w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

M/s. Terracon Projects, Represented by its Proprietor S.V. Babu v/s The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary Department of Commerce & Industries, Bengaluru & Others

    Writ Petition No. 6012 of 2020 (LA-KIADB)
    Decided On, 14 July 2020
    At, High Court of Karnataka
    For the Petitioner: K. Vijaya Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, Dilip Kumar, HCGP, R2 & R3, P.V. Chandrashekar, R4, Dhananjay Joshi, Advocates.

Judgment Text
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed Under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for entire records from the R-2 and 3 in respect of acquisition of land pertaining to preliminary notification issued by the R-1 Under Section 28(1) of the KIADB Act, dated 21.08.2019, as per Annexure-A and final notification dated 03.02.2020, as per Annexure-B; quash the preliminary notification issued by the R-1 Under Section 28(1) of the KIADB Act, dated 21.08.2019, as per Annexure-A, in so as it pertains to acquisition of 0.18 Guntas of converted land in Sy.No.145/3A, of Chandapura Village, Attibele Hobli, Bengaluru Urban District, belonging to the petitioner and etc.)

1. Petitioner is the absolute owner of the residentially converted land bearing Sy.No.145/3A measuring 1 acre situated at Chandapura village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru urban district, having purchased the same from one Muralidhara by a registered sale deed dated 24.07.2017.

2. Respondents No.2 and 3 issued preliminary notification dated 21.08.2019 under Section 28(1) of the KIADB Act, 1966 for acquiring 18 guntas of land in Sy.No.145/3A notifying the name of Muralidhara who was the vendor of the petitioner. Petitioner filed objections to the said preliminary notification with respondent No.3, stating that his vendor Muralidhara expired on 29.07.2017 and the notification is issued against a dead person.

3. Thereafter, respondent No.1 has issued notification dated 03.02.2020 under Section 28(4) of the KIADB Act, acquiring 25 guntas of land in Sy.No.145/3A belonging to the petitioner notifying the name of deceased Muralidhara. Taking exception to the preliminary and final notifications issued by respondents No. 1 to 3 acquiring 25 guntas of land belonging to the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner on 08.07.2020 submitted before this Court that he would not press the writ petition, if respondents undertake to acquire the extent of land notified and if the name of the petitioner is found in the notification. Accordingly, he was directed to file a memo to that effect. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, dehorse his submission made by him on 08.07.2020, impugned notifications issued against the dead person is a nullity in the eye of law and the same cannot be enforced as against the petitioner. He further submits that, if the, entire extent of land in Sy.No.145/3A is not acquired, the remaining portion would be virtually useless for any developmental activity. Hence, he prays or allowing the writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the 4 respondent No.2 and 3 th submits that entire extent of land cannot be acquired and the writ petition itself is not maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioner has represented before respondent No.3 that the Petitioner has no objection for acquiring its land if reasonable compensation is paid. He further submits that petitioner having filed objections to the preliminary notification and also inspection of the land was carried out in the presence of the petitioner cannot now raise an objection that the impugned notifications issued in the name of a dead person are nullity in the eye of law. He further submitted that the impugned notifications were issued notifying the name of the deceased, Muralidhara since his name was reflected in the record of rights as owner as on the date of issuance of preliminary notification and as such the petitioner who has not taken steps to get his name mutated in the record of rights, cannot now say that the impugned notifications are null and void. He further submitted that KIADB has recommended with the Respondent No.1 so as to issue corrigendum to notify the name of the Petitioner in the final notification . Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that land in question among other lands is acquired for the purpose of laying natural gas pipe line. He further submits that acquisition of land is for public purpose and if implementation of the project is delayed, the general public will be affected and because of objection by the petitioner, the entire project has come to a stand still. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the project.

7. In response to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents, Petitioner's counsel submits that it would suffice if the name of the petitioner is notified in the final notification and suitable compensation is paid to the petitioner at the earliest. He submits that he will not object for acquisition of extent of land notified, if his name is notified in the final notification. He also submitted that the Petitioner may be reserved with liberty to represent with Respondent- KIADB so as to acquire the remaining portion of the land.

8. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for KIADB, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

i) Respondent No.1 shall notify the name of the petitioner in the final notification dated 03.02.2020 by issuing corrigendum within a per

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
iod of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order; ii) Respondents No.2 and 3 are directed to pay suitable compensation to the petitioner for which the Petitioner is entitled to within six (6) weeks from the date of notifying petitioner's name in the final notification. Petitioner is reserved with liberty to submit a representation with the Respondent- KIADB to acquire remaining portion of land . If such a representation is submitted, the Respondents 2 & 3 are required to consider the same pass appropriate orders within six (6) weeks.