶ9ಾಗತಕP%ೆ2ಂದು 10 ಈ ಮೂಲಕ QೂೕR(cid:8)%ೆ ಮತುL ಅದರ ಎ>ೆ5 %ಾಖ>ೆಯಂVರತಕPದು2. ಅಂಕಣ 4ರ45 (cid:31)ಾH(cid:8)ರುವ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟT The lands of the petitioners become the subject matter of acquisition. As obtaining under Section 28(2) of the Act, objections were called from all stake holders. The petitioners are said to have filed their separate objections on 06-02-2006 concerning separate survey numbers. One such objection filed reads as follows: “ಇವ"ಂದ: Xೆ.ರYೕಶ (cid:15)ೆ£ï. J.Zೕ. ಜಗ(cid:21)ೕಶ (cid:15)ೊಮೂ\ರು ಅಗ$Jಾರ (cid:15)ೆಳ!ೊಳ JೋಬI ]$ೕ ರಂಗಪಟTಣ Kಾಲೂ5ಕು ಮಂಡ(cid:7) ^>ೆ5. ಇವ"!ೆ: 6&ೇಷ ಭೂ (cid:26)ಾa,ೕ(cid:22)ಾ,(cid:31)ಾ"ಗಳb ಕ(cid:22)ಾ(cid:29)ಟಕ (cid:31)ೈ!ಾ"(cid:31)ಾ ಪ$%ೇ&ಾ’ವೃ¢Ý ಮಂಡI, ವಲಯ ಕcೇ" Yೖಸೂರು 6ಷಯ:- ನನು< (cid:15)ಾಬುL, dಾಗರಹIf !ಾ$ಮದ ಸ9ೆ(cid:29) ನಂ. 100, 6(cid:8)Lೕಣ(cid:29) 3.20 ಗುಂgೆ ಜhೕನು (cid:31)ೈ!ಾ"ಕ ಪ$%ೇ&ಾ’ವೃ¢Ý!ೆ ಭೂ (cid:26)ಾa,ೕನ ಪ(cid:25)(cid:8)(cid:31)ೊಳbfವ ಬ!ೆi ಆkೇಪlೆ ಉ>ೆ5ೕಖ:- ತಮ\ ಕmೇ"?ಂದ (cid:21)(cid:22)ಾಂಕ: 04.01.06 ರಂದು ನಂ.ಎF.ಎ.ಕು(cid:7).(1)(cid:8) ಆ(cid:28).2:05-06 ರಂKೆ -ೕ(cid:25)ರುವ (cid:22)ೋo(cid:11). **** 11 ಅ%ಾ: ನನ!ೆ ]$ೕರಂಗಪಟTಣ Kಾಲೂ5ಕು (cid:15)ೆಳ!ೊಳ JೋಬI, pಗರಹIf !ಾ$ಮ(cid:31)ೆP (cid:26)ೇ"ದಂKೆ ಸ9ೇ(cid:29) ನಂ.100 ರ45 3.20 ಗುಂgೆ ಜhೕನು ಇದು2 ನನ< dಾ°Ãಕತa(cid:31)ೆP ಒಳಪoT%ೆ . ಈಗ ಸದ" ಜhೕನು ಸ(cid:31)ಾ(cid:29)ರವB (cid:31)ೈ!ಾ"(cid:31)ಾ ಕ(cid:22)ಾ(cid:29)ಟಕ ಪ$%ೇ&ಾ’ವೃ¢Ý (cid:31)ಾ12 1966ರ 6, 28(1) ರಂKೆ ಸಂ(cid:5)ೆ(cid:7):- (cid:8).(cid:12).222.ಎ(cid:11).(cid:12).PÀÆå.05 (cid:21)(cid:22)ಾಂಕ :07.12.05 ಉಳf ಅ,ಸೂಚ(cid:22)ೆಯನು< ಕ(cid:22)ಾ(cid:29)ಟಕ @ಾಜ(cid:7) ಪತ$ದ (cid:21)(cid:22)ಾಂಕ:16.12.05 ಪBಟ 06-22 ರ>ೆ5ೕ ಪ$ಕಟ!ೊI(cid:8) ಸದ" ಸaತುLಗಳನು< (cid:31)ೈ!ಾ"(cid:31)ಾ ಪ$%ೇ&ಾ’ವೃ¢Ý!ೋಸPರ (cid:26)ಾa,ೕನ ಪ(cid:25)(cid:8)(cid:31)ೊಳbfವ ಬ!ೆi ಪ$ಕಟlೆ Jೊರ(cid:25)(cid:8) ನನ!ೆ ಉ>ೆ5ೕಖದ "ೕvÁå (cid:22)ೋoೕ(cid:11) -ೕ(cid:25)ರುವBದು ¸ÀjAiÀĵÉÖ. ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß PÉÊUÁjPÁ ¥ÀæzÉñÁ©üªÀÈ¢ÝUÉ (cid:26)ಾa,ೕನ ಪ(cid:25)(cid:8)(cid:31)ೊಳbfವ ಬ!ೆi ನನ< ತಕ@ಾರು ಇರುತL%ೆ. (cid:22)ಾನು ಮತುL ನನ< ಕುಟುಂಬದ YೕಲPಂಡ ಜhೕನುಗಳ(cid:22)ೆ<ೕ ಅವಲಂZ(cid:8)(cid:31)ೊಂಡು ^ೕವನ (cid:26)ಾ:ಸುVLರುKೆLೕ9ೆ. ಇದ"ಂದ YೕಲPಂಡ ಜhೕನುಗಳನು< ಕುಟುಂಬದ ^ೕವನ (cid:26)ಾ:ಸಲು ನಮ!