In the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 04 Th DAY OF MARCH 2014 BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.41504-41505 AND 41732-41744 OF 2010 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN: 1. Sri. Chetan P Tayal, Son of Late Nandkishore Tayal, Aged 56 years, Residing at No.E-2, Manytha Park, Outer Ring Road, Near Hebbal Flyover, Bangalore. 2. Sri. S.K. Srinivasa, Son of Kempaiah, Aged about 37 years, Residing at No.84, A & B Block, Ramakrishna Nagar, Mysore. 3. Sri. K. Ramesh, Aged about 40 years, Son of K.N.Krishna Reddy, Kachanayakanahalli Village, Anekal Taluk, 2 Bangalore Rural District. [writ petition stands dismissed As against petitioner no.3 Vide order dated 18.3.2011] 2 and 3 are represented by their Power of Attorney Holder, Sri. Chetan P Tayal, First Petitioner. 4. Sri. Mahesh Kumar Tayal, Son of Late Nandikishore Tayal, Aged 44 years, Residing at No.39/1-1, 10 th Cross, Chorul Palya, Vijayanagar, Bangalore – 560 023. …PETITIONERS (By Shri. V. Lakshminarayana, Advocate for Petitioners 1, 2 and 4 Writ petition stands dismissed as against petitioner no.3 vide order dated 18.3.2011) AND: 1. State of Karnataka, Represented by the Principal Secretary to Revenue Department, Vidhana Soudha, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Bangalore – 560 001. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, Bagnalore. 3 3. The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, Bangalore, Represented by its Chairman. 4. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, Bangalore. 5. State of Karnataka , Represented by Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, Vikasa Soudha, Bangalore – 560 001. 6. State of Karnataka, Represented by Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, M.S.Buildings, Bangalore. 7. Development Officer, Karanataka Industrial Area Development Board, Mysore. 8. The Director, Town Planning Department, M.S.Buildings, Bangalore – 560 001. 9. Karnataka Housing Board, Represented by its Commissioner, Kavery Bhavan, Bangalore – 560 009. 4 …RESPONDENTS (By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8 Shri. B.B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 7 Shri. B.V. Sabarad, Advocate for Respondent No.9 ) ***** These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the entire acquisition proceedings in pursuance of the notifications under Section 3(1), 1(3) and 28(1) dated 18.3.2006 produced at Annexure-D, D1 and D2 and notification under Section 28(4) dated 6.9.2010 published in the official gazette on 7.9.2010 vide Annexure-A2, and notification under Section 28 (6) dated 12.10.2010 in No.16/728, in respect of Sy.No.263 vide Annexure-L dated 12.10.2010 in No.18 in respect of Sy.No.265 vide Annexure-L1 dated 12.10.2010 in No.15 in respect of Sy.No.260 vide Annexure-L2 dated 12.10.2010 in No.14 in respect of Sy.No.259 vide Annexure-L3 dated 12.10.2010 in No.13 in respect of Sy.No.206 vide Annexure-L4 dated 12.10.2010 in No.6 in respect Sy.No.130 vide Annexure-L5 dated 12.10.2010 in No.1 in respect of Sy.No.82/1 vide Annexure-L6 dated 13.12.2006 in respect of Sy.No.131 vide Annexure-L7 dated 13.12.2006 in respect of Sy.No.132 vide Annexure-L8 and dated 13.12.2006 in respect of Sy.No.130 vide Annexure – L9 issued by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act under Section 28(4) produced at Annexure-A2 and L, L1 to L9 so far as petitioners lands are concerned arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and without the Authority of Law and etc; 5 These petitions, having been heard and reserved on 26.02.2014 and coming on for Pronouncement of Orders this day, the Court delivered the following:- O R D E R The petitioners claim to be owners of the lands bearing Survey nos.96/45N, 96/20, 197, 130, 132, 203, 259, 264, 96/P1, 206, 131, 82/1, 25/1, 260 and 263 of Koorgally village, Mysore District. The first petitioner is said to be the power of attorney for the owners, S.K.Srinivasa and K. Ramesh, shown as the second and third petitioners in these proceedings and he is said to have transferred the properties in favour of the fourth petitioner. It is also stated that K.Ramesh had sought to cancel the power of attorney granted in favour of the first petitioner and that is said to be subject matter of a pending civil suit. The above said lands are said to have been notified as an industrial area under the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘KIAD Act’, for brevity). It is stated that the very lands are notified as residential area under 6 the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘KTCP Act’, for brevity). The same are indicated as falling within the planning area of the Mysore City Planning Area. This is also reflected in the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP). 