KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
®
RD
DATED THIS THE 3 DAY OF JUNE 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT APPEAL NO. 4647 OF 2013 (LA)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 4501 OF 2013 (LA)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 4504 OF 2013 (LA)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 4509 OF 2013 (LA)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 4544 OF 2013 (LA)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 4548 OF 2013 (LA)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 4554 OF 2013 (LA)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 4557 OF 2013 (LA)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 4855 OF 2013 (LA-KIADB)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 4856 OF 2013 (LA)
Digitally
signed by
VASANTHA
KUMARY B K
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 4857 OF 2013 (LA)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 4858 OF 2013 (LA)
IN WA No. 4647/2013
BETWEEN:
1. SRI MUKESH KUMAR
S/O SRI SURESH CHANDRA GUPTA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1,
ALLASANDRA CROSS,
BELLARY ROAD,
YELAHANKA,
- 2 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
BANGALORE-560 065
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MAINA VARMA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND
COMMERCE,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001
3. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.14/3, RASHTROTHANA BUILDINGS,
N.R ROAD, BANGALORE -560 009
REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER
4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
BANGALORE DIVISION,
NO.3/2, THIMMAIAH TOWERS,
III FLOOR, GANDHINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 009
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
BANGALORE DIVISION,
NO.3/2, THIMMAIAH TOWERS,
III FLOOR, GANDHINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 009
- 3 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
6. M/S INDIAN MACHINE TOOLS
MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION,
S-906,9TH FLOOR
MANIPAL CENTRE,SOUTH BLOCK,
NO.47, DICKENSON ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 042,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY DIRECTOR
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. BASAVARAJ.V.SABARAD, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. H.L.PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5;
SRI. ADITYA NARAYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.24536/12 DATED
20/6/2013.
IN WA NO. 4501/2013
BETWEEN:
1. SRI M B SHANTHAPPA
S/O BASAVALINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT NO.3-A, GLENDEL APARTMENT,
BENSON ROAD, BENSON TOWN,
BANGALORE-560046.
2. MR KRISHNOJI PUROHIT
S/O G.H.PUROHIT,
AGED ABOUT 49 AS,
R/AT NO.24, II MAIN ROAD,
10TH CROSS, N R COLONY,
BANGALORE-560019.
3. MR GIRIYAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
3(a) G.PUSHPAVATHY
D/O LATE GIRIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
- 4 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
R/AT AASTHA, NO.389,
7TH A CROSS, 5TH STAGE
BEML LAYOUT, RR NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560098.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. H.N.SHASHIDHARA SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
H.N. SUHAS, ADVOCATE FOR A1, A2, A3(a)
SRI. HUSSAIN MODI AND YESHU MISHRA FOR
IMPLEADING A4 ON IA 2/2021)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES &
COMMERCE, VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560001.
3. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.14/3, RASHTROTHANA BUILDINGS,
N.R.ROAD, BANGALORE-560009
REPRESENTED BY ITS
EXECUTIVE MEMBER.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
BANGALORE DIVISION,
NO.3/2, THIMMAIAH TOWERS,
III FLOOR, GANDHI NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560009.
5. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
- 5 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
BANGALORE DIVISION,
NO.3/2, THIMMAIAH TOWERS,
III FLOOR, GANDHI NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560009.
6. M/S INDIAN MACHINE TOOLS MANUFACTURERS
ASSOCIATION, S-906, 9TH FLOOR,
MANIPAL CENTRE, SOUTH BLOCK, NO.47,
DICKENSON ROAD,
BANGALORE-560042,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY DIRECTOR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ADITYA NARAYAN FOR C/R6;
SRI. H.N.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR IA 2/21 AS R7,
I.A. 3/21 AND 4/21 AS R8 AND R9;
SRI. M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. BASAVARAJ V. SABARD, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. H.L.PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R4 & R5;
SRI. D.R.RAJASHEKHARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR
IMPLEADING APPLICANT AS PSD R10-14;
SRI. KARTHIK.C., ADVOCATE ON IA.6/2026 FOR
IMPLEADING APPLICANT AS PSD R15)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.19405-407/12 DATED
20/6/2013.
