CHALUVE GOWDA ALIAS CHIKKONU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is said to be the absolute owner of the property bearing Sy.no. 41 measuring 1 acre and 33 guntas, at Pura village, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District. It is stated that the land in Sy.no.41 originally comprised of 5 acres and 25 guntas. It transpires that by virtue of a partition in the family , the petitioner has acquired the limited extent above. The remaining extent is said to be in the possession of the other members of the petitioner's family.

(2.) The land is said to have been notified for acquisition under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (Hereinafter referred to as 'the KIAD Act', for brevity) and a preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the Act is said to have been issued on 15-6-2005, under the same survey number allotted to his coparceners, and not only the land held by the petitioner but also the land in the hands of his family members is said to have been notified. The petitioner is said to have filed objections, to the effect that he has no other lands and the lands are well developed agricultural lands consisting of a garden and nursery and hence that the same be excluded. However, the same were overruled and a notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act is said to have been issued on 29-1-2007. However, it was found by the petitioner that though the lands of his brothers were similarly situated, the same had been specifically deleted from the acquisition proceedings. It is also the petitioner's case that the obvious reason was that there were extraneous considerations in the said lands having been given special consideration. It is said to be the circumstance, that immediately after the partition in the family, the other members of his family are said to have sold portions of the property falling to their share to one S.PAshok and another B.S. Aditya, respectively, who are said to have connections with highly influential individuals and had therefore ensured that the authorities dropped the said lands from acquisition to benefit the said purchasers and that there is no other reason that can be assigned to the action. It is further contended that after issuance of the notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act, no further steps had been taken to establish any industrial layout. It is hence contended that by virtue of Section 11 & 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the LA Act' for brevity), would be attracted. Given the inordinate delay in making an award the entire proceedings would lapse.

(3.) The respondent KIADB has filed statement of objections to contend, inter alia, that the writ petition is hopelessly barred on the specific ground of delay and laches. That admittedly the acquisition proceedings has since attained finality as extracted hereunder: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_40_AIR(KAR)_2014_1.html</FRM>