Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 369 (KAR)

K. Srinivasa v. State of Karnataka

2015-04-01

K.L.MANJUNATH, R.S.CHAUHAN

body2015
JUDGMENT K.L. Manjunath, J. 1. The legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 23505 and 23506 of 2012, dated 26-11-2012 is called in question in these appeals. The writ petitions were filed by the appellants challenging the acquisition proceedings initiated by Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (for short "KIADB") requesting the Court to quash the preliminary notification dated 24-11-2006 and final notification dated 15-5-2007. The writ petitions came to be filed six years after the primary notification and five years after the final notification. According to the appellants, the first appellant is the owner of 1 acre 28 guntas of land bearing Survey No. 129/3 situate at Mogarahalli Village, Belugola Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District and the second appellant is the owner of 1 acre 27 guntas of land bearing Survey No. 129/2 of the same village. The total extent of the land held by them was earlier granted to one Madegowda. From him, the appellants have purchased the same. 2. Though the lands were purchased in 1996, the land purchased by the appellants herein were forfeited by the Government on account of violation of condition of grant by the original grantee Madegowda. The order was passed to that effect in 2006. It is also the case of the appellants that after purchasing the property, the lands were converted into non-agricultural purpose. They have also constructed an industrial shed and the same is leased to M/s. Vikrant Tyres. Contending that in the primary and final notifications, the names of the appellants are not found, the writ petitions came to be filed on the ground that they were not aware of the acquisition proceedings and the non-mentioning of the appellants' name in the primary and final notification is bad in law. 3. The learned Single Judge disagreeing with the contentions of the appellants, rejected the writ petitions. However, he has granted liberty to the appellants to claim compensation from the KIADB. Therefore the present appeals are filed. 4. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, the learned Single Judge has committed an error in dismissing the writ petitions. 3. The learned Single Judge disagreeing with the contentions of the appellants, rejected the writ petitions. However, he has granted liberty to the appellants to claim compensation from the KIADB. Therefore the present appeals are filed. 4. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, the learned Single Judge has committed an error in dismissing the writ petitions. According to him, when the appellants were owners of the properties, when the lands purchased by them were in possession of them, without due regard to RTC extracts acquisition proceedings have been initiated behind their back and therefore he requested the Court to allow the appeals. According to him, even though there was an order of forfeiture in favour of the Government, since the appellants had filed an appeal before the KAT and obtained a stay, the learned Single Judge was required to hold the acquisition proceedings initiated by the KIADB in respect of the appellants' properties as void because the names of the appellants were not mentioned either in the primary or in the final notification. 5. The learned Government Advocate supporting the order of the learned Single Judge, requested the Court to dismiss the appeals on the ground that the appellants are entitled to receive the compensation from KIADB. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the admitted facts in these appeals are: The ownership of the appellants is not in question. The appellants were the owners of the properties in question and during the relevant period when acquisition proceedings were initiated, the lands were forfeited in favour of the Government on account of violation of the conditions of grant. Therefore as on the date of notification, the appellants were not the owners of the property. When the lands were forfeited in favour of the Government, naturally in the revenue records, the names of the appellants could not find place. Even if we accept the contention of the appellants that the lands were converted from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose in 1996, the question of entering the names of the appellants in RTC extracts would not arise and even if such entries were made they are incorrect entries. 7. Admittedly, the acquisition proceedings were completed long back. If really the appellants is in possession of the properties by letting out the same to Vikrant Tyres, it only shows that the actual possession is not taken. 7. Admittedly, the acquisition proceedings were completed long back. If really the appellants is in possession of the properties by letting out the same to Vikrant Tyres, it only shows that the actual possession is not taken. Where the area is acquired for construction of industrial shed and if the appellants have any grievance it is always open for the appellants to approach KIADB since possession is not taken and since the appellants have constructed an industrial shed. With the above observation, we dispose of these appeals. If such a representation is given the same by the appellants, the same shall be considered in the terms of the directions issued by this Court taking into consideration, the existence of industrial shed. Disposed off.