ೆ (cid:15)ೇ(cid:31)ಾ:ದು2. KಾವB ಜhೕನು (cid:26)ಾa,ೕನಪ(cid:25)(cid:8)(cid:31)ೊಂಡ45 ತುಂ(cid:15)ಾ ಅ(cid:22)ಾನುಕೂಲ9ಾಗುತL%ೆ ಒಂದು 9ೇwೆ (cid:31)ೈ!ಾ"(cid:31)ಾ ಪ$%ೇ&ಾ’ವೃ¢Ý!ೆ ಜhೕನು (cid:15)ೇ(cid:31)ಾದ45 ಇತ@ೆ ಜhೕನುಗ½zÀÄÝ ಅವನು< (cid:26)ಾಧನಪ(cid:25)(cid:8)(cid:31)ೊಳfಬಹು%ಾ:%ೆ . ಆದುದ"ಂದ SÁªÀAದರು YೕಲPಂಡ ನನ< ಜhೕನು ಜhೕನುಗಳb (cid:26)ಾa,ೕನಪ(cid:25)(cid:8)(cid:31)ೊಳf%ೆ ನನ!ೆ ಉI(cid:8)(cid:31)ೊಟುT ನನಗೂ ಮತುL ನನ< ಕುಟುಂಬ(cid:31)ೆP ಅನುಕೂಲ dಾ(cid:25)(cid:31)ೊಡುವಂKೆ ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ತಮ\45 ಕಳಕI?ಂದ xಾ$y(cid:29)ಸುKೆLೕ(cid:22)ೆ . ತಮ\ 6&ಾa(cid:8) ¸À»/- (Xೆ ರYೕ{).” Thereafter, a final notification comes to be issued on 31-08-2006. After the final notification, a general award is said to have been passed by the respondents. A draft general award is placed along with a memo by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Board. A perusal at the general award indicates the lands of the petitioners being subject matter of those award proceedings. After passing of 12 the award, it is the claim that no compensation was paid and possession was not taken. Therefore, the petitioners seek information by filing application under the Right to Information Act which is replied to on 8-08-2016 by way of an endorsement. The endorsement reads as follows: ಪ$%ೇ&ಾ’ವೃ(cid:21)* ಮಂಡIಮಂಡIಮಂಡIಮಂಡI (cid:31)ೈ!ಾ"(cid:31)ಾ ಪ$%ೇ&ಾ’ವೃ(cid:21)* ಕ(cid:22)ಾ(cid:29)ಟಕ (cid:31)ೈ!ಾ"(cid:31)ಾ “ಕ(cid:22)ಾ(cid:29)ಟಕ ಪ$%ೇ&ಾ’ವೃ(cid:21)* ಪ$%ೇ&ಾ’ವೃ(cid:21)* (cid:31)ೈ!ಾ"(cid:31)ಾ (cid:31)ೈ!ಾ"(cid:31)ಾ ಕ(cid:22)ಾ(cid:29)ಟಕ ಕ(cid:22)ಾ(cid:29)ಟಕ (ಕ(cid:22)ಾ(cid:29)ಟಕ ಸ(cid:31)ಾ(cid:29)ರದ ಅ,ೕನ ಸಂ(cid:26)ೆ~) 6&ೇಷ ಭೂ(cid:26)ಾa,ೕ(cid:22)ಾ,(cid:31)ಾ"ಗಳ ಕcೇ", Yೖಸೂರು ವಲಯ, (cid:31)ೆ.ಆ(cid:28).ಎ(cid:11). ರ(cid:26)ೆL, Yೖಸೂರು - 570 016. ದೂರ9ಾH/(cid:127)ಾ(cid:7)(cid:128)(cid:129):080-2582081 ಈ-YೕF: slaomys@kiadb.in ಸಂ(cid:5)ೆ(cid:7): ಭೂ(cid:26)ಾa (7) (cid:8).ಆ(cid:28)/94 "ಂದ 100/2016-17/736 (cid:21)(cid:22)ಾಂಕ: 08-08-2016 7ಂಬರಹ 7ಂಬರಹ 7ಂಬರಹ 7ಂಬರಹ 6ಷಯ: ಮಂಡ(cid:7) ^>ೆ5, ]$ೕರಂಗಪಟTಣ Kಾಲೂ5ಕು, (cid:15)ೆಳ!