Sri. C. Thimmegowda and K.C. Nagaraju vs State of Karnataka and The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. Petitioner No. 1 claims to be an agriculturist and owner of land bearing survey No. 11/2 of Beeragondanahalli, Thyamagondlu Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, measuring 3 acres 4 guntas. The said lands are mango gardens and the petitioner has produced the RTC extracts in respect of the same.

It transpires that the third respondent, namely, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (Hereinafter referred to as the ''KIADB'', for brevity), had issued a notification u/s 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act, 1966 (Hereinafter referred to as the ''KIAD Act'', for brevity), seeking to acquire the land for the purpose of establishing industries. The name of the owner and occupant was shown as K.C. Nagaraj. This was the first objection that the petitioner No. 1 had raised, namely, that the land was not notified in the name of the true owner. The total extent that was sought to be acquired was 1314 acres and 38 guntas.

Petitioner No. 1 had filed his statement of objections in terms of Annexure - D. It is the case of petitioner No. 1 that his land is situated adjacent to a tank and is very fertile. There are mango trees on the land and apart from mango, petitioner No. 1 has been growing two seasonal crops in the land. It is petitioner''s further case that the first respondent - State had issued a Circular in the year 2007, with specific directions to the competent authorities not to acquire the land for industrial purposes if the same was fertile and cultivable and the Land Acquisition Officers were particularly directed to make spot inspections and satisfy themselves as to the nature of the land and so on and so forth, to avoid taking possession of the fertile agricultural land for the purpose of industrial development. It is the case of the petitioner that the third respondent Land Acquisition Officer had neither visited the land nor conducted an inquiry in relation to the petitioner''s land. However, it transpires that inspite of the petitioner''s land being similarly situated as other lands and the Land Acquisition Officer having thought it fit to recommend deletion or withdrawal of the acquisition proceedings in respect of such other lands, which were adjacent to the petitioner''s land, on the ground that the same were fertile agricultural lands, has overlooked the petitioner''s case, only on account of his irresponsibility in not having addressed the nature of the land or having conducted a spot inspection or an inquiry. It is on this primary ground of arbitrary treatment, on which the present petition is filed.

The learned Counsel for the KIADB, who has filed statement of objections, would deny that the petitioner had filed any objections to the preliminary notification and therefore, is precluded from seeking to challenge the acquisition proceedings at this remote point of time when the petitioner had not filed any objections.

The learned Government Pleader would also submit that not only are the acquisition proceedings completed, but in the face of the petitioner not having filed his statement of objections in the first instance, cannot now raise any objection to the acquisition proceedings.

While, by way of reply, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would reiterate that it is incorrect to state that the petitioner had not filed any objections to the preliminary notification, but on the other hand, the petitioner had challenged the preliminary notification itself in a writ petition in WP 31970/2009, which was disposed of with a specific direction that the petitioner was entitled to file his objections to the notification u/s 28(1) of the KIAD Act, which the authority would consider in an inquiry under Sub-section (3) of Section 28 of the KIAD Act and that after the completion of the proceedings, if the petitioner was still aggrieved, he could question the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the present petition is in line with the observations of this court and in the background that the petitioner''s objections have never been considered. From the material on record, it is clear that the respondent - KIADB has not placed any material to demonstrate that the petitioner''s case stood on a different footing from the land owners, whose lands have been exempted from the acquisition proceedings, on the ground that they are fertile agricultural lands, which could not be acquired for industrial development in the light of the Government Circular referred to hereinabove nor is there any material to show that there was a spot inspection conducted in respect of the petitioner''s land. Therefore, inspite of there being requirement of these elementary steps in seeking to acquire the petitioner''s land and in the face of the circumstance that adjacent properties have been deleted from the acquisition proceedings on the very grounds which the petitioner also seeks to urge, it would be wholly unfair and unjust to afford a different treatment to the petitioner.

Therefore, the petitions are allowed. The acquisition proceedings are quashed, except that the same shall be treated as being at the stage of inquiry u/s 28(3) of the KIAD Act and the third respondent shall afford an opportunity of hearing and conduct a spot inspection as may be necessary to address the case of the petitioner insofar as the lands in question are concerned and to pass appropriate orders thereafter.

Admittedly, there is no development that has taken place in respect of the land in question, notwithstanding the lapse of time since the orders passed in acquisition proceedings. Therefore, there is no prejudice caused if the above steps are taken by the respondents in considering the case of the petitioners.

With that observation, the petitions stand disposed of, in terms as above. The petitioners are at liberty to supplement their objections, if any, at the inquiry.