IN WA NO. 4504/2013
BETWEEN:
1. SRI T KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT SRIKANTAPURA VILLAGE
MADHAVARA POST
BANGALORE-562123
2. SRI T VASUDEVAIAH
- 6 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT SRIKANTAPURA VILLAGE
MADHAVARA POST
BANGALORE-562123
3. SRI T RAJAGOPAL
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT SRIKANTAPURA VILLAGE
MADHAVARA POST
BANGALORE-562123
4. SRI T DEVARAJU
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT SRIKANTAPURA VILLAGE
MADHAVARA POST
BANGALORE-562123
5. SRI T UMESH
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT SRIKANTAPURA VILLAGE
MADHAVARA POST
BANGALORE-562123
6. SRI T SREENIVAS
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT SRIKANTAPURA VILLAGE
MADHAVARA POST
BANGALORE-562123
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SWAROOP ANAND.R, ADVOCATE FOR A1 TO A6)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
- 7 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560001
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE,
VIKASA SOUDHA
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560001
3. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.14/3, RASHTROTHANA BUILDINGS
N R ROAD, BANGALORE-560009
REPRESENTED BY ITS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BANGALORE DIVISION
NO.3/2, THIMMAIAH TOWERS
III FLOOR, GANDHI NAGAR
BANGALORE-560009
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BANGALORE DIVISION
NO.3/2, THIMMAIAH TOWERS
III FLOOR, GANDHI NAGAR
BANGALORE-560009
6. M/S INDIAN MACHINE TOOLS MANUFACTURERS
ASSOCIATION, S-906, 9TH FLOOR
MANIPAL CENTRE, SOUTH BLOCK
NO.47, DICKENSON ROAD
BANGALORE-560042
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ADITHYA NARAYAN FOR C/R6;
- 8 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
SRI. M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. BASAVARAJ.V.SABARAD, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. H.L.PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R4 AND
R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.18562-567/2012 DATED
20/06/2013.
IN WA NO. 4509/2013
BETWEEN:
1. SRI SURESH CHANDRA GUPTHA
S/O LATE T C GUPTHA,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1581/C, BELALRY ROAD,
YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560064.
2. SRI RAVI AGARWAL
S/O SURESH CHANDRA GUPTHA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT O.1581/C, BELALRY ROAD,
YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560064.
3. SRI ANIL AGARWAL
S/O SURESH CHANDRA GUPTHA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT NO.208, 5TH MAIN ROAD,
GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE-560032.
4. SMT USHA AGARWAL
D/O SURESH CHANDRA GUPTHA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1801,
SHOBA MAY FLOWE, 8TH FLOOR,
GREEN GLEN LAYOUT, BALLADUR,
BANGALORE-560103.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. H.N.SHASHIDHARA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
- 9 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
SRI. H.N.SUHAS, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES &
COMMERCE, VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560001.
3. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.14/3, RASHOTRODHANA BUILDINGS,
N.R.ROAD, BANGALORE-560009
REPRESENTED BY ITS
EXECUTIVE MEMBER.
4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
BANGALORE DIVISION,
NO.3/2, THIMMAIAH TOWERS,
III FLOOR, GANDHI NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560009.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
BANGALORE DIVISION,
NO.3/2, THIMMAIAH TOWERS,
III FLOOR, GANDHI NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560009.
6. M/S INDIAN MACHINE TOOLS MANUFACTURERS
- 10 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
ASSOCIATION, S-906, 9TH FLOOR,
MANIPAL CENTRE, SOUTH BLOCK, NO.47,
DICKENSON ROAD,
BANGALORE-560042,
REPRESENTED BY ITS,
DEPUTY DIRECTOR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ADITYA NARAYAN FOR C/R6;
SRI. M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. BASAVARAJ.V.SABARAD, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. H.L.PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R4 AND
R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 18558-561/12 DATED
20/6/13.
