IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17m DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR. PD. DINAKARAN. CH1E:%_J"Gs'r1iQE.
AND
THE HONBLE MR.JUsTIcE"v.G~..sABHAHiT~ , «. "
WRIT APPEAL Nos.345a-:69/2069 I
BETWEEN:
1 CEEKKABYRAPPA
S/O BOREGOWDA ._
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARs_;--.. . ,
R/O COORGALL1VjILLAG'E, _ ' ._
HDAWAI.A_"HGE;B.L1, MYSORE '1'ALUKf'
2 NINGEGOWDA E€Ef1;;L:AP'P;°x..A*
S/Q_VN1NG'EG-«QwDA"' V * *
AGED AD10.U'r so 'HEARS, .
R"/Q {;oORGA£,L1V1;;I,AGE, -
1LAwAI,Ar£oI3Li;V'
MYSORE TAVLUKQ .. '
3 ;G0_v1NDEG_owDA '
_~ 's /Q' NINGEGOWDA
AGED "ABOUT 69 YEARS.
_ R._/O.(:OOR_GA1.I.I VILLAGE),
V _ 'ILAWAI ;'A.H'QB1,I.
" ~jI'ALUK.
4 BYRJELGOWDA
DDDDABYREGOWDA
D T 8/0 SIDDEGOVVDA
@_AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS.
_,R/0 COORGALL-I VILLAGE,
ILAWALA HOBL1.
MYSORE TALUK.
5 NEELAMMA
W/ O SHEVARAMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
--:2:~
R/O COORGALL! V!LLAGE.
ILAWALA HOBL1.
MYSORE TALU K. APPELLAN'i'[S] T
{COMMON IN ALL "
THE APPEALS] '
[By Sri/Smt : VENOD PRASAD. ADV.)
AND : ..
1 STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPEY ITS SECRETARY. V
DEPARTMENT OF . A
COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, ' '
BANGALORE} 1.
2 I{ARNA'11»4\KA}NDUSTR:iAL"--D ; D
AREA DEVELOPMENT EOARD: _
REPEY ms E.XECU'?FV'E.QFF'IQI3R, v_ 'V "
NRUPATU.NGA"ROAD. Z. V _ V:
BANGA:,ORE;~'_. _
3 THE sbEc«I_A'1;_ '
A;:QU1'sI.TiON OFFICER" .
K'ARNA*rA1<AV:N_»D'Ds*1*R1;A1; ' -
AREA DEVELO.PMEN.T*-
BOARD. .REGzONAL,.0EE*1'cE.
METAGALLI, K; _R.s-..RQA'D.
MYSORE. ~ r RESPONDEN'1"{S}
" D . [COMMON {N ALL
..... THE APPEALS}
{EV "s::i[/ 'BKVEERAPPA, AGA J
=i==k?I<*$**
""'irHEsE*".wR1'r APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE
VKARNATAKAX HIGH" COURT ACT PRAYENG TO SET ASIDE THE
PASSED IN THE VVRIT PETITION 14999/2007 DATED
" . 28 O5';{2'O09.
H WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARENG ON THIS DAY, SABHZAHIT J.,
" DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING-:-
Development Act. 1966, (hereinafter referred to as the
'Act') on 18/ 3/ 2006 proposing to acquire the I
lands, along with the other lands, for
development. of industrial area-; "Then
objections were filed by the petitioners
final notification was passed"Linder gectiponl oflthe
Act on 5/12/2006. Tlixe said 'notlilicationfirhalire been
challenged in the writ that the
respondents of land at
Ilawala, and 200 Acres of
land are available for
formation of and it is unnecessary to
acquire thel”‘lands”- belonging to the petitioners and
‘lll”–obje-o.tion-s of the p’e’titioners have not been considered
libe1<efeifea,_ll_j.the notifications are liable to be
l qulashed_.,-
A’ The name of the 1″ petitioner was deleted
the pendency of the writ petitions on the ground
‘Elthlat he has already received the compensation in
respect of the lands which have been acquired.
