LAKSHMAN Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Senior Advocate Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, appearing for the Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Special Counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 5, the learned Counsel for Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB) - respondents No. 2 and 3 and the learned Counsel for respondent No. 4.

(2.) The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of land bearing survey No. 23/1 measuring 1 acre 35 guntas and land bearing survey No. 23/2 measuring 19 guntas of Mallasandra village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and is said to have acquired the said land under a registered sale deed dated 22.11.2004. It was on a representation by the vendors that the land had been duly converted from agricultural to non -agricultural use and the petitioner has been in physical possession of the lands in question. It is only in the year 2015 that the petitioner has learnt in retrospect of a notification having been issued under Sec. 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'KIAD Act', for brevity). It is thereafter that the petitioner had made fervent inquiries as to the status of the acquisition proceedings and an endorsement dated 19.6.2015 has been issued by the third respondent to state that a notification as mandated under Sec. 28(4) of the KIAD Act was not issued in the said acquisition proceedings.

(3.) The Special Government Counsel however, would submit that the learned counsel for the petitioner has oversimplified the matter in question. The land in question has been notified for acquisition for the Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project and there is an agency appointed to implement the project and the arrangement between the State Government and the agency, prescribed that the lands were to be acquired under what was called 'Framework agreement'. Disputes having arisen as to whether certain lands were covered under the Framework agreement or not, the controversy has been brewing and is hanging fire. The matter is now pending before the Supreme Court whereby the State Government is to indicate such lands as are covered under the framework agreement and such land which would fall outside the framework agreement. Till such time, the controversy is resolved, it would not be possible for the State Government to take a firm decision on notifying the land for acquisition and completing the acquisition proceedings. It is in this background that the entire acquisition proceedings has been kept in abeyance. Further, the Supreme Court also having passed interim orders, there is the third order passed by the Supreme Court, whereby there is a direction to the State Government not to denotify the lands till such time the controversy is resolved. Therefore, the State is left in a quandary as to taking any further action insofar as acquisition proceedings are concerned. The learned Special Government Counsel would request that the matter be postponed till such time the matter reaches finality before the Supreme Court.