ೊಳ JೋಬI, pಗರಹIf !ಾ$ಮದ ಸ.ನಂ.45/1 ರ45 2-21 ಎಕ@ೆ 45/3 ರ45 0-39 UÀÄAmÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 100 ರ45 3-20 ಎಕ@ೆ ಜhೕನುಗಳ ಭೂ(cid:26)ಾa,ೕನದ ಬ!ೆi. ಉ>ೆ5ೕಖ: -ಮ\ ಮನ6 (cid:21)(cid:22)ಾಂಕ: 28-06-2016. ***** ಮಂಡ(cid:7) ^>ೆ5, ]$ೕರಂಗಪಟTಣ Kಾಲೂ5ಕು, (cid:15)ೆಳ!ೊಳ JೋಬI, pಗರಹIf !ಾ$ಮದ ಸ.ನಂ.45/1 ರ45 2-21 ಎಕ@ೆ 45/3 ರ45 0-39 UÀÄAmÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 100 gÀ°è 3-20 ಎಕ@ೆ ಜhೕನುಗಳನು< ಭೂ(cid:26)ಾa,ೕನಪ(cid:25)(cid:8)(cid:31)ೊಂಡು ಅ9ಾ(cid:130)(cid:29) dಾ(cid:25) ಪ"Jಾರದ ಹಣ 6ತ"(cid:8)ರುವ ಬ!ೆi dಾ7V -ೕಡುವಂKೆ ಉ>ೆ5ೕಖದ ಅನaಯ dಾ7V ಹಕುP (cid:31)ಾ12ಯ(cid:25) -ೕವB ಸ45(cid:8)ದ2 ಮನ6ಯನು< ಪ"]ೕ4(cid:8)%ೆ. ಮಂಡ(cid:7) ^>ೆ5, ]$ೕರಂಗಪಟTಣ Kಾಲೂ5ಕು, (cid:15)ೆಳ!ೊಳ JೋಬI, pಗರಹIf !ಾ$ಮದ ಸ.ನಂ.45/1 ರ45 2-21 ಎಕ@ೆ 45/3 ರ45 0-39 UÀÄAmÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 100 ರ45 3-20 ಎಕ@ೆ ಜhೕನುಗಳನು< (cid:31)ೆ.ಐ.ಎ.(cid:25). (cid:31)ಾ12 1966 ರ ಕಲಂ 28(4) ರ Yೕ@ೆ!ೆ ಸ(cid:31)ಾ(cid:29)" ಅ,ಸೂಚ(cid:22)ೆ ಸಂ. (cid:8)ಐ 266 ಎ(cid:11)(cid:12)ಕೂ(cid:7) 2006 (cid:21)(cid:22)ಾಂಕ: 31.08.2006 ರಂKೆ ಆಂVಮ9ಾ: ಭೂ(cid:26)ಾa,ೕನಪ(cid:25)(cid:8)(cid:31)ೊಂಡು ಪರಸ(cid:131)ರ ಒಪ(cid:131)ಂದದಂKೆ ^>ಾ5,(cid:31)ಾ"ಗಳb, ಮಂಡ(cid:7) ^>ೆ5, ಮಂಡ(cid:7) ರವರ ಅಧ(cid:7)(cid:132)Kೆಯ45 ನ(cid:133)ೆದ ಭೂದರ ಸಲJಾ ಸhV ಸ(cid:134)ೆಯ45ನ 13 Vೕdಾ(cid:29)ನದಂKೆ Jಾಗೂ ಮಂಡI ಸ(cid:134)ೆಯ45 ಅನುpೕ(cid:21)(cid:8)ರುವಂKೆ ಖು¶Ì ಜhೕ-!ೆ ಎಕ@ೆ!ೆ ರೂ.9.00 ಲ(cid:132) Jಾಗೂ ಭೂಪ"ವV(cid:29)ತ ಜhೕ-!ೆ ರೂ.9.75 ಲ(cid:132)ಗಳಂKೆ ಭೂಪ"Jಾರ -ಗ(cid:21)ಪ(cid:25)ಸ>ಾ:%ೆ. ಸದ" ಜhೕನುಗI!ೆ ಭೂಪ"Jಾರ ಪ(cid:133)ೆಯಲು ಭೂdಾ4ೕಕರು ಭೂ %ಾಖ>ೆಗಳನು< ಸ45ಸ%ೇ ಇರುವBದ"ಂದ ಭೂಪ"Jಾರ xಾವV(cid:8)ರುವB(cid:21)ಲ5. ಈ ಬ!ೆi ಅ9ಾ(cid:130)(cid:29) ತ(cid:135)ಾ"(cid:8) ಪ"Jಾರ xಾವVಸ(cid:15)ೇ(cid:31)ಾ:ದು2, ಅ9ಾ(cid:130)(cid:29) ರಚ(cid:22)ೆಯ ಹಂತದ45ರುತL%ೆ ಎಂದು Jಾಗೂ ಸ9ೆ(cid:29) ನಂ.45/1 ಮತುL 45/3 (cid:31)ೆP ಸಂಬಂ,(cid:8)ದಂKೆ ಕcೇ"ಯ45 ಕಲಂ 26(3)ರ 6mಾರlೆಯ (cid:31)ೈಬರಹದ ಆ%ೇಶದ ಪ$V ಲಭ(cid:7)6ರುವB(cid:21)ಲ5. ಕಲಂ 28(3)ರ(cid:25) (cid:15)ೆರಳಚು(cid:136) dಾ(cid:25)ರುವ ಆ%ೇಶದ ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß FUÁUÀ¯Éà ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA100gÀ PÀ®A 28(3)gÀ «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ (cid:31)ೈಬರಹದ ಆ%ೇಶದ ಪ$Vಯನು< ಈ ಕೂಡ ಲಗVL(cid:8)%ೆ. ಈ dಾ7V?