ANANTHASWAMY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legality and correctness of the order dated 25.04.2018 passed in WP Nos.19348-349/2016 and 23686-696/2016 by the learned Single Judge is called in question in this intra-Court appeal.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts are, appellant/petitioner had questioned the preliminary notifications bearing No.CI 196 SPQ 98 dated 19.12.1998, 29.01.2003 issued under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KIAD Act' for the sake of convenience) at Annexures-A and B respectively and the declaration and final notifications bearing No.CI 196 SPQ 98 dated 08.04.2003 and 05.07.2003 issued under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act at Annexures-C and D respectively to the writ petition. The petitioner sought for a declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the KIAD Act had lapsed as per Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the '2013 Act' for the sake of brevity) in respect of the following lands:

(3.) According to the appellant/petitioner, the lands were acquired by late Patel Chikkahanumaiah under the respective inams abolition proceedings. Later, the lands were settled amongst the family members of the said Patel Chikkahanumaiah as per family settlement dated 26.12.1974. The aforesaid lands came to the share of the appellant herein, being one of the sons of late Patel Chikkahanumaiah. The aforesaid lands were notified under Sections 28(1) and 28(4) of the KIAD Act for the purpose of Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project (hereinafter referred to as the 'BMICP' for the sake of convenience).