OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2 ND DAY OF APRIL v. ANJARIA

8. SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O LATE H H BHIMAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

9. KUMARI SOUNDARYA D/O LATE H H BHIMAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS ALL RESIDING AT: COLLEGE ROAD NEAR SHANTHI GAS OFFICE NITUVALLI, DAVANGERE - 570 001

10. SRI MALLIKARJUNAPPA H H S/O LATE HANUMAPPA H AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS DOOR NO. 1784/50 “LAKSHMI KRUPA” NEAR DURGAMBIKA HIGH SCHOOL SARAATHI NAGAR, “C” BLOCK NITUVALLI POST DAVANAGERE - 577 004 (BY SRI S.S.NAGANAND, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANTS AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT) M.S BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE – 560 001 - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:13413-DB WA No. 414 of 2024

2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

3. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER K.I.A.D.B NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001

4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER K.I.A.D.B INDUSTRIAL AREA P.B. ROAD DAVANGAGERE – 577 004

5. M/S. S.S INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH CENTRE DAVANGERE - 577 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL

6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANGERE - 577 002

7. THE TAHASILDAR OFFICE OF THE TAHASILDAR RAITHABHAVAN, OLD B.P ROAD DAVANAGERE TALUK DAVANAGERE – 577 002

8. K SHIVA PRASAD AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS S/O LATE KARIBASAPPA DOOR NO.794/20 VEERABHADRA KRUPA JAYANAGAR ‘A’ BLOCK - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:13413-DB WA No. 414 of 2024 NITUVALLI POST DAVANAGERE – 577 004 …RESPONDENTS (SMT.NILOUFER AKBAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1, 6 AND 7 SRI SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 4 SRI PRABHULING K.NAVADGI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI AJYA J.NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT No.5) THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.01.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P No.25964/2023 (LA-KIADB) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. S.S. Naganand assisted by learned advocate Smt.Sumana Naganand for the appellants, learned Senior Advocate Mr. K. Shashi Kiran Shetty for learned advocate Mr.B.B.Patil for respondent Nos.2 to 4, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Prabhuling K. Navadgi with learned advocate Mr.Ajay J. Nandalike for respondent No.5 and learned Additional Government Advocate Ms.Niloufer Akbar for respondent Nos.1, 6 and 7–the State and its authorities, at length. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:13413-DB WA No. 414 of 2024

2. The appellants are the original petitioners who, by filing this writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, have sought to challenge the judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated 22.01.2024. Thereby, the writ petition of the appellants came to be dismissed. Consequently, Preliminary Notification dated 13.04.2004 published under Sections 3(1) and 28 as well as the Final Notification dated 05.09.2023 under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ‘KIAD Act’) were upheld, negativing the challenge to the acquisition.

2.1 The petitioners-appellants herein prayed in their writ petition to set aside the aforementioned two notifications issued under the KIAD Act. It was also prayed to set aside the Notification dated 08.10.2023 taking symbolic possession of the lands in question, by the authorities. The lands of the petitioners were acquired pursuant the aforesaid notifications for setting up the hospital and research centre. - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:13413-DB WA No. 414 of 2024

3. Noticing the basic facts, it was the case of the appellants-petitioners that they, as members of the family, inherited land bearing survey No.209 situated at Averegere Village, Davanagere. It was stated that the petitioners had specific shares in the different parcels of the said survey number which fell to their ownership upon partition of the land. The appellant No.1 got survey No.209/P2 and survey No.209/P5 comprising 1 acre in each of the said survey numbers. Survey No.209/P3 ad measuring 30 guntas fell to the share of appellant No.2, appellant Nos.3 to 6 got 1 acre in survey No.209/P2 each. Similarly, appellant No.7 got 30 guntas in survey No.209/P6, appellant Nos.8 and 9 got the same area in survey No.209/P7 and appellant No.10 also got 30 guntas in survey No.209/P4. It was claimed that the lands were irrigated lands, that the names of the appellants were entered into the RTC records and that each of the appellants was in physical possession of their respective land engaging themselves in agriculture and cultivation. - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:13413-DB WA No. 414 of 2024

3.1 Respondent No.5-M/s. S. S. Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre found lands for establishing high-tech hospital and research centre for which it made a representation. Respondent No.2-Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) resolved on 31.07.2002 to grant 113 acres of lands which included the above lands belonging to the appellants in favour of respondent No.5. The resolution was placed before the State Level Single Window Clearance Committee (SLSWCC).

