Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 599 (KAR)

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER v. VANKATESHAPPA

2022-05-06

M.G.UMA, P.S.DINESH KUMAR

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB [Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board] has presented this petition challenging the common order dated November 30, 2015 in W.P. No. 17836/2013 and W.P. Nos. 19607-19608/2013. 2. We have heard Shri. B.B. Patil, learned Advocate for appellant, Shri. K. Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Senior Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4 and Shri. Bhojegouda T.Koller, learned AGA for respondents No. 5 and 6. 3. Brief facts of the case are, respondents approached this Court with the instant writ petitions contending inter alia that they are the joint owners of properties measuring 5 acres 29 guntas in Sy. No. 46; 5 acre 17 guntas in Sy. No. 48; and 5 acres 29 guntas in Sy. No. 52 of Jakkasandra village, Malur Taluk, Kolar District. A preliminary Notification dated March 13, 2012, was issued by the State Government proposing to acquire the said lands for KIADB. Land owners filed their objections stating that 4 acres each in Sy. No. 46 and Sy. No. 52, were permitted to be diverted for nonagricultural purpose by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated August 13, 2007 and they had established a brick industry. It was also stated in the objections that there were residential houses and other buildings in Sy. No. 48. 4. Respondents approached this Court with the instant writ petition contending inter alia that their objections were not considered. The Hon'ble Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and quashed the preliminary and final Notifications. Hence, this writ appeal. 5. Shri. B.B. Patil, learned Advocate for the appellant, KIADB, assailing the impugned order, urged two grounds. Firstly, that Sec. 47 of the KIAD Act [Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966], has an overriding effect and secondly that the Circular based on which the Hon'ble Single Judge has allowed the writ petition, has no statutory flavour. It is submitted that the lands are required for industrial purpose and prayed for allowing this writ appeal. 6. Shri. Shashi Kiran Shetty, for the private respondents submitted that Circular dated March 3, 2007 has been issued by the State Government to exclude the lands which have been diverted for non-agriculture purposes and the garden lands. He argued that the Hon'ble Single Judge has rightly held that the acquiring authority has not considered the relevant material and prayed for dismissal of the writ appeal. 7. He argued that the Hon'ble Single Judge has rightly held that the acquiring authority has not considered the relevant material and prayed for dismissal of the writ appeal. 7. We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records. 8. It is recorded by the Hon'ble Single Judge in para 2 of the impugned order that the SLAO [Special Land Acquisition Officer] had conducted a spot inspection on June 14, 2012 and submitted a Report stating that 30 guntas in Sy. No. 46 and 1 acre in Sy. No. 52 were put to use for non-agricultural activity; 20 guntas in Sy. No. 48 consisted of house, temple etc. He had recommended for acquisition of 30 guntas in Sy. No. 46 out of 5 acres 29 guntas; 20 guntas in Sy. No. 48 out of 5 acre 17 guntas ; and 1 acre in Sy. No. 52 out of 5 acres 29 guntas for deletion. The State Government have issued a Notification dated December 4, 2012 for acquisition of the remaining area. The Hon'ble Single Judge has further recorded in para 5 that as per Circular dated March 3, 2007, lands having been put to use for non-agriculture and garden purpose must be excluded from acquisition. 9. The Hon'ble Single Judge has also recorded in para 7 that to a specific question posed by the Court as to why the SLAO had failed to consider petitioner's request, it was replied by the learned Government Advocate that when KIAD Act does not provide such exclusion, there was no necessity to consider petitioners' grievance. 10. It is not in dispute that the State Government have issued Circular dated March 3, 2007. The Hon'ble Single Judge has extracted paras 3 and 6 of the Circular which provides for exclusion of lands which have been diverted for non-agricultural purpose and the garden land. It is also not in dispute that 4 acres each out of 5 acres 29 guntas in Sy. No. 46 and Sy. No. 52 have been converted for non-agricultural industrial purpose. The Report of the SLAO dated June 14, 2012 shows that there existed residential houses, Temple etc. in 20 guntas in Sy. No. 48. 11. The stand taken by the State Government before the Hon'ble Single Judge is that KIAD Act does not provide for exclusion of lands based on the Circular. The Report of the SLAO dated June 14, 2012 shows that there existed residential houses, Temple etc. in 20 guntas in Sy. No. 48. 11. The stand taken by the State Government before the Hon'ble Single Judge is that KIAD Act does not provide for exclusion of lands based on the Circular. Admittedly, acquisition is made by the State Government for the KIADB and State Government are duty-bound to apply the Circular uniformly while proposing acquisition of land. Therefore, the first argument of Shri. B.B. Patil that the Circular is not applicable, is untenable. The second argument that the Circular has no statutory flavour is also untenable because, it is settled that the Circulars issued by the State Government, bind their Officers. The vires of the Circular is not under challenge. Thus, both grounds canvassed by the appellant fail. Hence, this appeal does not merit any consideration and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.