K. NARASIMHAMURTHY, SMT. LALITHA AND SMT. VEENA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. The 1st petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner of the land bearing Sy. No. 65/1 measuring 16 guntas, said to have purchased under the registered sale deed dated 18/9/2006, and petitioners 2 and 3 claim to be the legal representatives of notified khatedars. The 1st petitioner along with some other land owners, had proceeded to form a residential layout called as "Lakeside Residency" and had formed 121 house sites of different dimensions and had provided amenities such as drainage, electricity, water and roads. The residential layout plan was said to have been approved by the then City Municipal Council, Krishnarajapura, Bangalore and the 1st petitioner had thereafter proceeded to sell sites to third parties. Since the area was under transition, in that, that it was to come within the jurisdiction of the Bangalore Bruhath Mahanagara Palike, the sale transactions were not permitted, but several sites were said to have been "transferred" under agreements of sale. However the petitioners claim to have been paying taxes to the City Municipal Council, Krishnarajapura, in respect of the sites so formed and which have been assessed to tax as such.

(2.) IN the meanwhile, the respondent No. 4 had issued notification under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act, for brevity), proposing notifying the lands in Sy. Nos. 64/1, 64/2, 64/3, 64/4, 64/5, 64/6 and 64/7 of Medahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Krishnarajapuram East, Bangalore. The petitioner became aware of the acquisition proceedings only when notice under Section 28(6) of the KIAD Act was issued and the same was published in the Kannada daily newspaper "Prajavani" dated 7/7/2007. The petitioner further claims that he has been taken by surprise of the residential layout formed by him, also forming part of the acquired land, and it is thereafter that the petitioner has learnt that there was a notification issued dated 27/10/2007 proposing the acquisition of lands bearing Sy. Nos. 65/1, 65/2, 65/3, 66/1, 66/2, portion of 67/1, 70/1, 70/2, 70/3, 70/4 and 70/5 of Medahalli Village. This notification was under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act, in which the name of the vendor of the petitioner has been indicated, calling upon him and such other owners to submit their explanation to show cause as to why the lands could not be acquired. It is on being informed by his vendor that the petitioner had submitted his objections to indicate that the petitioner had disposed off portion of the land in favour of the purchaser who had already constructed a huge building, wherein a college of law was housed and the same was being run. The petitioner claims that though the respondent No. 4 has proceeded to issue notifications from time to time, under the provisions of the KIAD Act, it is without reference to the actual situation, that the petitioner and other third parties have continued in possession of the land taken by the respondents claiming that several stages of the acquisition proceedings have been completed in accordance with law. The petitioner not having been issued with the notice of the proposed acquisition, is itself a case in point, and the petitioner even though had filed objections on learning of the proposal, the same has not been addressed by the respondent. It is in this vein that the present petitioner has elaborated in contending primarily that the petitioner had no notice of the acquisition proceedings and even though the petitioner had filed objections, after having learnt through a third party of the proposed acquisition proceedings, the said objections have also not been taken into consideration. Hence this petition.

(3.) IT is contended that insofar as the petitioner's objections are concerned, it is to the effect that the petitioner had developed the lands for the formation of residential layout, when in fact there was no change in land use as contemplated under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act 1961, nor for conversion of the land under Section 95 of the Land Revenue Act, 1964, and inspite of it, the petitioner having formed a layout, is without sanction of law and further the claim is also not borne out by the actual circumstances, in that, there are no developmentary activities undertaken and there are no such amenities provided at the alleged layout. It is thereafter, on verifying, that there are no such developments as claimed by the petitioner that further notification under Section 28(3) was issued and since the lands were being acquired for the above purposes of Bangalore Water and Sewerage and Supply Board (BWSSB, for brevity) for establishment of Sewage Treatment Plan on the said lands, there was no further impediment to take further steps in accordance with law and accordingly notice under Section 28(4) was issued as per Annexure -R5 annexed to the statement of objections, by virtue of which, the land has vested in the State and pursuant to the same, notices have been issued under Section 28(6), by which stage the present petition is sought to be filed.