AND X V
34 M HIGH COURT as KARNATAKA AT BANG£sLTOR.fE:
DATE THIS THE 9?" DAY OF ;3;¥?'i=EIl., u i
ms HOMBLE MR. xusrzce a;%Hx_:9c§3::;E¥z:'%kk
wan 31% Ng,V.1 'BQ"'*~-.1 A
BETWEEN %
sax PGOEARI PEQAMNA
5/9 RAMA 3ev1%"T - . x 1; _
AGED ABf)UT*_?5 xfearza; M .
R,/AT KADUBISANGAHALLE "
VARTUR HGBLI', 'A
BANGALORE EASTTALUK .
agracsnmas mam '.31s'*:"~
% _ %%%%% PETITIGNER
(w_s:21 H mum KUMAR, AIDVGCATE)
THAE"«STAv'._FE KARNATAKA
REP B'i'..I"TS SECRETARY
"'DEPARTM.ENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE
& V % .i(}iRHATAi(A GOVERNMENT secnsramr
' !:V¥;~Se31~3ILDING, ma AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE --~ 560 001
2 we KARNATAKA INQUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELQPMEPQT BGARD
14/3, I FLOOR, RASTR€)TflANA PARISHAT BLDG
NRUPATHUNGA ROM)
BANGALORE
3 W5 xew HORIZON AND EDUCATION TRUST "
:90 FEET ROAD, momamcaaa % "
aamcmone
REP. av :73 MANAGING musnse
SR1 MGHAN MUNGANI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
(av sax asvoas, AQA-:=~oR_R1, % *
SR1 BASAVARA3 V SABRJRD, -{FOR R2 AND
SRI s SHEKAR sHETfr?;','A;3vr;<:%AT§LjV:=QR.,c/R3)
THIS wan PETITION 15 511,53.' UNDER"AR1'I{;U:'S 226 AND 227
OF THE c0Ns11TtITm:__ 09* INBLA % Paaymeg. T0 QUASH THE
NOTIFIC'A"¥'ION DT.295'.2QQ6 F¥%JBLI:'§'HEi'3_Ii'\!"'T.H.'E GAZETTE UNDER
secnow 3(1) Am3.3+3(1};E T.-*£'E._A{;fT ANQALSU THE NOTIFICATIGN
PUBLISHED UNDER :§E(ITION. 2a;(4)'----c:F "THE ACT DT. 16.3.2006
!SSUE£) av me a1%VA1'*-Aa;p4E;:un£'c,~ E)___ANI3 E RESPECTIVELY IN so
FAR rr REiATE$"'£"Q"j;LANI1}S* IN~.éS-Y.NO.¥£"'T0 'me EXTENT or 1-35
GUNTAS OF 1<ADu3%1sAVi~:A;L;%%vIs.fi;A<3E, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE
EAST. * V Q
BETWEEN . " V
Mr': \2Er:RA"(;A:¢1::'HAia~ BRAMHAIA§~£
S!G*VENAKTA$~\Ȥ1ARA RAD
AGED AB<3w52' ""fEi1R;53.
. R/A snnrswx 'NAGAR. (VILLAGE)
V f1~.'CHINTA€i§}NTA. (P{:§':$17
ARLAGADDA DGRNIPADU (MANQAL)
_ KL;g:i:)oL DIST, I3.NDi*iRA PRADESH,
THR£3LiG~H.THIS i3UE_Y CONS ll EU I ED
'PGWER or Anoausv
._8'.SUMA-NTH -KUMAR REDDY,
'- s;o%a=. xwaaswmv assay,
sagzaz TOWN, BANGALORE 550 305
0¥)I",vLE-r?VR0MENADE, 39, PROMENADE YGWN
PETITIGNER
(BY SR1 NAVKESH BATRA FOR HIS. NANDI LAW CHAMfi-ERS)
RJE$?{)'?4mjfNTS %
AND
STATE or-' KARNATAKA
REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
{DEPARTMENT cw INDUSTRIES Am cc2M£e€]E;zc£LJJ"% » " A
VISHANA souomx, i)R.AMBED!G9_sR VEEE)HI~
BANGALORE 560 001 ' V
THE mos
A STATUTORY BOBY INcc.£;90RATED%.. j V
UNDER THE 1966 ACT ~ % %
HAVING rrs omcs AT 14/3,2"'°rL¢:o%r§_}':%%
RASTROTHAINEA PAa1sHAT,su1a.u:wG.%b% ' %
NRUPATHUNGA Ema, B.€&r4GAi;::-R§"«5t3--<3 (:02
REPRESENTEDBY ?;.,r¢AGAR;:1
ASSISTANT S.E€RETAF§_Y" _; ' »
M/S NEW %flOR1Zt3ié.;_EDUf' 'HON A.N£2.»*
cULmRAL"1*Ru,<;;T, 2-: " '- _
HAVIND ITS 0F!-ItE,_Ar No.5'.-2.__;.Nt':2 2
AT OUTER RING KA£)';!s§E¥ESANA£riALLI
VARTHUR 'H_08»LI, BAN'€3fi.L0'RE '
ALSO AT 1em_=&.-':?"T R£')A£?, IMJIRANAGAR,
REPRESENTED ml ITS TRUSTEE,
_ SMT,;R,,ENU~KA MANawg§:
VkA:2.1§A?§a:A ubvoe MITRA
3*" Rana, KHANIJA BHAVA (scum WING)
r:o;4%_9,. Racacogsass ROAD
BANGALORE 5'e';.r; 001
REP."-ssv ITS MANAGING DIRECYOR, KUM,
35:49 M£.MaER SECRETARY
:e.;..T SHIVANANDA '
. LATE RAMA saw}
AGED AEOU1" 55 YEARS
°=R CHINNASWAMY
" 510 LATE RAMA snow
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
l\¥{).525,. BOVIHATTI COLONY
KADUBISAJNMHALLI
SECTION 28(1) 0F4THE_ _, 'iQ6:6 VIBE ANN!-3X.N.
