B L JAGADISH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in all these petitions are praying that the preliminary and final notifications dated 07.12.2005 and 09.02.2012 be quashed. Further the petitioner in W.P.No.23308/2012 is seeking that the notice dated 18.05.2012 issued under Section 28(6) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 ('KIAD Act' for short), while the petitioners in W.P.Nos.51809 -51814/2012 are seeking that the endorsement dated 29.09.2011 be quashed. Apart from the acquisition relating to the properties involved herein being under the same notification, the petitioners in the connected petitions are the site purchasers in the property which was originally a portion of the property owned by the petitioner in the first petition. Hence, all these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE petitioner in W.P.No.23308/2012 contends that he is the owner of the property bearing Sy.No.48 measuring 05 acres 01 gunta at Mogaralli Village, Belagola Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk having purchased the same under the sale deed dated 17.04.1986. He secured conversion for non -agricultural use by the order dated 12.02.1990 and formed a layout. The earlier permission dated 15.12.1987 to use for industrial purpose is also referred. When the preliminary and the final notifications were issued, the petitioner who claimed that he did not have appropriate notice was before this Court in W.P.No.15663/2006. This Court, by the order dated 25.08.2010 quashed the final notification and directed the Land Acquisition Officer to hear the petitioner by considering the objections filed if any and proceed to pass appropriate orders. Pursuant thereto, the order dated 29.08.2011 is passed and the final notification dated 09.02.2012 is issued. The petitioner therefore claiming to be aggrieved is before this Court.

(3.) THE interest of the other petitioners is similar to one another. Hence, for narration of facts the case as pleaded in W.P.No.51811/2012 is noticed. The land which was purchased by the petitioner in W.P.No.23308/2012 in Sy.No.48, Mogarahalli Village was converted and sites were formed. In the family partition effected by them, 14 guntas out of the total extent fell to the share of Sri. B.Madan wherein eight sites were situate. The petitioner purchased site Nos. 07 and 08 therein under the registered sale deed dated 25.03.1996. The petitioner secured revenue entries and is stated to be in enjoyment of the sites. The petitioner was not notified of the acquisition since the entire extent was wrongly shown as agricultural land and was notified in the name of the petitioner in W.P.No.23308/2012. On learning that the earlier petition in W.P.No.15663/2006 was filed, the petitioner herein filed an impleading application in the said writ petition. Though no specific order was made on the impleading application, the application was listed along with the main petition when it was heard and disposed. However, since the matter had been remanded for providing opportunity, the petitioner appeared before the third respondent - Land Acquisition Officer and filed objections to the notification. The petitioner also filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC before the third respondent seeking impleadment. But, the third respondent -Land Acquisition Officer declined opportunity, instead the endorsement dated 29.09.2011 was issued. The reason indicated therein being that the petitioner was not a party to the earlier petition. The petitioner is therefore aggrieved and is before this Court. The case of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.51809/2012, 51810/2012, 51812/2012, 51813/2012 and 51814/2012 is similar except that the different sites carved in Sy.No.48 being purchased by them.