G. Byrappa vs State of Karnataka and Others

Anand Byrareddy, J.—The petitioner is said to be the absolute owner of land in Sy. No. 32 of Shanamangala village, Ramanagara District, measuring about 11 guntas. The same is said to have been converted for non-agricultural use. The petitioner is said to have acquired the property from the Karnataka State Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ''the KSFC'', for brevity), at an auction. It transpires that the erstwhile owner who was running an industry therein in the name and style of M/s. Udaya Fibre Industries, was said to have been engaged in the manufacture of coir products. The said owner having availed of a loan from KSFC, had defaulted in repaying the loan. Hence, when the property was brought to sale by public auction, the petitioner had purchased the same.

It is claimed by the petitioner that he had continued the business run on the aforesaid property albeit, in the name and style of M/s. Shri. Chowdeshwari Coir Industry. The petitioner is said to be registered as such with the Department of Industries and Commerce, Ramanagaram.

The petitioner claims that in addition to the extent of 11 guntas, he had purchased adjoining lands from third parties under various sale-deeds and has consolidated the above land, which now comprises of 31 guntas in all. The petitioner claims to be running the industry over the entire extent.

It is contended that the lands comprised in the villages of Shanamangala, Pichaguntanapalya, Gollarapalya and other surrounding villages were sought to be acquired under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (Hereinafter referred to as ''the KIAD Act'' for brevity). This was indeed the subject matter of several writ appeals pending consideration before this court as on the date of the petition. And taking note of the wide spread agitation and resistance to the acquisition of fertile agricultural lands, dwelling houses and also existing industrial units - the State Government had re-examined the circumstances and had declared vide Circulars and Notifications, a policy specifically excluding from the purview of the acquisition proceedings certain category of lands. As per notification dated 3-3-2007 issued by the Department of Industries and Commerce, it was specified that wherever there were existing industrial units, the same shall be excluded from the acquisition notification. This is as per annexure - E to the writ petition.

It is the case of the petitioner that they were required to consider the deletion of the petitioner''s land from the purview of the acquisition proceedings and since the respondents had chosen to ignore the representations of the petitioner at Annexures - F & G to the writ petition in this regard, the present petition is filed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the above circumstances to plead that respondents had failed to consider the case of the petitioner for exemption of its land and the industrial unit that is in operation.

The respondent, KIADB, has in its statement of objections contended that the official notification u/s 28(1) of the KIAD Act had been issued proposing to acquire lands of Shanamangala, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagaram District. After holding due enquiry, a final notification was issued dated 31.8.2004 in respect of 442.23 acres of Shanamangala village. The land bearing survey No. 32 in particular, measuring about 6.25 acres was notified and acquired along with other lands. On such notification the land stood vested in the State Government and the majority of the land owners had also received compensation in respect of the same and that the acquisition had attained finality. It is also pointed out that the petitioner along with several other land owners had challenged the acquisition by recourse to writ proceedings in W.P. No. 7044 of 2008 and the same having been dismissed by a learned single Judge, the same had been challenged by way of a writ appeal and the pendency of the same was immaterial.

It is denied that the petitioner had obtained title to the extent of 11 guntas of land prior to the notification of the lands in question. Any acquisition subsequent to the notification would not create any right to question the same. That in so far as the several other parcels of land claimed to have been purchased by the petitioner adjacent to the extent measuring 11 guntas is concerned, it is pointed out that the petitioner has neither furnished complete details nor the title deeds under which he claims the same and hence are not relevant.