~ 3,10 m"n=, \}'ENKA?E€jSHF;,
'wm SR1NNAS,,-R395? 10"" caoss,
<:_mMAMuRmY MAGAR
~ ~ ..{;§£1!4i'BEQKARN.9.f3AR)
_ _DFPRAV;\f~1§)MAGAR POST,
%.B;'eNGA_L<'3_RE"_~ 550 015.
A T] -(BXESRI K SUBRAMANYAM, mt. VENKAT REDDY, Aavocms)
* .L.«Ar4:i"
17 ms s'm'E or KARNATAKA
VARTHUR HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
(AMENM9 AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 8.12.06};-..:< %
;.';"RE$_?O'N.DE.N'fS " ~ 2
(BY sax DEVDAS,V'AGA FOR' R1',
SR! BASAVARA} V SABRAD;v--ABVOCATE .Fo.R§12 'V 3
SR! 5 snemasnem, ADVOCATE ma R3 A
M/S. LexPLExus%F:;R&R:4;%.% 1
SR} T.I..ABDULLA, F'. }M\_lD R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER-"#zR'fiVC3wES 226 AM) 227
GF THE CONSTTTUTIQH OF;'"INDI}5. 'PRA'fl!4EG._ T0 QUASH THE
DECLARATION UNDER 'SECTIOSEI 3{3.»}' OF .l(I£\DB ACT, 1996 DT.
2.6.2006 VIDE ANhEEX.lV§j.} ._DECiARATT§3i'{'UNE)ER SECTION 1(3) 0?
THE IGADB ACT, 1996;f'DT;" £530. C1214-4:SPQ:2€#(}6,
THAT CHAPTER VI1--V..(A~C€}UIS1"FiON'v A«ND DIEPOSAL OF LAND) SHALL
BE APPi..ICAB&"'"i3\l_ RESP{ECT THE"3CHE{)ULE PROPERTY VIDE
ANNEX,M., l.'RELIE4Ii'#_'aR§{ ".VN€;3f!TFICA_Ti0N DT, 2.6.2906 UNDER
A. .....
SMVT; s:-§AsH1K.aLA;' if
AGED %Am:;uT 4-S"¥.EARS,--~"
NETITIONER
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
3.4
PTCL Act. when the PTCL preceedings wer'_éH:§ltllin
the knowledge of the respondent No.1----.4':én¢:iuA:';.z":.,r:"'
nonwissuance of mtlce to the~orlglna_l g_ré’ti~ie$;’t_lf:.eli%.. V’
legal representatives is ;’l’at&l’_l”
proceedings under ‘
(lx)(a) The application for allotrs*s.§’rrtVVorf land; ‘by the third
respondent is lnc£rfi§_nlm{§. colurnrls, only 4
are filled up. rrlvlgfifnent also, the
projecr alas this regard, he
r:’orii§ehfs of para 20 of the
’55” September, 2006
(fillrwrextlre “reads as follows:
« .. L to furnish brief pmject
~..(;g)'{–lger%§§’hging’Vtliéféctual posititm, the respondent No.1
not have resorted ta acquiring the land
L’ .rll%:1’%:n1q§e :til§n and allotting it to the third respondent.
1’l3g§’3~R.eaulation 4(a) of KIAD Regulations, 1969
r 2 filfilé
(hereinafter called ‘the said Reguiationsf;”fuz?..’.Vslts?5iVf’*3§:4r”‘ .
The Regulation 4(c) reads as foiiews; V .
“4. Form of application:
(3) xxx xxx
(b) xxxm t t it
(c) Applications which a’re._V’¢§ther incrqfnpietétg er
not accompanied £2y”‘tiiié.-fje.?ii22§ae:;t mti!iey’Vfee
of 125.109 shééfiiit:-£”f
(ix)(t:) In View of am Re_g.Vs;ié.ti;>i§””.1v,.’ahd the third
(X)
respondfint:§t’i’ ::;_:m:i:i’iicei:ti_:ii.:n __ it imfomgaiete, the very
c0nsitierétiQ_n iiif nittgitieniy premature but is
aise Vie}-3t_i_Vti«n of:_tiig_ Rea uiaticm.
sri’ sétra 1stii’Vri$:’;.2:.§c§”‘~i’iVisféubmisstens stating the third
_;’respentient’aippttiafihed the respondent Na.1 and 2
cry “I am stuck, bail me out.” The
Vi”-‘___tr:§£S”§sr:{_r3cifl£3z2it $10.3 entered inta an agreement of sale
wi__t’h -iiééjari Peddanna, Rajanna and Chinnaswamy.
.. itiias already paid an advance sale consideration of
«f”Rs.S5,85,0Q0/- (Rupees fifty five iakh eighty five
thousand). Having paid an advance sate
consideration, but not getting the non-agricuiturasi
REM.
provisions of PTCL Act, the respondent 5195.4 to 6 have _entefed
into an agreement of saie with the reepondent Ne.3 its
the property in qumtion, He also stateg that tie’ ‘*
submissions urged by Sri Batra.
5. Sri Baeavaraj Saberad, the learned :ouVo$e§V”for
second respondent – Kamataka Inoésetfial Area_s”‘*x’i§eve§§opt’nent
Board has made his sohmissie’foe_as
(i) The petitioner in ifgas no locus.
stand} to « t proceedings.
