IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALO§?ET.
DATED THIS THE 2413. DAY 01? NOVEMBER %
BEFORE
THE HOISPBLE MR. JUSTICE T
WRIT PETITION No.632o/2oo5(LA-K%mpB) %
BETWEEN :
1.
3.
Mr.C.Jayaram,
S/o.Mr.Chowdappa, -. V'
Aged about 62 ya:-.ars, .
R/at.154,
Aflahara. B?«118fi§.1w Pest;
Bangalore 3:- 03?'.. "
. Mrs.
W/0-Misc-JaYaf&ii1s% .'
Agml abéut 53 % "
R/at. 154,'Ka1*iya§.;1m.az1a'
Post,
-
Developers
"?.'?I'i'£I_ate"i..t11,, Ajcaompany
tinder the
"Act, 1956,
._I-{aving its Iegstcred emcee
uAt.!+§o.52, Vittal Mallya Road,
gflangalom, represented by its
. Director, Mr.Arun Advani.
. . . PETHTONERS
(By Sri.Vivck Holla, Adv. for
M] 3.1-Iona & Holla, Advs.)
'A'-
AND :
1. State of Kamataka,
By its Principal Se-eretmy,
Department: of Commerce &
industries, Vikas Soudha,
Bangalore.
2. Special Deputy Ccmmiwioner,
Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development mm (IGADB),
Nmpathunga Road, BangaloVre._
3. Special Land Acquisition
Ofiioer, KIADB Complex, _
Peenya, Bangalore. ' . ;RE'_SPONDENPS
(By Sri.Keshava Ready, R'1,%
S1'i.GiI'ii§0"~'(€ia B4, Adv}; ' '
This Articles 226 and
227 of the Coi2stitu.t.ionr;f iadha with a prayer to quash.
the ._,r.1c:t3:iicat1on dated 69.02.2004 vide
' This coming on for hewéng, this day,
them:-xdye t§:e..fol2owmg:
ORDER
‘ u upe:’§1tioners claim to be the absolute mvners of
in question. Pursuant to a preliminary
ggeaeeanon dated 09.02.2004 under Section 28(1) of the
Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, the fl
. .~ 3’ L
/
said land is sought to be acquired. The claim of the
petitioners is that they have filed objections,
however, the same has not been considered. ”
final notification issued and gazetted on 1
under Section 23(4) of the Act is T
inasmuch as there is no
and 28(3) of the Act.
2. The contention of no notice
of the proposed and when
they oame pendency of the
aoquisitioij proxfi fin iosfre mm their ob3ect1ons’ ‘
before the main grievance is that
their olnjeefions ifaotibeen considered and no orders
we esotipulated under Section 23(3) of the Act.
V ‘;é1:r:;iii;e”v.ooquioi1ion pxooeednw’ are vitia’ ted
set-a$de.
On notice, respondents have mmtsered
and filed their statement of objections. The
” oontention of the respondents is that pursuant to the
2
e*”‘——————-
.. 4 ..
notice issued, the petitioners have filed theh’ objections
and having considered the objections, a.
notification has been issued and possession has ._
been taken and handed over to the
30.05.2006. é M% ‘V _
4. This writ petifion is $o£:..22§r1
2000. This Court while
has passed an Z an
02.06.2006. The said
5. appearing for
the pefifiunéxfs ‘ “”‘–L0fi30nu0-usly contend that
_ notta?i’1:4!.;;st1andiIa1g’tI_:1;f§”fa0i tixat the: objections having been
bmn considered and the final
He furttmr submits that
H Vv .poss0§si0r§’.he{s not been taken by the respondents as
by W.
“6.’ The learned counwi appwring for rcspondmlts
VT 3 would stnenuously oemtend that objections have
n “been considered. Hence, the question of quashmg’ the %
L
1 5 ‘
_ 5 _
notificatian would not arise. Further, he has made
available the records relating to the aequisitiori
proceedings.
