GIRIAS INVESTMENT PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy in this petition is in relation to acquisition of two bits of lands i.e., Sy. Nos. 118 and 119 of Kannamangala village, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District purchased by the petitioners pursuant to two registered sale deeds dated 23-11-2005 and 26-11-2005. Under the said two sale deeds, the petitioner has purchased an extent of 2 acres 20 guntas in Sy. No. 118 and an extent of 1 acre 10 guntas in Sy. No. 119 pursuant to the aforesaid registered sale deeds. The case of theipetitioners is that their vendor had got these two lands converted into non-agricultural lands pursuant to conversion certificate issued by the Competent Authority, a copy of which is produced at Annexure 'D'. According to them the two lands are being treated as non agricultural lands. Suffice it to say that pursuant to the notification dated 5-12-2005 and 2-6-2006 under Section 28(1) & (2) and Section 28(4) respectively of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act, the lands are sought to be acquired for the purpose of the International Airport at Devanahalli for the trumpet inter-change. The said land is sought to be acquired along with the vast extent of land for the aforesaid purpose. The challenge to the acquisition is on several grounds.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that respondents 2 & 3 i.e., the acquiring body have not followed the mandatory provisions of Section 28(3) inasmuch as no notice has been issued to the petitioners and no personal hearing has been given inasmuch as the Statement of Objections have also not been considered. It is their further case that no opportunity was afforded to them as contemplated under Section 28(3) of the Act. Thus there is violation of the principles of natural justice. They would further contend that initially the trumpet inter change was sought to be constructed in Sy. Nos. 115 and 116 and 73 of Kannamangala village. But however, without any justifiable reason, the said trumpet inter-change is being shifted to Sy. Nos. 118 and 119, which was not a part of the trumpet inter-change earlier. They would further contend that the State has abducted their power inasmuch as they did not have any role in the decision making process. According to them, the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (for short 'KIADB') was not at all consulted, which is a necessary body as it is the acquiring body. The acquisition of the lands in question giving up the other lands is arbitrary and misconceived and without application of mind. Since the Competent Authority had granted permission for conversion of the land from agricultural land to non agricultural lands, there is legitimate expectation on the part of the petitioners that the said land is not required by the State for any purpose. The petitioners would further contend that the shifting of the trumpet inter-change from the existing area to the proposed new area is accentuated by mala fides. On these grounds, the petitioners have sought for quashing of the acquisition proceedings.

(3.) The statement of objections are filed by all the contesting respondents. The State-respondent No. 1 has filed statement of objections refuting the allegations made in the petition. They would contend that the acquisition of the lands is for a public purpose inasmuch as it is for the purpose of construction of International Airport. According to the State the construction of trumpet interchange was chosen as a best alternative to provide clear access to the Airport. The National High Way Authority of India (for short "NHAI") has agreed to construct the trumpet inter-change on Build Operate Transfer (BoT) basis. According to the State, the location as well as the design and engineering of the trumpet inter-change were finalised after taking into account the requirements of the Airport, National High Way and the Railways including its future track requirements. They would contend that initially the proposed trumpet inter-change was in Sy. Nos. 115, 116 and 73, but however, due to certain technical defect in having a trumpet inter-change in the said Survey numbers, after due consultation with the Bangalore International Airport Limited (for short 'BIAL') and also the NHAI, the trumpet inter-change was sought to be shifted to Sy. Nos. 118 and 119. The statement of objections would further traverse the pleadings stating that no mala fides can be attributed to the State in shifting the trumpet interchange to Sy.Nos. 118 and 119. They would also contend that even though the notices were issued to the vendors of the petitioners, the petitioners filed their objections participating in the said proceedings and objections were considered and rejected. Thereafter, final notification is issued under S. 28(4) of the Act. There is denial of all the averments made by the petitioners in the body of the petition in the statement of objections. The 1st respondent-State has also produced several documents to show as to the reason for shifting of the trumpet inter-change.