IN WA NO. 4544/2013
BETWEEN:
1. INDIAN MACHINE TOOLS
MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT:
S-906, SOUTH BLOCK
MANIPAL CENTRE
47, DICKENSON ROAD
BANGALORE-560042
AND ITS SITE OFFICE AT:
10TH MILE, TUMKUR ROAD
MADAVARA POST, BANGALORE-562123
NOW REPRESENTED HEREIN
BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL
MR ANBU VARATHAN
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ADITYA NARAYAN., ADVOCATE)
AND:
- 11 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF
SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560001
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE
VIKAS SOUDHA
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560001
3. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO. 14/3, RASHTROTHANA BUILDINGS,
N R ROAD, BANGALORE-560009
REPRESENTED BY ITS
EXECUTIVE MEMBER
4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BANGALORE DIVISION
NO.3/2, THIMMAIAH TOWERS
III FLOOR, GANDHI NAGAR
BANGALORE-560009
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
BANGALORE DIVISION,
NO.3/2, THIMMAIAH TOWERS
III FLOOR, GANDHI NAGAR
BANGALORE-560009
6. SURESH CHANDRA GUPTA
S/O LATE T C GUPTA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
RESIDING AT 1581/C
BELLARY ROAD, YELAHANKA
- 12 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
BANGALORE-560064
BANGALORE CITY
7. RAVI AGARWAL
S/O SURESH CHANDRA GUPTA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT 1581/C
BELLARY ROAD, YELAHANKA,
BANGALORE-560064
BANGALORE CITY
8. ANIL AGARWAL
S/O SURESH CHANDRA GUPTA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 208,
5TH MAIN ROAD, GANGANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560032
BANGALORE
9. USHA AGARWAL
D/O SURESH CHANDRA GUPTA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 1801
SHOBA MAYFLOWER
8TH FLOOR, GREEN GLEN LAYOUT
BALLADUR, BANGALORE-560103
BANGALORE CITY
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. BASAVARAJ.V.SABARAD, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. H.L.PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R4 TO
R5;
SRI. H.N.SHASHIDHARA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. H.N. SUHAS, ADVOCATE FOR R6, R7, R8 AND R9)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.18558-561/12 DATED
20/6/2013.
- 13 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
IN WA NO. 4548/2013
BETWEEN:
1. INDIAN MACHINE TOOLS
MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT:
S-906, SOUTH BLOCK
MANIPAL CENTRE
47 DICKENSON ROAD
BANGALORE 560042
AND ITS SITE OFFICE AT
10TH MILE, TUMKUR ROAD
MADAVARA POST, BANGALORE 562123
REP. HEREIN BY ITS DIRECTOR
GENERAL, MR. ANBU VARATHAN
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ADITYA NARAYAN., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE 560001
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE
VIKAS SOUDHA
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE 560001
3. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.14/3, RASHTROTHANA BUILDINGS
N.R. ROAD, BANGALORE 560009
REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER
4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
- 14 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BANGALORE DIVISION
NO.3/2, THIMMAIAH TOWERS
III FLOOR, GANDHI NAGAR
BANGALORE 560009
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BANGALORE DIVISION
NO.3/2, THIMMAIAH TOWERS
III FLOOR, GANDHI NAGAR
BANGALORE 560009
6. T. KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/O SRIKANTAPURA VILLAGE
MADHAVARA POST
BANGALORE 560123
BANGALORE CITY
7. T. VASUDEVIAH
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/O SRIKANTAPURA VILLAGE
MADHAVARA POST
BANGALORE 560123
BANGALORE CITY
8. T. RAJAGOPAL
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/O SRIKANTAPURA VILLAGE
MADHAVARA POST
BANGALORE 560123
9. T. DEVARAJU
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/O SRIKANTAPURA VILLAGE
- 15 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
MADHAVARA POST
BANGALORE 560123
10. T. UMESH
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/O SRIKANTAPURA VILLAGE
MADHAVARA POST
BANGALORE 560123
11. T. SRINIVAS
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/O SRIKANTAPURA VILLAGE
MADHAVARA POST, BANGALORE 560123
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. BASAVARAJ V.SABARAD, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. H.L.PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R4 TO
R5;
SRI. SWAROOP ANAND R., FOR R6 TO R11)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.18562-567/12 DATED
20/6/2013.