2. It is stated that a notification under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act was issued on 18.3.2006 and a final notification under Section 28(4) was issued on 5.12.2006. This was subject matter of challenge before this court in a writ petition in WP 5711/2008. The said petition was allowed on 6.4.2009. The matter was remitted to the authorities for fresh consideration. It is alleged that that the petitioners were not heard after the matter was remitted though objections had been filed on their behalf. Incidentally, the petitioners claimed to have entered into a joint development agreement with the Karnataka Housing Board (KHB), which was said to have been approved by the State government, in respect of the very lands. 7 It is submitted that the respondents having chosen to proceed further with the acquisition proceedings, notwithstanding the above position, the respondents having issued notice under Section 28(6) of the KIAD Act, dated 12.10.2010, which is the provocation for the present petition. 3. Respondents 3 and 4 have filed objections to contend that after remand of the matter as aforesaid, notices had been issued and the petitioner no.1 represented by an agent had sought time to make submissions, at the hearing fixed on 26.6.2010. Thereafter, at the next date of hearing, 5.7.2010, it transpires that respondents 2 and 3 are said to have appeared and indicated that they have no objection if the land is acquired, but they had demanded a compensation of Rs.35 lakh per acre, which was grossly disproportionate to the fair market value according to the respondents. It transpires that the petitioner no.1 having failed to make any oral submissions in spite of opportunity granted, the authority 8 had proceeded to consider the written objections and overruled the same as they were untenable. It is hence contended that the complaint of opportunity of a personal hearing not having been granted is misleading and unfair. It is contended that a total extent of 544.16 acres of land was acquired and the petitioner no.1 lays claim to an extent of 16.39 acres spread over land bearing various survey numbers. Petitioner no.2 claiming an extent of 11 acres 17 guntas in different survey numbers is said to have acquiesced in the proceedings and has received the compensation amount. While petitioner no.3 who has a claim to an extent 12.02 guntas had also agreed to the acquisition but was only claiming a higher compensation. It is claimed by the respondents that except for an extent of 11.38 acres of land, which was denotified after taking into consideration the fact that there was a letter intent issued in the establishment of a petrol pump over a certain extent, the existence of a brick factory and a portion abutting a reserve forest, the rest 9 of the area acquired had been developed into an industrial area, particulars of such development and allotment to industrial entrepreneurs is produced. It is contended that in so far as the acquisition being without regard to the land use and the zonal regulations is misleading, as there was prior consultation with the Urban Development Authority and other agencies as to the availability of the land for purposes of industrial development. The material particulars are produced in this regard. 4. The KHB has filed its statement of objections to clarify as to the claim made by the petitioner no.1 in regard to a joint venture said to have been agreed upon as follows:- That M/s Bharat Infra Tech Private Limited, Bangalore had submitted a proposal dated 12.12.2005 to the KHB for taking up a Joint Venture Project in Survey No.96/45N, 130,131,132,203,96/20,197,260,259,264,96/P1, 206, 96,202,42, 144/2, 145, 146, 201, 265 etc., of Koorgalli. The proposal was 10 submitted by the first petitioner as the Managing Director of the company. The Board in its 396 th meeting held on 10.1.2006 resolved to take up the Joint Venture Project without any financial commitment on its part and to enter into a memorandum of agreement with the approval of the Government with M/s Bharat Infra Tech Private Limited. On 7.2.2006, a communication was sent to the company in this regard.