Sections 1[3] and 28[1] of the Karnataka
Development Act, 1966 [for short 'the
Inain grievance on behalf of the petitioners as
A ":l:'si.IbIiiitted by Sri. Vardhaman V Gunja}, learned Counsel,
that the petitioners have been clamped with the notice
3
{By Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, Advocate General a/1W".".
Sri. Venkatesh Dodc1eri,AGA for R1; '
Sri M IArun, Adv., for R2;
Sri Harish, Adv., for M/S. Aareng'
Associates, Adv., for R3]
TRIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARIIICLES -22S"AND 227 OF --.
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYINC TO QUASHA.Al\lNEX~_C;i' & "
E ISSUED BY KIADB FOR BENEFIT OF BENEFICLARY ~i3MRCL
VIZ., NOTIFICATION U/S. 3I1].ARD IISIPAND 2S§1';;oIaf RIAD ACT»
VIDE GAZETTE PUBLICATION --DTB.31.1.09,' BANGALORE VIDE
ANNEX-F NOTICE UNDER SEC 2315; _OF ACT DTD
22.10.2009 AND ANNEX--G DTD.l.9,/23--..4;'3..0 AND' CQNSEQUENTIAL
ORDERS INSOFAR Asa PEfl'I'IfIOi\1ERS~-. PROPERTEES ARE
CONCERNED AND THE"ACQUISI:I*1;ON'--_OF*-SUCH PROPERTIES
WHICH, IF ACQUIRED AFFEC'IS'y'IRE _.i?_f£'1'lfl'IO_NER RIGHTS AND
THIS PI«:'35:1TI(;:aN'_.Co:II4ING"ON' EO'R"I:t3RTIIER ORDERS, THIS
DAY, TI-IE CQ'Ui?'_I'._ ll/fA'{.T:__B'. FOLL_OWiN_G:-
iiii 'V I
Writ" in number belonging to one
family have_JquestiOnesd«...'the legality of notification issued
A.c":,"_'}'f
it .'<'oi:j;j.ections, if on behalf of the respondents.
‘-.7Indii’strisal Areas Development Board which
pfoflcltffls it is a statutory authority brought
‘l”‘«-._indulged in all sorts of illegal activities, found
” to have misused the powers and authority to
6
writ petition was admitted on’;
23.IO.201O by issue of rule and the ir1terirn.._”‘–_
order granted earlier was extended ,_ ”
disposal Of the writ petition. ~ * 3
First Respondent — S_tate__ Governmie_nt”r!;s’A.
represented by Sri Venkatesh Dodd”e_ri;7iea1 ‘V _
Additional Government “gAd_vo’cate. _ thi:-q~.,,.
respondent ~–~ Bangalore Metr’oR’o.il Corporationf 3
Limited is represerate’d..V_ _M/Vs’_..V’
Associates, Advocates’ ” u_Jhereas° ‘ ‘ second
respondent — ‘KarnaAtal:a-. Industrial… Areas
Development Board and” ~.i_ts_p”‘a.special land
acquisition oflicer’ thoughkserved’ » has blissfully
remained non-responsive_. ‘ 🙁 —-
3,35; i§L~’Venk.atesh =.vD”oddéri, learned
Additiorial ‘Gov_feri1tyne’t’it__Advocate appearing for
the first’-re.spor’id’ent«A»~« and Mr. Srinivas,
learned’) co”i:trisel~_”-appearirig for the third
f<espvo–ntde7nt;.._ppray._jI:Ir some more time to file
counter astheprocess of getting instructions
frornthe res_pective"clients is on etc.,.
A :week's time is granted to file
"l"t_EVi'l_l..~ second respondent — Karnataka
into existence for acquiring private lands to
develop it as an industrial area, having
benefit a few private industries at the cost of
general members of the public by acquiring
their lands in the name of public interest, J
have adopted an attitude of evasiveness, it is
figures relating to the instances of
proceedings initiated by the Board and the
,:ld~e*s;*elopii1lg the area as an industrial area by the Board
étcfand some time is required to place all the necessary
S " "information before the court, points out that in the instant
7
high time that such Board warrants to
wound up.
Learned Advocate General is directedpplto”
take notice of this petition to examine V
aspect of the matter and to assistpthe cou”r*t.] V
Learned counsel forthe ‘ petitioner «. ”
furnish copy of the .t’ur._i_t pelltition. toleparnedpl
Advocate General. ‘ r
List next week. ”
5. It is in this backgroui’;dl,”t.he_ coming up for
hearing today§’*.V 2 ‘ 1
6. appeared on behalf of
the State has submitted that while there
is no’i:npedi1nen’t.’lfor”‘the State Government or the Board
lands acjcgluireld by the State Government for the purpose of
case, that aspect alone is not necessary to keep this
95/
8
matter pending, particularly, as it has been noticewillby the
respondents -»~ State Government and the
is a clear lapse or shortcoming in the
part of the State and the Board T’
inadvertence or mistake, it.»is.__a fact. that
of the petitioners did not injithe preliminary
notification issued the act and the
notice issued 28[6] of the Act
cannot be d.eienL5;fe_d;_ asjvai-id in law.
7. In view made by the learned
Advocate General;iSri..:””Vardhaman V Gunjal, learned
counsel_ for thenpetitioiners, submits that if the State
readyland willing to go through the process
inf =a_cqu~is’i«ti_onj-afresh in accordance with law, in respect of l
the””pet.i_’tioners’ lands then the petitioners may not press
of alternative prayer prayed for in this writ
petition and will rest content if the notification under
“section 28[-4] of the Act insofar as it relates to the
petitioners’ lands are concerned is quashed.
W
9
8. Learned Advocate General points out that there is a
technical impediment for this to happen as the .p’etitio’ners
have neither prayed for this relief nor havje’* has
copy of the declaration issued Llild-31′. ;
Act.
9. Objection is well taken,v”‘~~Houre\rer,.toi.rna1$e-..aniends,d’
Sri. Vardhaman V __Gunja1,…Vddiieained “ice-unsefl for the
petitioners has placeduaa’irnieniotieh-efo1*e_ the_C0urt seeking for
additional prayei-,,__in =petitio:1:VV’V’for quashing the
declaration 28[4] of the Act, copy of
which is availabxlvei._hefor.e’..’i’this court as Annexure–R2 to the
staVte;1ne_;nt of objections filed by the Board and therefore
‘the’ –need”forTproducing a separate copy of the Very same
notiiicatioii;j_’hiy the petitioners is avoided.
me finai declaration bearing No.01 335 SPQ 2009,
e._’B:AN(§ALORE, dated 16.10.2009 issued under section
~’28{4] of the Act by the State Government insofar as it
relates to the property of the petitioners are concerned,
11
and a Comprehensive sketch of all the metr0__. tracks
proposed for construction, before this
petition Nos.24120–24124 of.2010 which
before this court on 6.1.2011. V. 4′
14. Registry is directed to place’«.e0:f)Ay”ef iitfie
file of the writ petition N0″s,_2412’O’w2;%1:411’Z4-.’Qf 26110.
AN/~