Admttteoty, .:!e§gje.l:.A”‘he§:§fs::”vof…the original grantee
soi’d'”the; otéeéri Sentesh Kumar Gare
v§:i’t_hoo_t of the Government
ondeflothvehoroxrjeiottie of PTCL Act. when the
..f ‘§’«:e!§>_et2et§oo’ “oi~t.he«vgranted lane in fatten: of fiantosh
was void, the question of Gare
any rights te the petitioner by the
exeeotton of sale deed does not arise at an. He
AA ‘”~.,ofu29ti1er submits that the petitioner in
HW.tP.Ne.1S628!@5 has given his consent to the
QBH;
on _
(iii)
(iv)
19
acquisition and that therefore he is
challenging the acquisition proceedlngss.–~» ff. «
The preposals submitted thel..fthi’r¢l: :lepo*nnlgl–l:e’
were not rejected by thte’«.$tate*Le”vel
Clearance Committee l_
He denies the alleealtienls-er
The leé:all}fet:inl:en€;__t§ont7alned”””i’n the letter at
Anne$§ttre”~}-kg the tendered based on the
livlforrréeltien..g:li«lled..:V6tlvt frem the file, which was sent
witls.. the ‘ s.e%ceArlrl:”‘*«res;5ondent’s letter, dated 16″‘
:”‘el;.ruaury*-,v 3086 eeelclnq legal opinion.
consent ef the owners, since the third
efternlsitiehlllef the land is of a small area and is
reepenieent was already holding agreements from
he theowners of the land.
“The pendency ef the preceedlnes under the PTCL Act
is net reflected in the revenue records. The name ef
the petitlener does not appear in the revenue
HRH.
(i§c)* The Research institutidn is an amenity as per the
2G
retards. He further submits that Spec§alV.V’§:§’s3d
Acquisitidn Qfflcer is net obliged ta: held _
enquiry fear collecting everf bit
regarding who are all the inilfgrefliéd
land in Questicm. He furthgr slj’h§é1’ltsV thaii
abundant caution, noti§é::d.xtv§cnV iv’.-:§”‘–l§$!t’.1V’::a¢:l.’:Vf§lr2 the
Kannada Daily, ‘i’%§lsga<;l:d §;E?Aré2§2llfé:"'«is_suelu"ddVted 24"'
June, 2036 A calling 1ebjdd:i9n'43;» ' ' 1" ..
(vii) As tug ‘*&,3gg;i’}*.VliV:_..’1t;*–.f1<§1,-j_;_V1<;_:;és._ r:-d'§if,'v_fl'ive1d"'VVl:he cbjections in
re$pd:}:$eel_v'tdb'*l:§1e p§fellmindry_.§lotlficatlen published in
tlée newstiasfvdlfil vested right ta challenge
the £55;-anclfd rsetificatlon,
I-f'"v–{4vll'l'§."':'T¥a_a K¥3ateda'r$"'7and Anubhavadars cf the land in
l 3 'lgamely, Peejarl Peddanna, Rajappa and
'' Chvlnfilgsaééamy have voluntarily surrendered the
:;d_sZ'é3er.-:.sidr*: ef land $9 the acquiring authority,
definitlen cdntalned in 2(1) of KIAD Act. The
£3}:
Government has aiready issued a
38″‘ March, 1991 in this re9_-‘vii?-»._ _ _ V
6. Sri Shekar Shatty, the ieE:ii_’ne:f.’3~ . “f{:¥V§~v.,/,. “fi,’.-I’,:a’:’
respondent No.3 has mada his repivwsigibrriissiiéns a:a:’v:f1e;~’.i4ji:’:§\zs.:i§§V: .
(i)(a) The petitioner in writ peiiitiiin NVo.iS?fif6_/”f20fi§ has no
iocusmstandi to land in
question was gra i§:t§§i__ and on his
demisg, if1’ai::}iii£é.iiy;Ji5oojari Peddanna,
Rajapfig hécame its ewners.
§l’§’ii’HiiL’)Vi3S permission of the
it to Santhosh Kumar Gare.
_T..he séilez fiairciiivr éiifianthesh Kumar Garg is void ab
.f[j5°initi:e,’v–a§ t?i’éV§”ai’he is in violation ef Section 4(2) cf
V ” readg as foiiews :
” No pemon shali, after die
‘V ” coinméhcamant of thIS Act, transfer or acquire by
.. , trazzéfer any granted land wiahout the previous
V’ a _ _ :’penn12asi*vn of the Government.”
HEN.
(V)
25
land for research purpose. In the pas§__a5:I$:¢,’théiifin:i’–.’
was acquired under KIAI5
number cf educational _instifuti£zn’s. ‘h2’:sn
relied on a judgment of”tri:e.Horr’b*:é1Sujiprérsréwduurt
in the case of Stétg arr£iV’A!i§§thar ‘ll’.
All India m.gsm..m _.–‘r:_ €V’;3=’:$.”g1é_’t_misation and
Others rs.$:£pk:;rte¢s L zaéti’ st: 1846 and
conteir:’rfi:’eT::3*–._Vit h”é::t.. cf iand for the main
ma; §:e:rrri_rn’u’rrity hall, township and
vrveekénd Lrpheld.
Tha”v.rg$pon’defit’ M§’;.3 is directed to pay the entire
cbgt of.Vat.q;V;i::=;’itiors indepencéenfly cf the amounts paié
respondent Ne.3 to Snyuths Poojari
V “-‘__.Peri’fi2iv_r}ri.§v,5″Rajappa and Chinnaswarny. There was
nce_”ba.r”‘to enter into an agreement cf purchase. In
A. t:.?1’i’$..regard, he has raked an a judgment of the
~EHon’bia Suprema Court in the case of M13.
