NANJAPPA Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff challenging the impugned notificationS dtd. 24/2/2005 and 1/3/2006 as the respondent-authorities have not notified before issuance of the aforementioned notifications.

(2.) The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition are that, the petitioners are the owner in possession of 19 guntas of land out of 2.16 acres in Sy.No.138/2 of Arehalli- Guddadahalli village. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent-authorities have issued notification dtd. 22/2/2005 under Sec. 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), proposing for acquisition of land and the purpose for which the said notification was notified. It is also the case of the petitioners that notification dtd. 22/2/2005 (Annexure-C) was not issued/published in two Daily Newspapers having wide circulation in the said locality. That apart, it is urged that due personal notice was not served to the petitioners by the respondent-authorities. However, after issuance of the final notification, a notice dtd. 1/3/2006 was issued under Sec. 28(6) of the Act, directing the petitioners to hand over the possession of the schedule property as per Notice dtd. 15/3/2006. Immediately thereafter, the petitioners have challenged the Notifce dtd. 15/3/2006 in Writ Petition No.11204 of 2007, and the said writ petition came to be dismissed vide order dtd. 30/7/2007 as per Annexure-F. Immediately thereafter, the petitioners had given representation dtd. 15/3/2006 to the respondent No.2 as per Annexure-G to release the petitioners property from acquisition. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent-Government has not considered the representation made by the petitioner seeking de- notification of the land and as such, the petitioners have filed Writ Petition No.18147 of 2007 seeking writ of mandamus to de-notify the land bearing Sy.No.138/2 of Arehalli-Guddadahalli village. The said writ petition came to be dismissed for non- prosecution on 7/6/2010. Thereafter, the petitioners have presented this writ petition, challenging the impugned notification by the respondent authority.

(3.) I heard Sri V.B. Siddaramaiah, learned counsel appearing for the parties and Sri P.V. Chandreshaker learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Board and Sri K.R. Nityananda, learned AGA for the State.