Moola Investments (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs The State of Karnataka and Others

K.L. Manjunath, J.—The legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 15452/2007 and W.P. No. 21456/2009 dated 13.04.2010 are called in question in these appeals.

Heard the counsel for the parties.

The Special Deputy Commissioner sent a proposal to acquire 234 acres of land for Infosys Private Limited, situated in Devarabesanna Halli, Belandur, Bellandur Ammanikane and Kariyammana Agrahara, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk and out of which, the Single Window Agency stated that they could grant only 100.8 acres to be acquired for Infosys and Vikas Private Limited. Later, on 10.12.2001, a notification under Section 3(1) and 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the ''KIAD Act'', for short) was published and after considering the various objections received, including the objections raised by Smt. Sarasamma and Sri. P. Narayanappa were considered and that the Appellant Company filed an application for grant of land and also to approve its project by State Level Single Window Agency. Certain extent of land was allotted to the petitioner to implement its project. Later, it was found that the land granted to the appellant was in graveyard. Therefore, sought for change of allotment to an alternate land. Accordingly, 04 acres of land was allotted to Sy. Nos. 17 and 18 of Bellandur Village on 17.12.2003. In the meanwhile, the land granted to the petitioner was de-notified by the Government on 03.05.2008 dropping the acquisition of Sy. No. 17 comprising of 04 acres of Bellandur Village and on 12.09.2007, de-notifying 02 acres and 19 guntas of land situated in Sy. No. 18 of Bellandur Village.

Challenging the de-notification, the order dated 12.09.2007 and 03.05.2008, the writ petitions came to be filed.

The learned single Judge raised two questions for his consideration:

"i) Whether the petitioner-companies can be termed as beneficiaries of the acquisition culminating in the final notification dated 07.05.2004 gazetted on 11.05.2004 issued under Section 28(4) of the Act and hence entitled for an opportunity of being heard before the impugned notification withdrawing the lands from acquisition were issued?

ii) Whether the impugned action of the State Government in withdrawing the notification is illegal being arbitrary and/or without jurisdiction?"

The learned single Judge without considering Point No. 2, only on the question of maintainability of the writ petition came to the conclusion that the petitioner cannot be termed as a "beneficiary" of the acquisition proceedings and therefore, he cannot maintain a writ petition. Therefore, the present appeals are filed.

Mr. Shashikiran Shetty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned single Judge has committed an error in holding that the petitioner is not a beneficiary in order to maintain a writ petition. According to him, even though the large extent of land was notified for acquisition for establishing industrial area by issuing a Notification dated 07.05.2004 and 11.05.2004 and thereafter before de-notifying the land in question, the 04 acres of land was granted to the appellant herein. Therefore, on the date of de-notification, a right was accrued to the appellant and the appellant was required to be considered as beneficiary of the acquisition proceedings. The learned single Judge without considering the said fact has erroneously dismissed the writ petition to non-suit of the appellant on the ground that the appellant cannot challenge the order of the de-notification. Accordingly, the learned single Judge did not consider the date, on which the lands vested with the Government and KIADB, and when the lands were allotted to the different allottees in respect of the acquired lands in order to non-suit the appellant. According to him, the appellant was allotted 04 acres of land at the first instance in Sy. Nos. 22 and 23 of Kariyammana Agrahara village by order dated 29.12.2013 since the said lands were in the graveyard, on the request of the appellant, in Sy. Nos. 17 and 18, 04 acres of land was granted by order dated 17.05.2004. According to him, the lands were de-notified vide Annexure - ''F'' on 12.09.2007 in respect of Sy. No. 18 and on 03.05.2008 in respect of Sy. No. 17 measuring 02 acres 19 guntas and 04 guntas respectively. Therefore, he contends that on the date of de-notification, the appellant had accrued a right over the lands in question and the learned single Judge did not consider that the appellant, as on the date of de-notification was a beneficiary and that the appellant could not have been non-suited on the ground that no rights were corroborated in favour to the appellant.

The learned counsel for the appellant is not disputing the aforesaid facts. Therefore, what is to be considered in these appeals is, whether the learned single Judge has committed an error in non-suiting the appellant, on the ground that he could not have been termed as a beneficiary of the acquisition proceedings, in order to question the de-notification dated 12.09.2007 and 03.05.2008 as per Annexure - ''F'' in both the writ appeals?

The facts in these appeals are not in dispute to the following extent:--

"It is not in dispute that large extent of land measuring 234 acres was notified for acquisition and acquisition proceedings were completed long back. It is no doubt true that while acquiring the land, the appellant has not been considered as a beneficiary because he had made an application for grant of land in the aforesaid industrial area. A right was accrued to the appellant through the Single Window Agency due to establishment of an industrial area. The industrial area was formed by KIADB and thereafter, the appellant made an application for approval of its project through Single Window Agency. Accordingly, the project of the appellant was cleared by the Single Window Agency, allotting 04 acres of land in Sy. Nos. 22 and 23 of Kariyammana Agrahara Village, at the first instance since in the said lands, graveyard was situated, at the request of the appellant, it was resolved to grant 04 acres of land in Sy. Nos. 17 and 18 of Bellandur Village. Therefore, the question is that whether the appellant has become a beneficiary of the land situated in Sy. Nos. 17 and 18. If the beneficiary was not granted land prior to de-notification, he could not have challenged the findings of the learned single Judge but in the instant case, 04 acres of land in Sy. Nos. 17 and 18 was granted to the appellant much prior to the de-notification on 17.05.2004. If the lands in Sy. Nos. 17 and 18 have been de-notified on 12.09.2007 and 03.05.2008, we are of the view that the learned single Judge has committed an error in holding that the appellant could not have been considered as a beneficiary in order to question the order of de-notification. Since the learned single Judge has not considered the crucial aspect, we are of the view that the order of the learned single Judge has to be set aside and the matter has to be re-considered by the learned single Judge afresh in accordance with law."

In the result, these appeals are allowed. The order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 15452/2007 and W.P. No. 21456/2009 dated 13.04.2010 is set aside and the matter shall be reconsidered by the learned single Judge afresh, in accordance with law.

Accordingly, Registry is directed to place the matter before the Bench, which is holding roster, requesting his Lordship to consider the case of the appellant, on merits and in accordance with law.