Murudeshwara C m Limited and Another V.
H.
26
State of Kamataka and Others reported in ILR
2902 KAR 273.
(v§)(a) Issuance sf individual netices is not mandatgry bgt
anly directory. In support at’ his arg_e;:r:*;é:.r;§§.§__j:”;’S¢g}:i’
Shekar Shetty relied on a judgment _nf..f§1:§s >
the case of Malik L.
Karnataka and 0tham_4_repr§rt_éd In
550. The relevant “V”L’pjz§’ragra:5h~.. Extracted
hereinbelowt K ”
“14 ……. ~19 Sectm %4{1-1A),fA tkezjé’ Sis; ffizthing to
Show tha_tsefv§ceC§findi§{5ée:ai~~§1et§c2e 1.35 irnandatory.
It onIy…s§–:a;té§: .EThe:fj_’r3értific.a__£.é;j;:. ‘uiitiéf sub-section
(1) of Sgecfian the date on or
before» _ ‘ani:r’»_’i:z*:e ‘masyher in which we
éizjeciios V ‘i*a’jV- acquisitéon may be
madgg’ In “hand $uch a specifica’ tfion is
madezvs “:19 §+;ide_nt’f:”om the nofificatian fzisued
.. 4§{u§2a’~2r $eétie.n_4(1} (A:2nex:1:7e–E). In View of the
. ééhiicétéqn 0!’ tbénotification in the Ofificial Gazette
f% k ‘a£:vs:!_}:i:ub!i§éa{&0n of the substance of me mzification
*–..%invV’tf§é_v’Lco:2é%émed Imaiity, the petitiener could have
meg afijéctions an ar beforne tbs-. date specified in
t£1e”::a:’d mtificatéan. we do not think that in the
am,
absence ofse-{vice of individua! notice, Sectibaf 453+ %
A) cannot be worked out and.t!2a.t_ éf _
isdividua! notice is the only pt;>ceQ’L!{érl %safeg::;=ra’.t
pubtication afnotificationVt:1{:der’;§ett§on 4(1).’_fh we
Official Gazette and pubiwavtiog of tf;:.3_ 5t!£3Sta%3Ii£.~’«§C¥f’
the notification in the concern:-ci–l;:acaiity’«.ct§:§stitute
sufiicient procedzz}’atA_ the v’Ao§~}ner
whose land is soct§é§t’tc.i’ , Once we
have neacbed v~£§t3t?C!t£$§G1? ” ‘”thaf« ‘géwgce cf
individua} is t not –1.’mat2t%’ato:y non–
cansicfazétigitt. ‘th¢–..___é:€Fect”_of; .S§*:i:tion 45 in the
decisions’7:m~é:gfié:3¢e’ of reference do
gét%”V?:ax.:gv_;;e.§:rihg. t>t§_’ the. fiiiestion whether the
sé~r_vi::.¢¥- of ‘ ” tmhatice :3 directnry or
mahdaftory, “‘–inéts§frn:,4}%:t:. és if at all service of
_ .int£ividij3I_’h<;;t;i§e 1% a"}}2t;st than how such notice is
'itcf gervéd i.::…,z2.:m1'it;ed under Section 4.5 of the
Igtmgb-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act with
the publication of the notificatficm in
'meA mega; Gazette and the pubiscazien of the
sabétaabe of the notificatfian in the ccmcemed
Iécatity the word 'shall' is used and in the latter
'T '-part of it the wow? 'may' is used as ta causing cf a
' "copy of such a notification ta be sewed on me
owner or the occupier :32' the land, This aspect alse
supports the View that the service of indfvidual
notice on the Iand owner or accupier is only
directory".
Egg
(vi)(b) Non-service of natice, is no ground ta a!”VtV!:’V!i;i :’–1.;:?.V”I&
notification. To substantiate this
IA!
shetty read out Head hioteA;f’tim.
in the case of Bhoie
and Another vs. Stat};V_Kafiiata§tgV»vQIi§”i§€:h’iars, ” ‘
reported in 19B7(..2) T!3_e sérf1ev.i.s..£-Extracted
herein beiowt ” ‘ V. V
“(A) LA{€B.__ACQUIS3’i{f}N:”A ?} M –s.4(1) ._
ReQUfF¢R3f3fii}I’0§. SFWE 195%?’ 9f?” -‘3″ ewfiwner of land
not :21i’a:2d;§£Q?3é?”%. N}f>.1’fifsén.r£c.e ‘of the notice cannot
fifiiignd c::2hQ=a:–!he’vNotificat.ion”.
(v§)(c) 1Pgr§sef_zn’a5: of acquiring the iand ar
1pass§:1g%%awa:r;1 iAs.,_ho?§”L’an absoiute requirement of iaw.
this point, he reiied on a Judgment
—9fv.,t_he§’*F§ii–«.Banch of Punjab High Court in the case 91′
AA%%s.at.e,;:p….aab vs. auraian Sing}: nd another
:e§:;;r£?ed in AIR 1934 Punjab And Haryana 1.
: ‘(vi)(_d) Hcitice has to be issued ta a person, whase name
figures in the revenue retards. In this regard, he
83%
also brings to my netice the Horfble Suereme Ce_urt’s
judgment in the case of commissiener,
Development Authority v.
repertee in (zone) 3 sec 3.3’fi\:g-.’xAS-“‘§h.Vé!tVb’:”.V;b.V:iV’ t?ie4_’_f’-fu¥’E.,, ”
Bench of Madras High Cent”; ¥:§§t’tthe’tt’-:rese’yv
Thanikavekr vs. ” fiaileetor ” L’
fer Land Acq:;i;siti<:;g,_..u:Efiadg#;as htantvrl ehother,
reported in AIR Bench);
individual ‘ ;fs’et_1ce te vc’:g..’i.1:%jr”.these persona
‘ ‘fevenue retards or
_ as persens interested
dz} lnfeA§é’fi’é.~t§:e_::%3″receifiéved’ t-‘hreuah reliabie source. 511
fihetty? centetide the petitioner’s name dees
“._i eet. appeeéitltn the revenue records and as the
has not responded to the Netification
the Gazette and newspaper, the
qu.feet;e’h ef considering his ebjectiens to the
AA aéeeisition dees-not arise at an.
