VANITHA RAI W/O SRI. PREMANATH Vs. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO. 14/3, 2ND FLOOR, RASHTROTHANA PARISHAT BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 REPTD BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER, DEVELOPMENT OF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.64/1 to an extent of 3,45 acres. So also, she is stated to be the perpetual lease holder to an extent of 70 cents of converted land both situated at Mogur village, Gangi Mutt Grama Panchayat of Mangalore Taluk. The petitioner has constructed a residential house in Sy.No.64/1 and residing in the said house alongwith family members. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have acquired various properties for formation of industrial area under the provisions of KIADB Act. However, the land in Sy.No.64/1 belonging to the petitioner is stated to have not been acquired. Consequently, the petitioner is not aggrieved by the acquisition of the adjoining lands. But the grievance of the petitioner is that because of acquisition of adjoining lands for formation of industrial area/layout by respondent Nos. to 3, the petitioner does not have any approach to PWD road, inasmuch as, property of the petitioner is surrounded by all the acquired properties. The petitioner was getting access to PWD road by requesting adjoining land owners till filing of writ petition. However, of -late such adjoining land owners are not obliging the petitioner and consequently they have stopped the facility which was earlier given in favour of the petitioner for her ingress and egress. In view of the same, the petitioner's property has become an island within the acquired properties without there being any access. Under these circumstances, she requested the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to give her access to approach PWD road. The petitioner also contends that an area which would be utilized by KIADB for formation of road for petitioner's ingress and egress, would be compensated by petitioner by handing over equivalent area in favour of KIADB and consequently, KIADB will not lose an inch of land. Such a request is turned down by KIADB on 24.3.2010 by issuing an endorsement. The same is impugned in these writ petitions. It is contended by Sri. C.M. Nagabhusana, Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned endorsement is liable to be quashed, inasmuch as, respondent No. 1 has proceeded merely on technicalities and has not looked into substance of the matter. He further draws the attention of the Court that the inaction on the part of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has created hardship to the petitioner as she does not have access for PWD road.

(2.) THE report and the sketch prepared by the Tahsildhar clearly reveal that the petitioner's property bearing No. 64/1 is landlocked, inasmuch as, it does not have any access to PWD road. None of the Your sides of the petitioner's property has got access to have ingress and egress. Therefore, it is impossible for the petitioner to utilize the property in question. In order to solve this human problem, formation of approach road is absolutely necessary on the part of the respondents. Though the KEADB has formed layout surrounding the petitioner's property, it is incumbent on the part of the first respondent board to provide access to the adjoining unacquired property, otherwise the property in question would become waste and consequently the interest of the petitioner would suffer. It is not open on the part of first respondent to wash off its hands by raising technical objections that adjoining properties are already acquired and layout is formed. While forming the layout itself, it was duty of the first respondent to provide roads for the adjoining properties in order to have better enjoyment of the area.

(3.) THEREFORE , respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to reconsider the matter afresh in the light of the aforementioned observations and keeping in mind the report of the Tahasildhar as well as sketch. It is incumbent on the part of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to provide access to her property from PWD road. Action shall be taken as early as possible, but not later than outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of this order.