N. REKHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of lands described in the schedule to the petition. The said lands were purchased under three sale deeds dated 25.8.2005, 7.11.2005 and 6.10.2006, This was pursuant to the permission granted by the fourth respondent as these lands were notified for acquisition under section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the "KIAD Act", for brevity). Though the lands were notified in the name of the petitioner's vendors, by way of abundant caution, that the petitioner sought permission and thereafter purchased the same.

(2.) Though the learned Counsel appearing for the KIADB would submit that an order has been passed as required under Section 28(3), which requires the State Government to thereafter issue a notification and publish the same in the gazette, the said exercise has not been completed and therefore, as on date, there is no notification issued under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act.

(3.) While the learned Counsel for respondent No. 6, Shri. R.V.S. Naik, would on the other hand, contend that the reference to the Framework Agreement and the contention that the petitioner's lands did not figure in the said Framework Agreement, is a broad statement, which does not reflect the true state of affairs. The Framework Agreement is as its nomenclature indicates a framework agreement and it does not contemplate the provision of details of lands that were sought to be acquired. What is indicated in the Framework Agreement is only the extent of lands in the respective villages spread over several villages, as mentioned therein. Therefore, reference to the Framework Agreement would not serve any purpose to the petitioner. Insofar the agreements are concerned, there are two agreements which require to be kept in view. There is an agreement in respect of the lands which are clearly government lands as between the sixth respondent and the State Government and there is also an agreement in respect of the private lands between the State Government and the sixth respondent, which contemplates the acquisition of lands for the project in particular villages. It is the private lands, which the petitioner concerns. There is no indication of the extent of each land owner's parcel of land or the details thereof. It is again the broad extent of land which is mentioned. Hence, the petitioner to claim that her land is not covered and could not be the subject-matter of acquisition proceedings, is not wholly correct. The admitted circumstance remains that the lands in question have been notified under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act. The further proceedings that are required to be taken are by the State Government and the KIADB, for which the sixth respondent is not answerable. In any event, there cannot be any finality to the contention that the lands of the petitioner are not subject matter of the acquisition proceedings. It is a question of fact which cannot be addressed with reference to the documents that are produced before the court at this point of time. In the absence of the State having issued a notification under section 28(4), there is no conclusion arrived at by the State Government as to whether or not, the petitioner's lands are required for the purpose of the project and whether the same are to be acquired. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the petition itself is misconceived and is pre-mature.