3337′,
(38?) As per Sectian 6(2) 91′ the Karnataka
(Facilitation) Act, 2092, the Single Windqgf cie:a:1r3;+1«:%«;-;+%’T
Committee is required ta ccsnéider we p§’é}5:!$~é§~v|s–1′;’o§””A
putting up fresh projects’ ‘feé:–{ thTé”~.
expansicn of the exiéti-:i§~~..%proj éct,g 5irigIvé:.v “\?i¥Ensdow ‘V
Ctearanca Cemméttge haS”i’&t5 a:Jtb9rItyA’ tQ’*con§ider.
(viii) The petiticmer hag @é’é’:§l,’;:ci~%e this Honiaie
court to;_”Cé§i§nué=._tha §.fite”r5ff:’*:s7erd.e.?A after 09.95.2003
in wjig Mg;g§é$a41:€§[e§§:(ks%c»ésfr)k.A
(ix)(a) $t_a§§;i cured by the caperation
ofASeV3:ti9n’ which reads as. falhzwsz
1 * ~ f’1,2! galidity of proceedings; No
giosre or ‘praaeedings itaken tifldef this Act size};
‘A ‘ = .. _ merely an the gmund;
vacancy or defect 5!? {he mnstitazian
” ‘ -Gf the fiflafd or of any committee tizereori: or
* 4_ of any defemf or irregularity in such act or
preceeding no: affecting the merits cf the
C353″,
33%.
(§§<)(¥3) The learned ceunsei reiied can the
judgment at this Cam': in the Case of V
and others V. The
Belgaum Sub-Divisitxn;'~v..fielfiagim.'éfntti"utiiers " L'
reported in 11.5! 3,916 whéz*e§n is heid
that net mentinnihgtt_rca'rt§irriv in the notice
under Sectimg 28:=_(2')' ¥§§:a_:'m:erg Viv-rrégiriarity cured by
the af3r*:'a~.r_eiEt.ra§Vct».a¥§3 ..;_§r–<)_vI:~:'§o§r;*.r.V_ .
?. _s.§§vbVrfiissions in w.P. No,
15628f2£3G6
(E) ..«.{:.'Th'e petiti'e.fifr____h:as rte Iacus-stand! to file this writ
A p.§tAit%ia-r1;~–. _He and his two brothers have entered late
é.'gLre'e§fii…ent w¥th the third respondent fer the saie
9f~–Vtt1'e";property,. Further, they have aise given their
V' " céhsent to the acquisitien at an stages cf the
V' preceedings.
The petiticner and his twe brothers
have received a sum cf Rs.55,8S,0(}0/- (Rs. Fifty five
iakh etehty five thousand only) pursuant tea the sale
agreement, dated 23.06.2095 (Annexure-R1). The
fififif
petitioner himseif has received Rs.?,45,t3£30/-. Sr:
shekar Shetty brings ta my notice the ccnsent letter,
dated 14.95.2095 (Annexm-e» R3) submit§gé’L:§”%%%t§i%e.
Special Land Acquisitian Dfficer af
reapondent — KIADB indicat-i:1″g”*~!<!is; t.hé-, V
acquisition ef the land for res;2<§r1d.en§:;'L.L;:"'ieié1._
further submits that th:§'~~..petii§ic2r3.er–,_§';;d"'~-fig' Ewe " V
bmtherg have de}iver ed** i..t__h.e '"-»pessés$i–a«n.~'§ of the
eroperty in questifin'_te"'t.bé:i5§§é:Iia»! Land Acquisition
Qfficer, ;s.j:i'sv.,_eviej:i'o'.5v~.¥:§i:'f2'orf:'«.ims$es$§$n fetter, dated
Nil
(ii) sr: shekar :’:§hetty«..$u.bmiLts that ance the csaim for
c;§mpeéhéf2§iti9.r;_Vn:'<is .0: accepted by a party, he
iodsagthe'régh§ ':.:f_f$'Isfing the acquisitien of iands.
8. $21. Sh”e”$;a r’V.iS!1e%:ty’é suhmissiens in WP. No.
are a§_f’§.lsAtV:’.V=}”:i” Av
{:3 “‘$:fi«..Siéék af_.Shetty denias that the petitioner is the
” .._’4″V%da1;.gh {§.’;e;*T:; sf Venkatesh. when she is not the
33
daughter of Venkatesh, who is the son of the ariginal
grantee — Rama Bhovi, she has no legal r§aht_,___titIe
and interest in the land in questican. He.jftj’;tb!1evr
draws to my natice the averments conta_§~:’é.e;d’_
2 of the niaint, which reads a$..to3?°W$t'”””‘CY . ‘
“The deceased Venkffitesb At ‘fart? t’ ‘ ~ it
Ramaiah alias Rama ‘.£3!7’m{i) was: ma;~irvied._’v«–toVV
Ctbinnamma and t!2roug1i” he ‘- tare
daughters by na:z;e=.g:ino{e’;tiiai:;tifi§e._n2 and 3 who
are reptmnted by”–rzbe. ‘;vIa’i:2tt;ff who is their
senior Aunt, An AAind£:per2de.&;t *’;3ppiét+a2t£on under
Older .1 &5-,2 1c>£’,.{;’odé’~v:3;F’P:ucedu:e is
also 1′:’§ed”a;_’: zyegarr qrfintggtorepiainziits 1 and 2″.