3.2 By representation dated 13.11.2002, respondent No.5 requested that it would need 70 acres of land. The SLSWCC in its meeting dated 27.11.2002 granted permission to KIADB to acquire and allot the lands. The permission by SLSWCC was given, it was stated by the petitioners, subject to the stipulation that irrigated wet lands would not be included in the proposed acquisition and that only non-cultivable and non- irrigated lands could be brought under acquisition. - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:13413-DB WA No. 414 of 2024

3.3 It was case of the petitioners that notwithstanding, the lands of the petitioners which were irrigated wet lands came to be notified for acquisition in the Preliminary Notification dated

13.04.2004. It was the further case that in the RTC records also right from the year 2001, the lands were shown to be niravari (cultivated) lands and that crops were shown to have been raised on the said lands. It was further claimed that a nala had been flowing across the lands, which nala was connected to Bhadra river making the land in question capable of being irrigated. It was the case of the petitioners that the Special Land Acquisition officer disregarded the aspect irrigability of the land and prepared report dated 18.10.2004 rejecting the objections filed by the appellants and the Final Notification dated 09.02.2007 under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act was published.

3.4 It was next stated that the acquisition proceedings as well as the final notification came to be challenged by appellant Nos.1 to 9 by filing Writ Petition No.15450 of 2011 and by appellant No.10 in Writ Petition No.10673 of 2021 - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC:13413-DB WA No. 414 of 2024 before this Court. By the order dated 02.11.2022 and by further chamber order dated 07.12.2022, this Court passed order permitting to conduct fresh inquiry by the competent authority and to submit report, however, the notifications were not set aside.

3.5 Respondent No.4-Special Land Acquisition Officer conducted inquiry and submitted report dated 26.06.2023 in which the claim of the appellants that the lands were irrigated wet lands was rejected. It was further suggested in the report that lands in survey No.209 constituted an island as it was adjacent to National Highway-48 and they stood surrounded by other lands which were already acquired. In the report, it was further opined that the cultivation thereon involved poisonous substances spread on the crop. After the said report dated 26.06.2003, Final Notification dated 05.09.2023 came to be published in the newspaper on 08.10.2023.

3.6 Before learned Single Judge, statement of objections was filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 to contend that it - 10 - NC: 2024:KHC:13413-DB WA No. 414 of 2024 was pursuant finding inquiry report dated

26.06.2023, as directed by the Court in the aforementioned order passed in the earlier petition, that the Final Notification dated 05.09.2023 under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act was published. It was stated that pursuant to the earlier Writ Petition No.19969 of 2014 with connected Writ Petition Nos.15450 of 2011 and 10673 of 2021, the petitioners appeared before the authorities and filed their objections on

03.03.2023 and that the said objections were considered by the competent authority before passing the final notification. Hearing was also given to the petitioners. Notification under section 28(4) of the KIAD Act was thereafter issued. It was contended that once issuance of the said notification is provided under Section 28(5) of the KIAD Act, the lands stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances.

4. While assailing the judgment and order of learned Single Judge in this writ appeal, more or less the same contentions are canvassed before this Court which were advanced by the rival parties before learned Single Judge. A teethless - 11 - NC: 2024:KHC:13413-DB WA No. 414 of 2024 contention raised on behalf of the appellants may be disposed of at the outset.

4.1 It was sought to be submitted that the challenge to the acquisition was covered by the order of this Court in Writ Petition No.15450 of 2011 connected with Writ Petition No.10673 of 2021 in which the same preliminary notification was challenged. It is stated that the said two writ petitions along with yet another Writ Petition No.19969 of 2014 came to be disposed of as per the order dated 02.11.2022 read with order 07.12.2022 which was chamber order.

4.1.1 The directions issued by this Court while disposing of the said writ petitions were as under, “…(i) Writ Petition Nos.19969/2014, 15450/2011 and 10673/2021 are hereby allowed. *Deleted vide Chamber Order Dated (ii) 07.12.2022. (iii) The order dated 18.10.2024 as well as final Notification dated 26.10.2007 respective subject lands of the petitioners are concerned, are hereby set aside. insofar as - 12 - NC: 2024:KHC:13413-DB WA No. 414 of 2024 (iv) Matter is remitted back to the respondents to conduct fresh enquiry only in respect of the subject lands and pass fresh order under Section 28(3) in accordance with law. (v) All rival contentions are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. (vi) Liberty is reserved in favour of the parties to file pleadings, documents etc., in respect of their respective contentions. (vii) Petitioners and answering respondent No.5 are directed to appear on 28.11.2022 before the respondent No.4/ The Special LAO, who directed to conclude the proceedings within a period of three months thereafter, after hearing the parties. …”