gm”
5. The learned Single Judge after hearing the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners 2 6,
learned counsel appearing for respondent _the
learned counsel appearing for respondents ~
an order dated 28/5/2009 held-‘thatlvipré}iniinary_V
notification has been issued after
provisions of the Act and posse_ssior1.: ls;vlll’al1’eady ll
taken by the respon-dzentsg..~ai1–d_:’–Eayout isiorrned and
sites are allotted to ti’:.i’nd’u1strialists for
establishing iin«:liistrie:;s. of objections
filed –.:i”iel were considered and the
petitionersi’__4werel’ along with the lands in
‘certain«»othe; lands to an extent of 540 Acres
accgn’iredl”‘b_y the board for formation of industrial
areavand -th_eA’i1=contention of the petitioners that barren
lands are available for formation of industrial area has
A ‘imam as the adjoining lands have also been acquired
l and accordingly, held that the writ peiition is devoid of
merit and dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved
\>/ii’
by the said order dated 28/ 5/ 2009. petitioners 2 to 6
have preferred this appeal.
6. We have heard the learned eounsel;”‘appe–ari::g’*A _
for the appellant and the learned w.
the respondents.
7. The delay of 82 fi.li11.g’th:ev_; zip-§ea1″fhas if
been condoned by a sep.aratel’o;’der.f””
8. Learned eou11lsel’appeari:nlg~– the appellants
submitted thatathe lands t~he*fvf’petitioners is a garden
land iihelVsainel’wa’s.:not’ required for the purpose of
forming and there are other lands
aVa.il.able*, whieh~r_:ou_ld be acquired for the said purpose
o–bj’eC”ti,o11s of the writ petitioners and the
been considered before passing the final
‘.V.110¥:ifiCa;tifsJIl 4’ and therefore, the learned Single Judge
if ‘C: to have allowed the Writ petition.
\é’>
–: 7′ :-
9. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the respondents
argued in support of the order passed by the learned
Single Judge.
10. We have given careful consideratioritllifr
contentions urged by the learned counsel~vapjp:eai”i.ngAfor w
the parties and carefully scruti.nized.:the,. ‘1nateri.la1___
record.
11. The material on Wolulcl” show
that the fact that the ‘ laiids fare :n’otified_.yunder Section 3
of the preliininary notification was
issued after considering the
objections the llpsetitioners, notifications under
” ” ”issc’i:5nii-i2s(4i¢of thétiis; was issued on 5/12/2006. The
facts. acquired for the purpose of forming
lI1CAlL.14″‘SVt1″l§3;1~ is not disputed. However, what is
37-‘~.__V’eonteridei{i by the learned counsel for the petitioners is
the petitioners are the owners of the valuable
ll .laiil1ds, it is their only source of livelihood and there are
“other lands available in the adjacent area for forming
~: 8 :-
industrial area and therefore. lands of the petitioners
ought not to have been acquired. It is well settled that
private interest must yield in favour of the…fpu_lbl’ic
interest. The fact that lands belonging to the .
is being acquired for the purposemof forrnirigiliindustrial “‘
area, which is a public purpose c:._fa’nriotii».be _ldislp:’ut.e’ti.;_’
There is no merit in the’f_c”ontention .oif’f._the_”<-vl.earned r L'
Counsel appearing forthe peti.ti:on_ers that 'dry are
available in the adjacent.ai'e£iifas'l.,tot.a'lextent of 540
Acres of landspalongi'vvitii:1theii.l:liand's ghelonging to the
petitioners have been acquired
for for1n'ing* the objections filed by
the p.etitione"1's:vhav'e considered before issuing final
. .l"n.otificationVL If thlelpetitioners are the owners of the
would be entitled to compensation for
the"'acqi_iisit.ion of the lands under the Act. Under the
vlfidircurnstances, it is clear that the learned Single Judge
justified in holding that the writ petition is devoid of
-rnerit and no ground whatsoever is made out for
quashing the notificatioris impugned in the writ petition
and the order of the learned Single Judge is justified
and does not suffer from any error or illegality as to Call
for interference in this intraeeourt appeal. Accordingly,
all these Writ appeals are dismissed.
icim
Index:ivYes_/Ai1\l<'isVV..__ % W
Web Hdsijr Yes/NE)
*rnvs «