A ABDUL REHMAN KHAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitions pertains to property, originally bearing No.6/1 of Bytarayanapura village, Bangalore North taluk, which was assigned City Sy.Nos.628 and 629 in the year 1971 after the introduction of city survey. It also has a separate municipal number 304 for both CTS Nos.628 and 629. THEse writ petitions are filed challenging the provisions of Section-28 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act (hereinafter referred to 'KIAD Act' for short). Petitioners have sought for quashing of the acquisition proceedings.

(2.) PETITIONERS claim to be in possession of the property. Even now a commercial complex exists on the property in question and the proposed link road has not yet commenced. As the petitioners are not responsible for the delay, writ petitions have to be quashed is the contention raised by the petitioners in these matters.

(3.) IN a similar situation, when the State of Maharashtra brought an enactment like KIAD Act, validity of provisions of Maharashtra Act came up for consideration in the case of Shri Ramtanu Co-operative Housing Society Limited and another v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 1970 (3) SCC 323 : (AIR 1970 SC 1771). Validity of the provisions of the KIAD Act was also considered in the case of Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (1975) 1 SCC 284. IN that context, their Lordships held that establishment, growth and development of industries in the State of Maharashtra do not fall either within Entry 7 or Entry 52 of the Union list and the same comes within Entry 24 of the State list subject to the provisions of Entries 7 and 52. Therefore the establishment, growth and development of industry in the State is within the competence of the State Legislature and falls within the Entry 24 of List II.