9. Sr! P;e9Jna”be set up with an investment of more than Rs.3
fififi.
Venkatesh died leaving behind him two daughters, the petitioner
and her younger sister Lakshmi (deceased). They all constituted
Hindu undivided Farniiy.
(b) O.S.Ne.831/G3 is filed by the petitioner an}:
nieces seeking the partition of the three “items; ef
inciuding the {and in questien, and for’:’the–eiiotrreent».of
share therein and for the reiief ef’Qeeeearather..poeeeeei’en”§'” The ‘V
relationship between the p–Iazintif£.r”‘eerj’: ti:e_ defeedents (the
petitioner and the resporrdeet 6 herein
respectively) is admittggtg ex Therefore the
thtrd respendentfiz. the petitioner is not
the daughter’ “!s”‘~everru|ed. On a stray
ambiguous the petitiener cannot be
denied the vaiuebieinnVeritenCe’:_rieht in the immovable preperty.
eireVedy__A.rnede out the prima facie case in
G.:S;.t§e.V831/03,’A.eie.i’is ._evIdent frem the granting cf the interim
__erder ei’ she were not the daughter of Venkatesh
viendgthe e4rené§.’Vdenehter of Ramaieh, it weuid not have been
HEM
their rights are determined in W.P.i\ies,15342/07
and oniy thereafter cheiienge the ecquieitien»–preceeiiihji;§e’,_ ‘.iIe4.’_the,A K V’
event ef their succeeding in the said we: :::§A.etiiiee::_V ‘7efif,e:fVV
years and thereafter fiiing the w?i£..:ii:jp’§§itiee3.__te.V_¢ii’§a{‘iefige”fhe ” L’
acquisition preceedinas, they,ygreule,-be..”eeiifrpnteewithviithe fait
accempii -~ an actien which the persens
affected by it are in_ ej;’:;ee¥ti;ee’:te:;;qiie«r§r–‘.Vei’vV- it. If the
parties are meeegei1s.feviii:i:¢__ei;’e_i.i.eege=.th:e_veeeiiiieition ereceedings
2:12 £heir rigigtsieage ii:£§sia:iizeéii;% igiyaiéia have the effect of
rendering them = the acquisition ereceedinos
are cempieteeierigl the is deveioped, the deck
Cafiilfit be beck qeeeiiing the acquisitioe proceedings.
“‘(e)V”*Thti-S; téethe petitioners in w.P.!\ies.1,5716/96 and
395Cieji3’2-ueref’t.ifive’ pei?e.ons interested in the land, I hold that
have tiie~”_i§r::iV’s-sterzdi to me and meintase these writ
‘ ” ~.eie[titi’eriAei
A Re Question Nmz – (e) The eetitiener, Peejari
‘i;*e{§Vdave.ea has given his consent te the Speciai Land Acquisition
ef the second respondent KIADB. The same is evident
£3}!
(C) It is trite position in Law that ence the ctaim Es made by
a party either far the determination of the market value at for
the enhancement, he cannot chaitenoa the acquisiticm per”t§é’;«.:T’En
this regard, it is prcfitabte to refer to the
judgment of this Court in the case of ‘
State af Kamataka reported in Ink
reievant pertion of the $aid Judgmettt”i~sV_extra-stat! _hété5i«é§tse!.axAt:
“Mi There is one other aspectwwtzich haé’ 3 taeagiég.
Admittedly; the petitioné,_r$_={“j%fEiet–?A thge Vt’:-fain§”‘statement on
31.3.1933 and the Writ Petizscg ‘wasfiiedtto;;tv .1t9;_22.1933,
We have heft? in’ §ri«’r;’_t Appééi’.§§¢.?8.z}’§9 of on
5″‘ Navember
“This at ~ kfiichiiiwrit Petition
méiétathafiie admittedly
hit had’ iitégplicatfion claiming
cozrétzetrsaticia t!2§é”*!ahd in auesfion. It is
_well setttfig-fa Viatv t§2a{“§vhere 3 pasta» asked
he cannot maintain .3 Writ
P:§tft§z3:;”£::;der Article 226 of the Ccnstitution
t tssttzgdséttttttyme 70 Cafcutta Weekly mes,
“”‘pag’e’v71″1{?t?. Thextafare, we ages with the
vietk taken by the teamed aingie Judge and
n T drsrtiiss the Writ Appeal.”
.. FIE!-l.
‘A f’ Ifidusviai estate” any site salected by the State
” fog’ use by any indzstniw or class cf indwtfifi;
: ES.2(7)(a) “lndusmfal infrastructuta! faci!ities” means
said with certainty is that the land can be
purpase of industriai deveiepment. tan’ bghH§i:j§ir§:éd’.’.1’feiV..’V’
establishing the indu-stria§ area, indu§t;*iés’§A.A_T’éstéta;
infrastructural facilities and for crea’b*i:–é.::j’q~.V;;ivi<i.V'amenV§iivgs';':~. '"
(b) The statutory pra”§i $i%nns’_’AVcgfit’é«i.§sV%.fic«.%the éefinition of
these termg are extracted herginibeithééf ‘ _ ‘
52(1) Amenity’? rpaé, water: or
elactnicrity, ‘Stw;-t”-V’ ‘7’..;’i§tht;_’ga_g;~. “*’;irafna3e. sewerage,
consewancy. ‘agéd cunggiience, as the State
Govemghent ;.. t;y’A?:;a£!t”;ira;fo:: to be an amenity
for the of
82(6) ‘f .I;2dusir:’.3[:Va:’.¢:.§–” meéhé any area declared to be an
V. ind:,;si*riaI_ ar¢a b;?”‘t!:£2___.5fate Gevemment by notification
V ]w:::¢h zxexzeveioped and where industries ans tn be
a¢c:g:::m§e3:é§%vTa;2d industriai inftastmctutal racmties and
amenitéasaa at» be pmviaed and includes, an industrial
_ estate; ‘ ”
. ifiévaahment where factories and other baiidfngs are built
facflitim which contribute ta the deveiopment 03′
industries aetablished in fndustriai area suacrh as reaearch
A’ ‘ yaiuabie important tight and having regard to the .