ಂದ (cid:15)ಾ,ತ@ಾದ45 ಪ$ಥಮ Yೕಲ\ನ6 xಾ$,(cid:31)ಾರ9ಾ:ರುವ 6&ೇಷ ಭೂ(cid:26)ಾa,ೕ(cid:22)ಾ,(cid:31)ಾ"ಗಳb (cid:31)ೆಐಎ(cid:25)Z, Yೖಸೂರು ವಲಯ, Yೖಸೂರು, 6(cid:31)ಾ$ಂ(cid:138) gೈgïì ಸhೕಪ, (cid:31)ೆ.ಆ(cid:28).ಎ(cid:11) ರ(cid:26)ೆL, ಇವ"!ೆ dಾ7V ಹಕುP ಅ,-ಯಮ ಅ(cid:139)ಾ(cid:7)ಯ V ರ ಕಲಂ 19(1) ರ(cid:25) 30 (cid:21)ನ%ೊಳ!ೆ Yೕಲ\ನ6 ಸ45ಸಬಹು%ಾ:%ೆ. ಸ7/- (cid:26)ಾವ(cid:29)ಜ-ಕ dಾ7V ಹಕುP ಅ,(cid:31)ಾ" ಮತುL ವ(cid:7)ವ(cid:26)ಾ~ಪಕರು, 6&ೇಷ ಭೂ(cid:26)ಾa,ೕ(cid:22)ಾ,(cid:31)ಾ"ಗಳ ಕcೇ", PÀ(cid:31)ೈಪ$ಮಂ, ವಲಯ ಕcೇ", Yೖಸೂರು.” The endorsement narrates that compensation is determined and ready to be disbursed. It is at that point in time, the petitioners knocked at the doors of this Court in the subject petition. This Court entertaining the petition, passes the following order on 05-10-2016. “Learned AGA is directed to take notice for R1. Issue notice to R2 and R3. Parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the petition schedule property.” 14 The parties were directed to maintain status quo which has continued till the date on which the matter was heard and reserved on 05-08-2025.

8. After filing of the petition, award proceedings are held by the Special Land Acquisition Officer including the areas in which the petitioners’ lands were situated. The award was not passed insofar as the lands of the petitioners are concerned in the teeth of the interim order of status quo that was operating from 5-08-2016 and continued to operate till the date on which the matter was heard and reserved for orders. Therefore, it is not a case where the Board has not done anything insofar as the lands that are sought to be acquired. The Board did not pass the award insofar as the petitioners are concerned for the reason that the writ petition was pending and there was an interim order of status quo.

