VINAY KARTHIK Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have sought for omnibus reliefs in the following background. The petitioners claim to be the owners of the following lands:

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that they have purchased the respective items of land subsequent to such withdrawal from acquisition of the same by the State Government. The petitioners had then learnt that certain persons claiming ownership over their lands were seeking to alienate the same, which entailed the petitioners to warn the general public by way of paper publications of such mischief. It is the further case of the petitioners that notwithstanding the same, the fifth respondent had approached respondents 2 to 4 claiming as owner of the lands of the petitioners and had proposed that the same be acquired for the purposes of an alleged industrial project. Petitioner no. 1 having learnt of the above had lodged a protest on behalf of himself and other petitioners, with respondents 2 to 4, to the effect that the petitioners were the true owners of the lands in question and that there was no proposal to offer the lands for any such project. It is claimed that there was no response to the said objection. It is stated that, however; during March 2007, the petitioners had learnt that acquisition proceedings had been initiated in respect of the lands by the concerned respondents and particularly in respect of the lands of the petitioners. The petitioners are said to have lodged a strong protest in writing, to the effect that such acquisition without reference to the petitioners, was wholly illegal. But inspite of it, the respondents 2 to 4 are said to have initiated consent acquisition proceedings at the behest of the fifth respondent, thereby accepting the claim of the said respondent to the ownership of the land, on 1.12.2006, vide notification under Section 3(1), 1(3) and Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act.

(3.) Respondent nos. 2 and 3 have filed objections to the petition to contend that the very frame of the petition and the reliefs sought for are misconceived and are invalid for the following reasons namely, that the notifications collectively produced at Annexure-"A" are not issued by the Respondent No. 3; that Annexure B1 is not a gazette copy as stated by the petitioners; it is only a draft final notification for publication and as such, the question of quashing either Annexure B or B1 does not arise. Further, that the statement with regard to Annexure-C is also incorrect and false in as much as clearance and corrigendum at Annexure-C is issued by Karnataka Udyog Mitra-Respondent No. 4 and not by Respondent No. 3 who is the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB. Annexure C1 has been issued by Respondent No. 2 and not by Respondent No. 3, based on the 276th Board Meeting dated 2.11.2006 and with reference to the decision taken by the Board for acquisition of 14 acres 1 gunta of land in Sy. Nos. 36/1, 38, 39/3, 40/2, 40/3 of Kundalahalli Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk in favour of Respondent No. 5. Similarly, that the document produced at Annexure-D is a communication issued by Respondent No. 4 to Respondent No. 5 approving the project proposal submitted by them for establishing a facility of IT Park with Hotel, residential and commercial facilities with an investment of 47.01 crores, to acquire and allot the lands stated above. That as regards the prayer to declare that possession of the petition schedule properties are with the petitioners and restrain the Government from dispossessing the petitioners and to declare that the action of Respondent No. 4 rejecting the objections filed by the petitioners as highly arbitrary, etc. It is contended that on issue of the final notification on 3.7.2013, the lands have vested in the State absolutely and free from all encumbrances and no such declaration could be issued as requested. The rejection of objections filed by the petitioners has been ordered on consideration of the said objections and therefore, the question of quashing the said order does not arise. Further, it is contended that the order rejecting the objections was passed under Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act by Respondent No. 3 and not by Respondent No. 4, as stated in the writ petition.