materials should be such which are ‘to
collected by the authonrm snagged the;’ea-far7.jj~VTiie: i _
aumofitim must act within mfweffouif mmers’ offhgz. ”
statzite. An opinirm formed eve}; oiixmtfié ofain ” 1
advice by an autharity wizizfii is hot
under the statute iBfl£}’el’S ‘decisiciii~.b}éd–Vin
A statutory authority is ‘bfiu.~i§_2i– .by»._the iénzcedtire
fend down in the V$ta}fu£e’–.an4gi within the
fourcomeis thereof.” ._ “i ‘V ‘i h’ ‘V
In the case of Hiafiusfibh ‘ gigifporatbn Ltd.
1:. Karma (2065) 7 sec
52.7, It_Es..heIt§..§s;bi~3:§£.¢w$.: ‘
*9.’ It”is’j’£:}ite,_’ti2.¢§tv**hssairing given ta 3 person
muf..~:£_be%a:é “and not a mere formality,
Eorm3ifon”af_o_9inipn’~35 regards the pubiic purpose
, .{_as me gistaitxiiity thereof must be preceded by
apgsmagn of mind as regards consideration of
faajtois and rejection of irreievaiit onm.
‘~–.i’Ti§£:’ Vii: its decision-making pnocfis must not
cogmriifany misdirection in law. It is aiso not in
dispute that Section 5-A of the Act confers a
–*provisions contained in Arricie 300-«A of the
Constitution it has been heid to be akin to a
fcmdamen ta! High 3:
33,34,
19. Furthermore, the State is required to app-tyi
its mind mt onty an the objections filed
owner of the land but also on the report V A
submitted by the Celia-ctar u;;:o(_7,.;f;3;fs_1tr’:e:3’_g31§€iV _
further enqzfiries thetefori as’ ; 313:1′
recemmendations made 5? him }1′?__ tit??? beh3i’f* “me ”
.State Government may”tfL)rt;f2er i§?Q£.I§{.€
matter, if any cam is cut Vtfztetféfzir, for
arriving as its own:*’s§tisfa5’titmnt_;a’;étit is néceasitzy
to deprive a cit£zen”eft’hS:?’g.§t:. It is in
that situation tt2atAVp_:fo_d;:c-tténi by the
5tateisf?ec?SS8ry.1: { ‘ ‘
23; Alttétééggh 2ésv*5.”–J:§:§.?s?é3t:t’t’ofv’;§eé§sons is that part
os€p;1mf:;¢1«es ‘néfufai mtg; necessity thereof
zfivay ix’: takérf’-away statute either exprexly or
by ‘i::§p!i¢3t._1’§i;;” A decfaratian contained
V51; at zédtificeticin under Section 6 of the Act
not énntatfiatcry season but such a notification
_ mtg: the decision of the appmmaze
” ‘fiéitétyéhtefntt when a decfsiogz is required to be
giving an opportunity of hearing to a
pegistzrfiwha may suffer civil or evil consequences
5;; fireason tfrereof, the same woufid mean an
At ‘T L” 4., gefféctive hearing. ”
(‘d;)”I’ri the light of the afore«-extracted judgments and in
‘V..__Vthé{hght of there being :19 materiai whatsoever on tha recerd of
53%.
required to hold the roving enquiry for the purpose of c9§té.§tin_g
the infarmatien as to who are an the persons interestéé-«’.,i’n..J: _
iand. In the instant case, the rapondent warn; «.
aware ef the fact that the tend in questtnin
af the pendency at the PTCL proceedinaS”.t;’éfore
Commisséoner and the Deputy Cnrnrni$$iénet_;: that the
respondent N953. and 2 _thevunrnceedinas
under the PT CL Act is (e_vident_.fr§S_m Mute (Annexure
1.) to Writ petitienflN§:’.VttS?.3:5/2Q’ti:6..:_”ttntngratnh 5 cf the said
agenda nete read€s_VV.a5zfi__fe;g§i9t#&3:_:”5ff_- ‘
“fit (gin v§:~:$f5c$:«zfi£<1:_?;'caf£he§"p.tnpa$al :21' M3; New Horiznn
Educationai Trnst, that the Iand in 5y.No.41
measuring éaadre .ganVté3._Lif Kadubeesanahaili village :3
V' anafvthfienzre the' Re-mtcitiéf 'Depadmant is not in position to
aiaké 52.:-r::2i$T§:3-If" 'far sank under Section 189 of KLR Act in
«t"'f7t:":'_ Suva." E 12 ' lied
ic')Vvihgntfe.}r;recee(t1{:3':§sag:éI%wv'?zithi{1 the knawledge of
_ _t_'%_:!.'g»:-',3'a§;thor§tie§;;_the minimum that is expected of the 513:. Land
'i.gis¢§n2:itsttién'~..tofficer is ta get tha addresses' of the persons
".'i~nt¢-festaad' in the iand from the office of the Assistant
33%.
