- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5827-DB WA No. 4575 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T WRIT APPEAL NO.4575 OF 2016 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN: D. S. MANJULA AGED 43 YEARS D/O. K. S. SANNASIDDAPPA RESIDING AT DWARALU VILLAGE AND POST - 572 139 SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI MAHESH A. S.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE GROUND FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, (KIADB) 1ST FLOOR, ARAVIND BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KIADB, 1ST FLOOR, ARAVIND BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISHA A. S., A.G.A., FOR R-1; SRI ASHOK N. NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3) Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5827-DB WA No. 4575 of 2016 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 1263/2015 DATED 05/11/2015 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE. THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the order dated 5th November, 2015 passed in W.P. No.1263/2015 (LA-KIADB) by the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition filed by the appellant. 2. The brief facts of the appellant's case is as under: The appellant Smt. D.S. Manjula is the absolute owner in lawful possession and enjoyment of the immovable property bearing Sy.No.168/1, measuring 1 acre situated at Mudigere Kaval Village, Kasaba Hobli, Sira Taluk Tumkur District, Vide RTC extract - Annexure A. In the notification bearing No.CI 232, SPQ 2010 dated 24.04.2010, Bangalore, the appellant's property was also notified for the purpose of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5827-DB WA No. 4575 of 2016 forming industrial area under Section 3(1) of KIADB Act. In the notification (Annexure-B) at Sl. No.266, the property of the appellant is shown. While acquiring the property of the appellant, the respondents have not followed any procedures and not examined the physical nature of the property in question and there is improper exercise of power under Section 28(4) of KIADB Act. The final notification was issued on 19.08.2010, vide Annexure-C. In this regard, several land holders had approached this Court and challenged the impugned notification in the writ petitions. The Sira Planning Authority in its ODP plan demarcated the schedule land as residential property and majority of the lands acquired by KAIDB had been converted for residential layouts and the Sira Town Municipality declared the property of the appellant as residential property coming within the vicinity of Sira Town Municipality. Therefore, the object of the notifying authority to convert the appellant's property by way of single out operations cannot be permitted, nor the same is permitted under law and therefore such futile exercise is ex-facie illegal and liable to be quashed. Hence, the appellant preferred writ petition in W.P.No.1263/2015 (LA-KIADB) before learned Single Judge - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5827-DB WA No. 4575 of 2016 and the same came to be rejected. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred this appeal. 3. Heard learned Counsel Sri Mahesh A. S., for the appellant, Sri Harisha A.S., learned Addl. Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri Ashok N. Nayak, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3- KIADB. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the learned Single Judge without summoning the entire records on the file of the respondents hurriedly proceeded to pass the impugned order by rejecting the writ petition in an untenable manner with single reasoning that even assuming that the land is diverted for use from agricultural to non-agricultural, that by itself, per-se, is not a ground available to the appellant to call for acquisition proceedings. The subject matter-acquisition proceedings called in question by various other land owners are still pending adjudication before this Court and the status quo order is still remaining in force. The learned Single Judge completely misdirected by coming to wrong conclusion that the agricultural lands are being converted into non agricultural land, which is not the case of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5827-DB WA No. 4575 of 2016 the appellant at all. Further, it is the case of the appellant that the lands acquired under the acquisition proceedings itself having been notified by Sira Town Municipality, that the disputed lands are coming within the vicinity of municipality area. The lands acquired under the notifications cannot be converted into industrial area. This legal aspect was never taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge. The ODP plan of Sira Municipality clearly establishes that the acquired area in the notification vide Annexure-A consisting more than 500 acres of land have been declared as residential zone and therefore the same cannot be acquired for the purpose of forming the industrial layout, but this aspect is not considered by the learned Single Judge. 