SRI H.N. SHIVANNA AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF INUSTRIES AND COMMERCE AND KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these writ appeals, the order passed by the learned Single Judge upholding the acquisition proceedings and consequently dismissing the writ petitions are challenged. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the writ petitions. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 in W.P. No. 14391/2006 are the absolute owners of the land in Sy. No. 236 measuring 2 acres situated at Rajapura Village, Jigani Hobli Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Petitioner Nos. 6 and 7 in the said writ petition are the absolute owners in Sy. No. 68/1 measuring 3 acres 5 guntas situated in the same Village. Similarly, petitioner Nos. 8 to 10 in the writ petition are the absolute owners of the land bearing Sy. No. 236 measuring 1 acre 39 guntas as well as Sy. No. 237 measuring 30 guntas situated in the same Village. Petitioner Nos. 11 to 13 are the absolute owners of the land in Sy. No. 237 measuring 3 acres 18 guntas situated in the same Village. The petitioners in W.P. No. 12970/2006 are the absolute owners of the land in Sy. No. 235 measuring 4 acres 6 guntas in the said Village.

(2.) THE Government of Karnataka issued a notification under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Act") declaring that the lands bearing various survey numbers in Villages Jigani, Bandenallasandra, Yarandahalli, Kyalasanahalli and Rajapura of Anekal Taluk, Jigani Hobli as "industrial area". In all an extent of 988 acres 6 guntas were notified. Subsequently by a notification dated 19.04.1997 one more notification came to be issued under Section 1(3) of the Act making Chapter 7 of the act applicable to the lands which are mentioned in the said notification. One more notification came to be issued under Section 28(1) of the Act notifying the lands which are proposed for acquisition by the Board for industrial development. The petitioners' lands as aforesaid were notified for acquisition under the aforesaid notifications.

(3.) RELYING on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Vishnu Prasad Sharma And Others reported in : AIR 1966 SC 1593, the learned Single Judge on consideration of the aforesaid contention was of the view that the scheme under the Land Acquisition Act is totally different from the scheme under the Act. In fact the Apex Court also has held that the scheme of acquisition under these two Acts are different and therefore the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be read into the Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge held successive notifications under Section 28(4) of the Act is permissible, as such, he upheld the impugned acquisition. The learned Single Judge also dismissed these writ petitions on the ground that much water has flown after the issue of notification. There is inordinate delay in the petitioners approaching the Court challenging the acquisition. In the meanwhile the layout has been formed, sites are allotted to various industrialists, third party interests have set in and therefore, he was of the view, this is not a case where he should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. Aggrieved by the said order dated 02.07.2010 the petitioners preferred writ appeals in W.A.Nos.2921 -2933/2010 challenging the order in W.P. No. 14391/2006 and W.A.Nos.2916 -2920/2010 challenging the order in W.P. No. 12970/2006 contending that insofar as their lands are concerned, possession is not taken, layout is not formed, sites are not allotted, no third party interests have crept in and no compensation is also paid. In those circumstances, in the said writ appeals an opportunity was reserved to the petitioners to seek review of the order of the learned Single Judge and therefore, the appeals came to be dismissed by an order dated 29.07.2010 reserving the said liberty. Accordingly Review Petition Nos. 286/2010 and 287/2010 was filed by the petitioners. However the said Review Petition came to be dismissed. It is thereafter these appeals are filed challenging the order passed in the writ petition as well as in the review petition.