7. The contention of the petitioner that =s§r’_a§a” ‘ u
not issued to them cannot be is
noticed that objections havc. % fi.lcd ?%4rg;:A%
petitioners. Indeed in the
petitioners would admit
accepted the not;ice. on what
grounds the acquired.
Indeed it 1:0 the said reply is to be
found in the’? The order sheet
the was listed an 26.05.2004 and
if’a{s.$.Vd«efci’1;§d t0 ‘1?.06.2004. On 17.06.2004 it is noted
‘ was absent. and the matter was
_ _§10f¢;1’ed’ ‘t0. and it was dJre.ctod’ that a notice
A 23(2) is also required to be issued 01 the
‘l’hereaita*, on 04.10.2004, once again
% be noticed that the petitioners are absent and the
0»uInat:tcr is resaved for orders. The records do not
disclose that any order is passed by the Land
Acquisition Ofliccr on the objections filed by
petitioner.
3. Indeed it is to be noticed.:that ”
are initiated under Section 23 of
of the Act would tho “of a
preliminary notification’ 2342) and
mandates the authoriticc the owner
or where the ovj;rx;:::=:;:;f’V:-is the occupier
of the land an or believed
to be __ Show cause, within thirty
days dotc«of of the notice, as to why the
‘land sooma not”
to the preliminary’ notification,
I the’ have filed their objoctions, which is
the records. Section 28(3) of the Act
that an opporttmity is required to be given
‘:’ objections are nequimd to be considered and
‘fhczcaitcr, final notification is to be issued. In the case
C
/’
-7-
on hand, it is to be noticed that no such exercise far;
been done in so far as the petitionem are concerned. . ‘ .1
10. Mr.V’wek Holla, learned counsel % 3 1 V
the petitioners relies on a Division _v
Court in mac or Kulkarni
Commtmoner, Eelgawn and
11) Ka:’.I..J. 290 wherein
qflbrded as which is
j Vto the Issue’ of
II. _’1’hcV appearing for the
onué of this Court in the case. of
v/s. State ojxamataka
in 199717) Kar.L.J. 410 to
. his étmmnfion that” consideration and disposal
ofiféctions demonstrates application of mud’ by
:V:a11’_1’3.*11’ity and such pr%dings cannot be held to
.:_””bc. §’itiated. Indeed this decision is referred to by me in
(52%
.3-
the case of Hifiaidas Irmestment Pvt.
State ofxamatatca in W.)-“.No.8177/2006 0
of on 09.08.2007. But however, What is 1 .,
the case on hand is that objectms
there is no indication that oojeotiofis, 0.
considered. In fmt there of
consideration of _ of View
that the Division apply.
Consideratioo mean as observed case that
there must be mind by the authority. To
my mind, is fno of mind and no orders
filed. Hence, I am of the
subsequent to Section 28(2)
V ‘liebie Consequently, following onder
X» 00(3)’ Petition is aztawut in part.
‘ (b) The final notification at Armexme ‘B’ in so far
as the petitioner’s land bearing Sy.No.4I
measuring 5 acres 17 guntas of Kariyammana
L
– 9 –
Agrahara village, Varthus Hobli, Bangalore
East Taluk is concemed, stands quashed.
(c) The pefitioners shall take these
notice to them and shall appear beftire’ 4_ *
Land Acquisition Officer oI1_§’=§ _
without waiting for further j; 2 _
(:1) The Land Acq11isition’V_(}f(i.cc1V”‘
proceed to consider tt1e Vt3b%iec§;ion’s- oompiy
with the mandatory p11)iiisivét;s””‘o£.Seciidn”28(3)
of the Act # same in
Rule made’ Vc.wttt§1§1_’xt_i.1&’1’§’lHi(:sa1ted above.
12, Ia’*V§ learned Additional
for respondent No.1 is
‘A.{ile.. 1i;cmo of appearance withirl four weeks.
“spa
sci/~
Judge