KADIRAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner - lady claiming to be the owner of land admeasuring 01 Acre and 16 Guntas in Sy.No.40 of Bandikodigehalli Village, Devanahalli Taluka, Bengaluru North, is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the land acquisition proceedings that commenced vide Preliminary Notification dtd. 3/11/2006 followed by the Final Notification dtd. 7/5/2007 issued under Sec. 28(1) and Sec. 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, respectively.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argues that the land in question could not have been sold and thus, the instrument of conveyance, i.e., Sale Deed being null and void, his client is entitled to have the same declared as such and consequently she is entitled to the compensation payable in respect of the subject land.

(3.) After service of notice, the State is represented by learned AGA and the KIADB has entered appearance though its Sr. Panel Counsel. The 4th Respondent is represented by a private counsel. All they oppose the Petition contending that the Petitioner has no litigable interest in the subject property, her husband and son having sold the same vide registered Sale Deed dtd. 20/11/2004. They also contend that voiding of the Sale Deed cannot be done in Writ Jurisdiction. Petitioner is invoking the constitutional jurisdiction to play fraud on the true owner of the property that too without making him a party. So contending, they seek dismissal of the Writ Petition with exemplary costs.