9. Heavy reliance is placed by the petitioners upon the judgment in the case of H.N. SHIVANNA, wherein the Division Bench had observed that, merely because no time limit is fixed under the Act for the Board to conclude the acquisition proceeding, 15 it cannot be said that the Board can do it at any time, but has to do it within a reasonable time. What would be the reasonable time was not indicated. Even otherwise, the said judgment is distinguished later by a Full Bench in SIDDESHWAR SUGARS LIMITED v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA1. The reference to the Full Bench was for the following purpose: “2. The reference to the Full Bench is pursuant to an order of the learned Single Judge dated 08.07.2022, wherein, the learned Single Judge taking note of the submissions of the learned Senior counsel for the in W.P.No.203585/2019 and the learned petitioners counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.201572/2016 has prima facie opined that there is a conflict between two judgments rendered by Benches of equal coram i.e., the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in the case of Ananthaswamy vs. State of Karnataka and Others i.e., in W.A.No.1451/2018 (LA-KIADB) and the judgment of another Division Bench in the case of KIADB and Anr. vs. K. H. Shivanna &Ors rendered in W.A.No.557/2021 (LA KIADB).” (Emphasis supplied) The conflict between two Division Benches led a learned single Judge to refer the matter to the Full Bench in terms of his order dated 08-07-2022. The decision in H.N.SHIVANNA, upon which the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance, was also 1 Writ Petition No.203585 of 2019 and connected cases decided on 27.10.2023 16 one of the judgments that was considered by the Full Bench. It is held that H.N.SHIVANNA was decided much prior to coming into force of the 2013 Act and observes that a subsequent Division Bench has impliedly overruled H.N.SHIVANNA. Therefore, H.N. SHIVANNA was not a good law. The Full Bench observes as follows: “…. ….. ….