In so far as the notification dated 3-3-2007 is concerned, it is subsequent to the acquisition of the petitioner''s land and hence would not be applicable.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would by way of reply contend that the respondent has misconstrued the factual position. The industrial unit which was established by the erstwhile owner as early as 1987, was brought to sale by the KSFC in the year 1992, on a "as is where is basis". The petitioner had in turn recommenced the industry with effect from the year 1993 itself. The sale-deed in respect of the land having been executed by the KSFC, on the discharge of the outstanding liability, was a mere formality. The sale-deed at Annexure - A to the writ petition has thus been cited to contend that the petitioner had acquired an interest only subsequent to the notification for acquisition, which is factually incorrect, and the fact that the petitioner had acquired the same and commenced operating the industry much earlier in the year 1993 itself, is evident from the recitals in the sale-deed itself.

It is further asserted that having regard to the scheme of the Act, that though the land vests in the State Government on issuance of the notification u/s 28(4) of the Act, the possession of the land is not simultaneously taken and therefore the notification of the year 2007, which is only to reiterate a policy that was applicable to acquisition cannot be ignored in the implementation of the same with reference to the established status of particular land holders.

In the above facts and circumstances of the case and on a perusal of the record the fact that the petitioner had purchased an area of land and building brought to sale by the KSFC in the year 1992, though a formal sale-deed is executed only in the year 2002, as per Annexure - A cannot be disputed. The same comprised of an industrial unit is also evident from material available on record. This is not a ground or circumstance urged by the petitioner at the time the earlier writ petition in W.P. 7044 of 2008 was considered and disposed of by this court by order dated 5-8-2010.

The learned counsel for the respondent has placed the relevant particulars of the land in Survey No. 32 of which the petitioner''s land forms a part, and the various extents that have been allotted to various industries pursuant to the acquisition. It is also placed on record that in so far as the extent of land claimed by the petitioner is concerned, atleast to the extent that is the subject matter of Annexure - A to the writ petition is concerned, it is reported that there is an industrial, shed in existence measuring 12.50 m X 20 m., which is consistent with the sale-deed of the petitioner. This finding by the respondent is pursuant to an order of this court recording the disputed circumstance, vide order dated 12.12.2012. The respondent after seeking time to obtain further instructions on the petitioner''s challenge that he continued in occupation of an industrial shed in which he continued to operate a coir industry, utilizing manual labour pre-dominantly, the respondent had furnished the above said particulars. The obvious explanation in the petitioner not, having been disturbed from the said industrial Shed notwithstanding the culmination of the acquisition proceedings was on account of the fact that the land claimed by the petitioner fell in a "buffer zone" maintained along the periphery of the industrial lay-out and hence the land in question had not been allotted in favour of any other entity. In the light of the above factual scenario, if the petitioner''s case for exclusion from the acquisition on the ground that the land held by the petitioner, (to an extent of 11 guntas) consisted of an existing industrial unit was never considered in the light of the notifications issued by the State Government from time to time, whether the petitioner''s earlier challenge to the acquisition in W.P. 7044 of 2008 and the dismissal of the same, would preclude the petitioner from bringing the present petition, is an aspect that does arise. However, the peculiar circumstance of the case whereby the petitioner continues to retain possession of the land and the fortuitous circumstance that the land is part of the buffer zone, which has enabled the petitioner to continue in undisturbed possession is material in this court proceeding to consider the case of the petitioner.

As admittedly, the land has vested in the State Government, it would be precluded from withdrawing from the acquisition and considering the representations of the petitioner as prayed for by the petitioner in the light of the fact that the case of the petitioner was never projected in the manner as now canvassed. And the obvious benefit of the policy adopted by the State Government was never extended to the petitioner. The added fact that the petitioner claims to be a non-polluting industry which may not affect the environs, notwithstanding that it is in a "buffer zone" of the industrial layout, as orally expressed by the counsel for the respondent, it is necessary to set aside the notification u/s 28(4) of the KIAD Act, in so far as the petitioner is concerned to the extent of the land covered under the Sale-deed at Annexure - A to the writ petition. Hence, the same is accordingly set aside. The respondents shall reconsider the claim of the petitioner with reference to Annexures - F & G and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The respondents shall proceed to consider the same with expedition and shall pass appropriate orders within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.