Cemmissioner or the Deputy Commissioner. Gettivn’c’..:””the
information based egg? records dees not amount te__§§’oi¢!.iV;f:e;jj: _
roving enquiry. . «Tfie service of notice on _ev!–!.v.uteeV9;§§ersohe”
interwted in the land is a mandatory én’e..:tftevveeni-v’:’
cempliance thereof would render funfrer V e
bad. In taking this view, I am fofiifiee the ‘«_i’.’1IixViisi2e§1 Bench
judgment of this Court in liekhri v.
State of Kamataka A;feporte;1V_V:i’v_’eA..V’:£L£;_§ 3203. The
re¥evant portion of herembelew:
‘*7 ….. .. It€%&_Vfa£¥:_’4_}?g:_Jet” as e1!j”:i5if!iee’!t.e’fof»§t?1e respondents to
ascertain’ “‘t{2e:”3ari§e::’- ti? the gjetiifiiners because the
pmceec:£§ng._weSV§’e:’egf’en’ the petitioners and the
appiicanesr )3?”I,A.3¥§;§LI:.:£é!idef t§?e Kamataka Land Reforms
Act for great.’ of e;eupa§2cy7i2’ght. There-fbte, it is not
pessiéne to acce’.’et._die centention of the respondents and
g};e§–.”ape§£:jants i}iW?.A.Ne.I that in the event of the
5’e§a:t:’: ‘efireer of the fend pnoposed to be acquired
me; the names of the heirs «of the deceased
owner are’ 9.: entered in the nevenue seconds it is not
incumeeet upon the State Government and the Special
K ‘V V’ .:L’ei::d4_.’AcQ£:isi1iee Ofiicer exemfsing the power under the
Aetei ascertain the names of the heirs and eerve eetfice
. upon them merely on the ground that the namm of the
“~, bei:7s cf the deceased owner are not entered in the
relevant revenue records. By the acquisition piivatg
property of an individual is taken away. A
pmpeny of an individual cannot be taken awéy ‘-ii
acquired except in accordance with _Jiaw.__ As’ “pa;-1L_<..f::§%'V . V
section (2) of section 23 of the Act it wasL'::acu_mbent'ta. _ii ' T T
serve notice upon the pet:itione:s…,.,.§. "':__
(d) The Horvble Supreme Coukfi*L»%,ir}”ithe ca”sé_ ‘af:’V?4}$:.’VV.§hs:ja V
Industries Limited V. Stat§’~~anf find (AIR
2063 so 3519) hag held as folléwéiii?”*;’he~«zfiié.i:t§:3′.\of ncm-service
cf notice in the cent;ax’:g§fia;{d a£¢’iiis’iti§’§§i:– ..
“13. It above order that
service cafi«no£$iteE3′.oii*1;3f. ;Jafl§f:::1_Vshosvn..aé owner or occupier
in the iiecorcl Abf’vfig!2§§5%i:E<.S£If!ici¢.-nt even though we said
person ixaci « aifE'§djéA:_j land prior to the said
notificatiotiii' ugigss it is Q
eid
mt abiiged ta make roving enquiry
abégt the owiaeiship cf the land ….. _. " (emphasis supplied)
'<._(e) while the right to property has ceased to be a
'._'_§mdiéi'§;1e{fit;3i righgit ccntinues to be a legal right. It has naw
V~'iTt:e_é§6maié; a constitutiareal and a human right too. The land
fififl;
V’fiV4j_”Aa.§§.r2isition law is an exprepriatory legislation; the pmvision of
and acquisitien statute sheulé be striciziy cn.r:strued,___as it
degrwes a persen cf his and withcut his cunsent. In tavk§:j§fi:hv§s
View I am fortified by the judgment Qf the Henfb-§V§é§”S;fi§§’s?ért::é”,
Court in the case cf Hindustan “‘
Limited (mpra).
(f) It is aiso profitabie ta refer A!.§.¥*:.,e: Har.; ‘:i:s%:Asl’v$L2§3?;f.é2’z9§é’«.VL
Cezurfs judgmant in the case at ntafigindervh Sizfgh The V’
Horfbie Supreme Ceurt haL”~.;.V_A’thisV'”i:§ . g:a§§”-,¥’n ;2Aa ré cf its
judgment.
“55; Tbe4~a p§r<i%_§r;b mgye {gm Quit. is; this bezzazc is:
$1.1!' apiniea; is $93.31!)! 'érzméééfias; mékision sf a statute
is airhfsf %f::3:24:?ata:§'7f§r :b7§;j¢§c*to:§?{""'Eiren if a nmvisinn is
din-:~c£oE;s?.;/g me saga: -s§'2c2;iI'a?.1 2t:—-sL:£2stant:22rlA/ compiied with;
It ca:m+§i'.._b}3. ig71':'::£23:i'* én£é;ety onfy iwcause the
grevfsipn 7:s "'!3eV§d .tc;;. dfiréctoty and not an imperative
(g_) If 'ngzn-ascertaining of the names cf the !ega¥
rep%ése§ét;£iv{é}s;,, _csf'V:'Ehe orig§na¥ grantee, even when the
V".;– "f'espenc§ént !¥E_i:iss.-:IA.:"'asAnd 2 were aware of the pendency «cf the PTCL
3%.
not fee§ the need ta fermutate the questior:s ”
submissicms.
19. In the result, I abilayv
w.P.No.19504/07 by quashina impVt£n3n§d*v’: afiquisitien
netificatians and all furthe:;4_._”proc–ée<;£i§§g's_'ihenfeto. I dismiss
w.P.No.15628/Q6. Noprder Aa_s..§<;:'–.c§'.*§VtAs;_ V '