(Prayer: This W.P is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the resolution Dated: 05.11.2013 (32thcontd, meetings) in so far as subject NO. 6 filed No. SUC-18270-(ACQN.SEC) vide relevant portion of Annexure-D, followed by the communication of the rejection of the request of the petitioners by its communication Dated: 09.01.2014 vide Annexure-E and communication 20.06.2018 vide Annexure-F and G respectively and etc.)1. In this petition, petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:
“(a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ of appropriate nature of quash the resolution dated 5.11.2013 (326th contd. meeting) in so far as subject No. 6 File No. SUC-18270 (Acqn. Sec) vide relevant portion of Annexure-D, followed by the communication of the rejection of the request of the petitioners by its communication dated 09.01.2014 vide Annexure-E and communication 20.06.2018 in No. Ka Kai Pra Mam/Mam.V/Ham/Kairangal/545/2018-19 and No.KaKaiPra Mam/Mam.V/Ham/Kairangal/546/2018-19 vide Annexure-F and G respectively.
(b) Issue a writ of appropriate nature to declare that the acquisition proceedings cannot be proceeded further insofar as the properties of the petitioners are concerned on account of the delay and latches in payment of the compensation or otherwise compensating the petitioners and consequently issue writ in the nature of mandamus to restore the lands of the petitioners.
Or in the alternative
(c) Direct the Respondent No. 2 to consider the representation dated 17.09.2013 vide Annexure-C and allot the properties on absolute basis in terms of the allotment letters issued on 23.11.2010 as Per Annexure-B and B-1 by executing absolute sale deed; or
(d) Pass such other orders as may be deemed appropriate under the circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice”.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for respondent No. 1, learned Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3-KIADB and perused the material on record.
3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the documents produced, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the lands belonging to the petitioners at Pajeer Village, Bantwal Taluk, D.K. District having been acquired by the respondents for industrial purpose, petitioners approached this Court in W.P.No. 9028/2008. By final order dated 14.07.2010, this Court disposed of the said petition taking note of the submissions made by both sides that if a written request was given by the petitioners for allotment of land for industrial purpose, the respondents shall allot suitable land in their favour. Pursuant thereto, the KIADB issued allotment letters dated 23.11.2010 in favour of the petitioners stating that alternative land had been allotted in their favour in view of the acquired land and that the KIADB would execute lease-cum-sale deed in favour of the petitioners in respect of the allotted lands. The petitioners submitted representations to the respondents requesting them to execute an absolute sale deed in favour of the petitioners and not only a lease-cum-sale deed as sought to be executed by the respondents. It was also submitted that in respect of nearby lands which were acquired by the respondents for the very same project, the KIADB has executed absolute sale deeds dated 18.04.2011 in respect of the adjacent lands in favour of Shri. Francis Cuthinha and others. However, the said request made by the petitioners for execution of an absolute sale deed instead of lease-cum-sale deed were rejected by the KIADB by issuing the impugned Endorsements/Communications, aggrieved by which, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition.
4. It is submitted that even as per the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting of the KIADB held on 04.02.2017, the respondents have admitted that the lands of the petitioners as well as the lands of Francis Cuthinha and others had been acquired for the same project and since sale deeds had been executed in favour of the said Francis Cuthinha and others and only a lease-cum-sale deed was proposed to be executed in favour of the petitioners, it was necessary that a policy decision had to be taken in this regard and the KIADB has not taken any decision so far. It is also submitted that the contention of the KIADB that the sale deeds executed in favour of Francis Cuthinha and others were in respect of residential houses and for residential purpose is contrary to the contents of the said sale deeds as such, the KIADB was not justified in not treating the claim of the petitioners for execution of sale deeds by way of parity on par with the said Francis Cuthinha and others. It is therefore submitted that the impugned Endorsements/Communications issued by the KIADB deserve to be quashed and necessary directions are issued to the KIADB in this regard.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the KIADB, in addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the statement of objections, submit that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. After perusing Ex.R-1, Minutes of the Board Meeting held on 04.02.2017 produced by the KIADB, this Court passed an order dated 18.03.2021 directing the learned counsel to obtain instructions, as to whether any policy decision as indicated in the said Meeting was taken by the Board. On instructions, learned Counsel for the KIADB submitted that no such policy decision had been taken by the KIADB so far.
7. The material on record clearly indicates that the lands belonging to the petitioners as well as the lands of Francis Cuthinha and others, all of which were situated at Pajeer Village, Bantwal Taluk, D.K. District were acquired by the respondents for the same project of Infosys Technologies Ltd., who was arrayed as respondent No. 4 in the earlier round of litigation in W.P.No. 9028/2008, which was disposed off by this Court on 14.07.2010. It is not in dispute that subsequent to the said order passed by this Court in respect of similarly situated persons, viz., Francis Cuthinha and others and under identical circumstances, the KIADB has executed absolute sale deeds dated 18.04.2011 in favour of the land losers; however, in so far as the petitioners are concerned, who are similarly situated as the aforesaid land losers. Francis Cuthinha and others, whose lands also were acquired for the same project, the KIADB has proceeded to reject the request of the petitioners for execution of an absolute sale deed and has proposed to execute only a lease-cum-sale deed. In the light of the aforesaid material on record, in particular, the order dated 14.07.2010 passed by this Court, the sale deeds dated 16.04.2011 executed by the KIADB in favour of Francis Cuthinha and others and the categorical admissions contained in the proceedings of the Board dated 04.02.2017 to the effect that both the petitioners as well as the Francis Cuthinha and others are identically and similarly situated, the impugned Endorsements/Communication issued by the KIADB rejecting the request of the petitioners for execution of an absolute sale deed instead of a lease-cum-sale deed is clearly discriminatory, arbitrary and contrary to the doctrine of parity, which is clearly applicable in favour of the petitioners in the facts of the instant case. Under these circumstances, the impugned Endorsements/Communications issued by the KIADB deserve to be quashed.
8. In so far as the contention urged by the KIADB with regard to the sale deeds being executed in favour of Francis Cuthinha and others for residential purposes is concerned, the said contention is clearly contrary to the recitals in the said sale deeds dated 18.04.2011, which clearly indicate that the said lands sold in favour of the said persons were non-agricultural lands apart from the fact that the lands had been acquired from the said persons for industrial purpose warranting execution of sale deed instead of a lease-cum-sale deed in their favour; as stated supra, the lands of the petitioners as well as the lands of the said Francis Cuthinha and others situated in the same person i.e., Infosys Private Ltd
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
., the petitioners were also entitled to the absolute sale deed in respect of the allotted properties and not only a lease-cum-sale deed and as such, even this contention urged on behalf of the respondents deserves to be rejected. 9. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned Endorsements/Communications dated 09.01.2014 vide Annexure-E and Communication dated 20.06.2018 in No. KA Kai Pra Mam/Mam.V/Ham/Kairangala/545/2018-19 vide Annexures-F and G are hereby quashed. (iii) Respondent No. 2-KIADB is directed to execute an absolute sale deed in favour of the petitioners in respect of the lands described in the allotment letters at Annexures-B and B1 dated 23.11.2010 after complying with all other procedures in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.