Basavaraj vs State of Karnataka

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court seeking to direct the respondents to delete 1 acre 16 guntas of land in Sy. No. 97/3 from the acquisition proceedings by considering the petitioner''s letter dated 23.02.2013 marked at Annexure-G. The petitioner is also seeking that the respondents be directed not to dispossess or demolish the existing constructions in the said property.

The petitioner claims to be owner of the property bearing Sy. No. 97/3 measuring 1 acre 16 guntas of Chiluru village, Maralawadi Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District. The said land is also included in the process of acquisition initiated by the respondents. The petitioner contends that the land in question is fertile agricultural land wherein, in a portion the house belonging to the petitioner is also situate. It is the case of the petitioner that apart from the land regarding which the present relief is sought, certain other lands as have been described in para 7 of the petition were also a part of the acquisition and the same have been acquired by the respondents. In that light, it is contended that as having lost major portion of the property through the said acquisition, the petitioner is presently seeking to retain the said land for survival of himself and his family members and to carryon his avocation. In that view, the representation as at Annexure-G is stated to have been made. The petitioner is therefore seeking consideration of the same.

Respondents No. 2 and 3 have filed their objection statement. The respondents have contended that the property which is the subject matter herein is also a part of the acquisition process which had been commenced in the year 2006 and therefore they contend that the notification as contemplated under Sections 28(5), 28(6) of the KIAD Act is also issued and as such the property in question is vested with the State. They contend that the deletion at this stage by respondents No. 2 and 3 would not be possible in view of the provision contained in law and the representation as made by the petitioner would not arise for consideration. Hence, the learned counsel contend that the prayer as made by the petitioner is liable to be rejected.

The learned Government Advocate would submit that no representation whatsoever has been made to respondent No. 1 and therefore the consideration of the case by respondent No. 1 does not arise.

In the light of the above contentions, the details with regard to the acquisition and the extent of the properties acquired in the said acquisition process need not be adverted to. The petitioner himself has referred to the other properties which are owned by him and he is limiting the relief only to the extent of one item of the property measuring 1 acre 16 guntas in Sy. No. 97/3. At this juncture, it is also necessary to notice that the petitioner at the first instance had sought to save only 10 guntas out of that extent of the said land and a prayer to that effect has been made. However, on noticing that the acquisition in respect of other properties have been appropriately done and according to the petitioner even if the entire extent to which the petitioner is claiming herein is deleted, it would not affect the acquisition. Therefore, the petitioner has sought to contend that the entire 1 acre 16 guntas be deleted and an amendment to that effect has been made to the prayer in the petition.

Presently, in view of this Court granting interim order at the first instance limiting to the extent of 10 guntas which was the prayer at that stage, the award has been passed by excluding 10 guntas of land. In the background of the above, the question is as to whether this Court could direct respondents No. 2 and 3 to consider the representation as has been made by the petitioner.

In that regard, having noticed the objection statement filed by respondents No. 2 and 3 and keeping in view the legal provisions, at this juncture, respondents No. 2 and 3 in any event cannot take a decision in the matter even if they are directed to consider the representation, having contended that the property in question has vested in the State. It is for respondent No. 1 to take a decision on these aspects of the matter, more particularly when the petitioner is also seeking to rely on a Circular of respondent No. 1 dated 03.03.2007 wherein it has been indicated that the fertile agricultural lands should not be acquired for the purpose of industrialization. Therefore, the prayer as made in the petition to direct respondents No. 2 and 3 cannot be granted herein.

However, having adverted to the details of the matter, it would be appropriate to reserve liberty to the petitioner to make an suitable representation to respondent No. 1 bringing all these aspects of the matter and also to indicate that they continue to be in physical possession of the property and seek for favourable decisions from respondent No. 1. If such representation is made by the petitioner, respondent No. 1 as also the Department of Industries and Commerce shall consider the same and take a decision in accordance with law.

To enable such consideration, the petitioner shall make a representation to respondent No. 1 and Department of Industries and Commerce under respondent No. 1 within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent No. 1 and Department of Industries and Commerce shall thereafter take a decision in accordance with law. Though at the first instance this Court had granted interim order of status-quo limiting it to 10 guntas as had been prayed at that stage, considering that amendment has been subsequently allowed, the benefit of the order of status-quo would enure to the extent of 1 acre 16 guntas in Sy. No. 97/3 until the decision on the representation made by the petitioner is taken by respondent No. 1 and Department of Industries and Commerce. The decision by respondent No. 1 and Department of Industries and Commerce shall be taken in an expeditious manner.

In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.