At, High Court of Karnataka
By, THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
For the Petitioner: C.M. Poonacha for M/s. Lexplexus, Advocates. For the Respondents: T.L. Kiran Kumar, Additional Government Advocate.
1. Petitioner has challenged show-cause notice dated 16 -10 -2015 issued by the 2nd respondent -Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub -Division, Doddaballapur. Under that notice, the proceedings are sought to be initiated against one P.M. Anjinappa S/o. Muniramaiah under Rules 108 -D(6) and 108 -K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 made under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
2. Petitioner is an allottee of various extents of land from Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board ('KIADB' for short). The impugned notice is in respect of Sy. No. 90, new No. 161 of Kannamangala Village, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, measuring 1 acre 20 guntas. The aforesaid land is also a piece of land which has been allotted to the petitioner by KIADB.
3. I have heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and perused the material on record. Learned Counsel on both sides however submit that this writ petition could be disposed of in terms of the order dated 1 -12 -2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 49889 of 2014 (Ozone Urbana Infra Developers Private Limited (formerly known as MFAR Infrastructure Development Private Limited and Ozone Urban Land Developers Private Limited), Bangalore v. State of Karnataka and Others, 2015 (1) Kar. L.J. 476).
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the impugned notice has been issued to P.M. Anjinappa and not the petitioner. So the petitioner does not have a cause of action to impugn the notice.5. In response, petitioner's Counsel states that the apprehension of the petitioner is that though being an allottee from KIADB, if proceedings are initiated as against the aforesaid extent of land, that they would have a bearing on the allotment, as the proceedings are initiated under Section 108 -K of the aforesaid Rules. Therefore, petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court.
6. Be that as it may, what is relevant to note is that the petitioner is not a direct successor of P.M. Anjinappa to whom the impugned notice has been issued. Any proceeding that is initiated as against P.M. Anjinappa should not have any bearing on the allotment that has been made by KIADB to the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner is only an allottee from KIADB, after the aforesaid land was acquired by KIADB. In that view of the matter, the lis between the respondent-authorities and P.M. Anjinappa cannot affect the allotment made by KIADB to the petitioner. That is an independent proceeding which is more relevant for the purpose of disbursing compensation to P.M. Anjinappa. As the acquisition of the land in question by KIADB is not a subject-matter of challenge in any proceeding before any authority or Cou
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
rt and further the land in question has been allotted through KIADB to the petitioner by orders passed in accordance with law, the petitioner can have no apprehension about the notice issued to P.M. Anjinappa. 7. Subject to the aforesaid observations, writ petition stands dismissed.