NANDI ENGINEERING Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act. A tender notification for formation of bypass road and truck terminal having been issued, the petitioner submitted tender along with the project report. The single window agency accorded approval to the project of constructing truck terminal at Dharwad. An agreement dated 15.11.2000, was entered by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (for short 'the Board'), for acquiring 30 acres 5 guntas of land to set up Truck Terminal at Dharwad. The Board having instructed on 06.03.2003, to deposit 40% of the acquisition cost for issuing notification under Sections 3(1), 1(3) and 28(1) of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short 'the Act'), the deposit was made on 11.06.2004. A notification was issued under Sections 3(1), 1(3) and 28(1) of the Act, on 28.09.2005, for acquiring 4 acres 27 guntas of land in Sy.No.121/1+2. The Board having notified, on 25.04.2006, to deposit balance 60%, for issuing final notification under Section 28(4), the amount was deposited on 26.06.2006.

(2.) RESPONDENT No.4 filed objections before respondent No.2, against the proposal for acquisition of land measuring 4 acres 27 guntas in Sy.No.121/1+2. The 2nd respondent though found merit in the said objections, recommended the acquisition, vide Annexure -J. W.P.No.5904/2006 filed challenging the notification issued under Section 28(1) was dismissed on 06.03.2007, with liberty to challenge the final notification under Section 28(4). Respondent No.4 having submitted an application before respondent No.1, an order dated 10.09.2008 was passed dropping the proposal of the acquisition and the same was notified on 11.09.2008, vide Annexure -S. This writ petition is directed against the said notification.

(3.) SRI V.M. Sheelvant, learned advocate, firstly contended that the 3rd respondent having notified and received the entire cost of acquisition from the petitioner and in view of the decision vide Annexure -J, there being no challenge to it, the decision arrived at on 10.09.2008 to drop the land from acquisition and the consequential notification issued vide Annexure -S is arbitrary and illegal. He submitted that in view of the correspondence which has taken place between the petitioner and respondent No.3, the petitioner has legitimate expectation that the land will be acquired and possession delivered for implementation of the project. He further submitted that respondent Nos.1 to 3 having undertaken to provide entire extent of 30 acres 17 guntas of land for the project, have illegally dropped the land, earmarked for truck terminal. Secondly, there is violation of principles of natural justice, since the petitioner was not granted with an opportunity of hearing. He submitted that the reasons having not been assigned to drop the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in question, arbitrariness on the part of respondent No.1 is writ large and that too, in the face of the recommendation of respondent No.2 vide Annexure -J. He submitted that the petitioner having made huge investment and also taken the steps towards execution of the project, has been made to suffer for no fault of it and that the project, as was conceived and approved by the single window agency cannot now be implemented.