4.1.2 The Preliminary Notification dated 13.04.2004 and the Final Notification dated 09.02.2007 were not set aside, but the matter was remitted back to conduct fresh inquiry in respect of the subject matter lands and passed fresh orders under Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act. It was pursuant to the inquiry, undertaken as above, that the lands were found fit to be acquired and the claim of the appellants that it was the irrigated land was not accepted. The land was found to be kushki (dry land). - 13 - NC: 2024:KHC:13413-DB WA No. 414 of 2024

4.2 The appellants relied on the order in yet another Writ Petition No.15126 of 2008 in which the same Preliminary Notification dated 13.04.2004 and Final Notification dated

09.02.2007 were challenged. However the challenge in that writ petition was in respect of acquisition of different survey number and by different person. Therefore, the reliance on the said petition was of no avail to the appellants-petitioners.

4.2.1 It was the contention raised with reference to the circular dated 03.03.2007 that under the said circular the irrigated land was prohibited to be acquired and since the lands of the petitioners were irrigated wet lands, it could not have been put under acquisition. The claim of the appellants- petitioners that the land survey No.209 and its parcels was irrigated land or wet land was on facts not found true in the inquiry report.

5. Section 28 of the KIAD Act deals with the acquisition of land. Section 28 (1) is about intention to acquire the land by the State Government when it is of the opinion that any land is - 14 - NC: 2024:KHC:13413-DB WA No. 414 of 2024 acquired for the purpose of development or any other purpose in furtherance of the objects of the Act. Notice is given to the owner, occupier or the persons interested in the land as the case may be. Sub-section (3) is about passing order by the Government after giving such owner and person an opportunity of being heard.

5.1 Under sub-section (4) of Section 28 the Government issues notification upon being satisfied that the lands could be acquired for the purpose specified. As per sub-section (5) of Section 28, once the declaration under sub-section (4) is published in the Official Gazette, the subject matter land shall vest in the State Government absolutely free from all encumbrances. The subsequent provision enjoins the land owner to deliver and surrender the possession. In the facts of the present case, the Notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act having been issued, the land in question is absolutely vested in the State. - 15 - NC: 2024:KHC:13413-DB WA No. 414 of 2024

5.2 The findings in the report dated 26.06.2023 that the land survey No.209 and parcels thereof belonging appellants-petitioners was kushki land, was a finding of fact arrived at upon inquiry. There is no reason not to accept the said finding. This Court could not travel beyond the finding of the fact. The Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction would not upset or reverse the finding of fact which is even otherwise properly arrived at in the fact finding inquiry.

5.3 Another aspect to be noticed is that the surrounding lands belonging to other persons have already been acquired. The beneficiary-the acquiring body has been in the process of setting up a hospital. It is only portion of the land belonging to the petitioners which is forming a kind of island is left out since having been subject matter of this litigation. The factum that the lands in question fall in the middle of the other lands already acquired, come to support the aspect that they could not be irrigated or irrigable land. - 16 - NC: 2024:KHC:13413-DB WA No. 414 of 2024

5.4 Learned Single Judge noted that respondent No.5 produced map to demonstrate that the lands of the petitioners were situated in between the lands which were already acquired for the purpose of respondent No.5. The subject matter lands involved have the contiguity with the other lands acquired for the same purpose for the very beneficiary.

5.5 Learned Single Judge further observed that the lands were acquired for the purposes of hospital, medical college and research institute which would sub serve public interest when going to be set up in the area awaiting development. Learned Single Judge observed that though certain factual errors were committed by respondent No.4 while recording the nature of the land, it would not be fatal to the legality of the acquisition, for, all the prerequisites in law for acquiring the land under the KIAD Act stand satisfied.

6. For the reasons recorded by learned Single Judge and for the discussion and reasons additionally supplied in this order, this Court is in agreement with the view taken by - 17 - NC: 2024:KHC:13413-DB WA No. 414 of 2024 learned Single Judge in dismissing the petition and upholding the acquisition.

7. No case is made out to warrant interference in the judgment and order of learned Single Judge. The present meritless writ appeal is dismissed. Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE THM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16