12. The judgment in Ananthaswamy’s case rendered on 02.03.2021 precedes the judgment rendered in W.A.No.557/2021. In Paragraph Nos.47 and 48 of Ananthaswamy’s case, the Division Bench has recorded compelling reasons as to why H. N. Shivanna’s case is no more good law and Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 is inapplicable to acquisitions other than the acquisition initiated under the LA Act. In W.A.No.557/2021 delivered on 23.03.2022, the acquisition has been held to have been lapsed on account of inordinate delay and in the light of the judgments noted in Paragraph No.6 of the said judgment. Thus, in our view, the judgment in Ananthaswamy’s case has rightly held the inapplicability of Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, as noted supra. W.A.No.557/2021 has been rendered without noticing the judgment in Ananthaswamy’s case and without appreciating the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Anasuya Bai’s case and M. Nagabhushana’s case.

13. The Full Bench having perused the judgments rendered by two Division Bench referred to in the reference order, we find that the judgments rendered are on different factual aspects point of law and there is no conflict with each other.” (Emphasis supplied) 17 The Full Bench holds that the judgments of subsequent time which were also referred to the Full Bench were rendered on the facts obtaining in each of the cases and H.N. SHIVANNA was not a good law. In the light of the judgment of the Full Bench, the chief support of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners would tumble down.

10. Several other judgments are relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners in the cases of: (i) RAM CHAND v. UNION OF INDIA – (1994) 1 SCC 44; (ii) KIADB v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – W.A.No.100219 of 2018 and another decided on 05-12-2018; (iii) M. NAGABHUSHAN REDDY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – W.A.No.4583 of 2011 and connected cases decided on 01-02-2023 and (iv) SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE FOR FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, GOLIMANGLA v. N.KRISHNAPPA – (2017) 13 SCC 239. The said judgments are distinguishable to the facts obtaining at hand are considered without much ado. 18

11. The award is not passed and compensation is not paid in the case at hand only for the reason that the writ petition was pending and an order of status quo was operating. But, the acquisition proceedings had in fact come to an end with the draft general award itself being kept ready. In that light, the petitioners cannot claim that delay has vitiated the acquisition proceedings or is said to have lapsed. Insofar as the circular is concerned, it emerges on 03-03-2007, by which time even the final notification had been issued. It would have been altogether different circumstance if the final notification had emerged after the circular of the State Government. The circular is dated 03-03-2007 and the final notification is dated 31-08-2006, long before emergence of the circular. Even otherwise, the circular is indicative of the fact that certain categories of lands would be exempted only if they do not break the contiguity in the acquisition and for the purpose for which the acquisition is made. The acquisition in the case at hand is for industrial purpose. While industries are being set up amidst the said land, it cannot be said that the petitioners should be exempt to create an agricultural activity in the midst of industries. 19

12. Finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands rejected. Interim order if any operating, shall stand dissolved. The 2nd respondent/Board shall now determine compensation in accordance with law and disburse the same to these petitioners without brooking any delay. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CT:MJ