5. Further, it is contended that the Sira Development Authority had declared the lands bearing Sy.Nos.168/1, 169/2 and 166 as residential zone vide Government order dated 26.05.2005. But learned Single Judge has not considered this aspect also, and has come to a wrong assumption of the legal issue that the agricultural land is converted into non-agricultural land and therefore, the appellant cannot object for the acquisitions proceedings, this observation is improper - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5827-DB WA No. 4575 of 2016 and incorrect. Thus, the order passed by learned Single Judge is contrary to law and without consideration of the documents pertaining to the acquisition proceedings, thus calls for interference. 6. Learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Ashok N. Nayak, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 vehemently contended that the learned Single Judge considering the material available before it and the prevailing law, has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 7. We have perused the impugned order. Learned Single Judge has observed that as per the Government circular dated 03.03.2007, the lands permitted to be diverted to use from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose cannot be the subject matter of acquisition by the Karnataka Industrial Area development Board (for short 'KIADB'). It was also observed that, there is no material relating to conversion. In the absence of relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence of the fact that the land in question was permitted to be diverted to use from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5827-DB WA No. 4575 of 2016 and the rules framed there under, therefore, even assuming in favour of the appellant that the land is diverted for use from agricultural to non-agricultural, that by itself, per-se, is not a ground available to the appellant to call in question, the acquisition proceedings. 8. Hence, it is just and necessary to analyse Sections 3(1) and 28(1) of the KIADB Act: 3. Declaration of Industrial areas.- (1) The State Government may, by notification, declare any area in the State to be an industrial area for the purposes of this Act. 28. Acquisition of land. - (1) If at any time, in the opinion of the State Government, any land is required for the purpose of development by the Board, or for any other purpose in furtherance of the objects of this act, the State Government may by notification, give notice of its intention to acquire such land. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5827-DB WA No. 4575 of 2016 9. In the instant case, the appellant is the absolute owner, who is in lawful possession and enjoyment of land bearing Sy.No.168/1, measuring 1 acre situated at Mudigere Kaval Village, Sira Taluk. Respondent No.1 issued notification dated 24.4.2010 and declared the schedule land belonging to the appellant as industrial area under Section 3(1) of the KIADB Act. Further, a separate notification was issued under Section 28(1) of KIADB Act proposing to acquire this schedule land dated 24.4.2010 vide Annexure-B. However, the authorities without considering the objection of the appellant and without examining the physical nature of the property in question, improperly exercised power under Section 28(4) of KIADB Act and issued final notification on 19.08.2010 vide Annexure-C. Further, the respondents have not published the notification giving wide publicity with regard to intended acquisition. After coming to know the intended notification vide Annexures-B and C, the appellant's mother had filed objections, contending that, the schedule land being converted and the intended acquisition over the schedule land being situated in the residential area, cannot be permitted to be converted for industrial area. Further, the Sira Planning Authority has - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:5827-DB WA No. 4575 of 2016 prepared outlined development plan by demarcating the schedule land as a residential area. The adjacent neighboring land of the appellant have already been converted for residential layouts and therefore, according to the appellant, such area cannot be converted into industrial area. 10. In this case, the respondent authorities must have considered the objections of the appellant and proceeded to pass appropriate order in accordance with law, by considering the location of the property, nature of the property, the distance between the proposed land and Sira Town etc., but the authorities have not done so. In view of the above, there was apparently no application of mind by the respondent authorities while considering the objection filed by the appellant/her mother to the notification, which definitely is not in the spirit of ensuring transparency in the acquisition of the land. Hence, we are of the opinion that, this appeal deserves to be allowed in-part. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:5827-DB WA No. 4575 of 2016 Accordingly, we pass the following:- ORDER 1. The appeal is allowed-in-part. The final notification No. ¸ÀASÉå: ¹L 407 J¸ï¦PÀÆå 2010, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, dated 19.08.2010, in so far as the land of the appellant is hereby quashed. 2. The respondents are directed to consider the objections of the appellant in the light of observations made hereinabove and the same shall be considered within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and suitable steps may be taken in accordance with law. 3. All contentions are kept open. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE MN/-/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15