H G SHEELA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent of the learned Counsels for the parties these writ petitions were heard together and disposed of by this common order as the lands involved are same and common questions of fact and law are involved.

(2.) BY a Notification dated 27-1-2004 issued under Section 3 (1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), produced as Annexure-H in W. P. No. 4148 of 2005 and Annexure-A in W. P. No. 1393 of 2005, the State Government declared the following lands of Mahadevapura Village, K. R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk as "industrial Area". <FRM>JUDGEMENT_79_TLKAR0_2006Html1.htm</FRM> Pursuant to such declaration, Notification dated 4-12-2004, produced as Annexure-B in W. P. No. 4148 of 2005 and Annexure-C in W. P. No. 1393 of 2005, was issued under Section 28 (4) of the Act proposing to acquire the said lands in favour of respondent 3 in W. P. No. 4148 of 2005 s. B. G. SOFTWARE Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "3rd respondent-Company" ). The petitioners in the two writ petitions, who are the owners of the lands mentioned in the aforesaid writ petitions, are seeking to quash the aforesaid two notifications. In addition to that, the petitioner in W. P. No. 4148 of 2005 is seeking to quash the notice at Annexures-Q and R, dated 7-12-2004 issued under Section 28 (6) of the Act asking to handover possession of the lands. Further, the petitioner in W. P. No. 1393 of 2005 is also seeking (i) to declare the proceedings at annexure-D of 235th Meeting of the State Level Single Window Agency dated 15-11-2003 on subject No. 10 as illegal only insofar as it pertains to 3rd respondent; (ii) to declare Section 3 (1)of the Act as illegal; and (iii) to direct the State Government to condiict enquiry against the officers of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the kiadb' ).

(3.) SO far as the petitioners in W. P. No. 1058 of 2005 are concerned, the first petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and the 2nd petitioner is one of the promoters of first petitioner-Company. He acquired the lands mentioned in annexure-A. The Company formulated a Scheme to establish a Software Technology Park, for which the 2nd petitioner offered his lands. The total extent of land of these petitioners is 36-08 acres but the relief is confined only to an extent of 1-14 acres of land in Sy. No. 116 of mahadevapura Village. The prayer made in their writ petition is to quash the order at annexure-P, dated 8-3-2004 passed by the 2nd respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer rejecting the objections filed to the acquisition of the lands and directing to issue Notification under Section 28 (4) of the Act. The further prayer is to quash the consequential Notification issued at Annexure-Q, dated 4-12-2004 only insofar as it relates to the aforementioned extent. Annexure-G is the Project Report of these petitioners and the same is approved by the government under Annexure-J, dated 2-7-2003. As per Annexure-K, dated 12-11-2004 the bangalore Development Authority has recommended for change of land use. The project plan is produced as Annexure-M. In paragraph 8 of the writ petition the petitioners have highlighted their project as hereunder: 8. The petitioners submit that the State High Level Committee has agreed to provide infrastructural facilities on concession under certain terms and conditions. The BESCOM has agreed to provide 20,000 KVA power supply to the petitioner subject complying with the provisions of KERC Code. Under the provisions of Karnataka Electricity Regulatory commission (Electricity Supply and Distribution) Code, 2000-01, as amended by Order No. KPTCL/bll/3014 (3)2001-02 under Chapter III, under SYSTEM AND CLASSIFICATION OF supply, alternative current, 3 phase, S50 c/s, 66/110/220/400 KV of two phase supply of 220 k. V. is classified as EHT SUPPLY. As per the amended provision of Section 9. 05 (i) of the karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply and Distribution) Code, 2000-01 regarding the space required to BESCOM, it is mandatory for all the buildings of this nature to provide exclusive space in his premises free of cost for erection of transformers, switchgear and other allied equipments in case buildings with the specified load above 25 KW or where the area of site is more than 600 sq. m. The project of the petitioners is approved by the hcl with 20,000 KV of power supply, which is much more than the prescribed unit by KERC and the petitioners have to go for 20,000 KV to run its project, the mandatory provision of kerc has to be followed by providing necessary land with direct access from public road. Therefore, the petitioner is left with no option but to provide the required space to BESCOM to run its project, as it is mandatory. They have also imposed condition that there must be direct access from the main road and sufficient space have to be provided for maintenance, etc. 20,000 kva power station requires about 1 acre of land and therefore the petitioners reserved 1 acre 5 guntas of land for establishing power station. Land in Survey No. 116 is situated on the other side of the road (Northern side) and there is a direct access from the main road. It is therefore, convenient for BESCOM to maintain the establishment exclusively without any interference from the main project. Therefore, extensive space from the main road has been provided under the scheme. As such without the land under Survey No. 116 the project approved by the committee cannot be implemented. It is also relevant to note that the exclusive provision is not available on the main area since there is no direct access to the power station from the main road. It is also relevant to note that the power under EHT (Extra High Tension) require more security and strict vigilance. Therefore, it is mandatory to have separate power station for the project to avoid any untoward incidence at a later date. The project plan which was considered is produced herewith and marked Annexure-M. (emphasis supplied)When the petitioners have made all arrangements to go ahead with the project, their land in Sy. No. 116 to an extent of 1 acre 14 guntas was acquired by the State Government. From what has been extracted above, it is clear that petitioners have categorically stated that "without the land in sy. No. 116, the project of the company approved by the State Level Single Window Agency committee cannot be implemented". In those circumstances, they are seeking to quash the acquisition of their land to the extent indicated above.