LAWS(KAR)-1991-2-26

M S MOSES Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On February 05, 1991
M.S.MOSES Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the facts leading to the writ appeal are as follows: On 1-11-1965 notification under Section 4-A(1) of the KarnataKa town and Country Planning Act, 1961 was issued including Hoodi village where the land forming the subject of this appeal is situated in Planning District 8C. this was classified as agricultural and residential use only. However, on 24-8-1984 a notification under Section 3(1) of the KarnataKa Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 came to be issued declaring Hoodi village as an Industrial Area for the purpose of the said Act and on the same dale another notification was issued under Section 1(3) of the said Act specifying the areas mentioned in the schedule maKing the Act applicable. On 21-9-1984 preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the said Act was issued notifying the intention to acquire the land. the said notification was published in the KarnataKa Government Gazette on 11-10-1984. the Comprehensive; Development Plan was approved by the Government which approval is required under Section 22 of the KarnataKa town and Country Planning Act, 1961. thereafter, on 13-7-1988 a notice was issued under Sect ion 28(2) of the KarnataKa Industrial Areas Development Act calling upon the appellant to show cause why the land should not be acquired. the appellant filed his objections on 14-10-1988. On 22-9-1989 the Special Land Acquisition Officer of the KarnataKa Industrial Areas Development Board rejected these objections. As a consequence thereof, on 22/23-11-1989 the final notification under Section 28(4) of the KarnataKa Industrial Areas Development Act was issued notifying the acquisition of the land. It was under these circumstances, the acquisition proceedings were challenged unsuccessfully before the learned single Judge in W.P, No. 4263 of 1990. the main contention urged in the writ petition was that there is conflict between the KarnataKa town and Country Planning Act and the KarnataKa Industrial Areas Development Act which would disable the Government from acquiring this land having regard to the fact that the land was classified as agricultural and residential use only under the Planning Act. One other point that was raised was the delay in issuing of the notification under Section 28(1) of the Industrial Areas Development Act and the final notification has caused prejudice to the petitioner. Both these points were rejected. Hence the appeal.

(2.) Before us, Mr. S. VijayashanKar, learned counsel for the appellant, after having taKen us through the various provisions of the KarnalaKa town and Country Planning Act, ,1961, would submit as follows:

(3.) the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 effectively answers these submissions by conlending.-