IN WA NO. 4554/2013
BETWEEN:
1. INDIAN MACHINE TOOLS
MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT:
S-906, SOUTH BLOCK
MANIPAL CENTRE
47, DIKENSON ROAD
BANGALORE-560042
AND ITS SITE OFFICE AT:
TH
10 MILE, TUMKUR ROAD
MADAVARA POST, BANGALORE-562123
- 16 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
NOW REPRESENTED HEREIN
BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL
MR ANBU VARATHAN
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ADITYA NARAYAN., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF
SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560001
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE
VIKAS SOUDHA
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560001
3. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO. 14/3, RASHTROTHANA BUILDINGS,
N R ROAD, BANGALORE-560009
REPRESENTED BY ITS
EXECUTIVE MEMBER
4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BANGALORE DIVISION
NO.3/2, THIMMAIAH TOWERS
III FLOOR, GANDHI NAGAR
BANGALORE-560009
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BANGALORE DIVISION
- 17 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
NO.3/2, THIMMAIAH TOWERS
III FLOOR, GANDHI NAGAR
BANGALORE-560009
6. M B SHANTAPPA
S/O BASAVALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.3-A,
GLENDEL APARTMENTS
BENSON ROAD, BENSON TOWN
BANGALORE-560046
BANGALORE CITY
7. KRISHNOJI PUROHIT
S/O G H PUROHIT
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.24
TH
II MAIN ROAD, 10 CROSS
N R COLONY, BANGALORE-560019
BANGALORE CITY
8. GIRIYAPPA
S/O VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.19
MOUNT JOY ROAD
HANUMANTHA NAGAR
BANGALORE-560018
8(a) G.PUSHPAVATHI
WIFE OF GIRIYAPPA
AGED 62 YEARS
RESIDING AT A CROSS
5TH STAGE , BEML LAYOUT
R.R.NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 098
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.N.SUDEV HEGDE., AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. BASAVARAJ.V.SABARAD, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. H.L.PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R4 TO
R5;
SRI. H.N.SHASHIDHARA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
- 18 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
SRI. H.S. SUHAS, ADVOCATE FOR R6, R7, R8(a) AND
PROPOSED R9)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.19405-407/12 DATED
20/6/2013.
IN WA NO. 4557/2013
BETWEEN:
1. INDIAN MACHINE TOOLS
MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT:
S-906, SOUTH BLOCK
MANIPAL CENTRE
47, DIKENSON ROAD
BANGALORE-560042
AND ITS SITE OFFICE AT:
10TH MILE, TUMKUR ROAD
MADAVARA POST
BANGALORE-562123
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL
MR ANBU VARATHAN
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ADITYA NARAYAN., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF
SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560001
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE
- 19 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
VIKAS SOUDHA
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560001
3. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO. 14/3, RASHTROTHANA BUILDIGNS,
N R ROAD, BANGALORE-560009
REPRESENTED BY ITS
EXECUTIVE MEMBER
4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BANGALORE DIVISION
NO.3/2, THIMMAIAH TOWERS
III FLOOR, GANDHI NAGAR
BANGALORE-560009
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BANGALORE DIVISION
NO.3/2, THIMMAIAH TOWERS
III FLOOR, GANDHI NAGAR
BANGALORE-560009
6. MUKESH KUMAR
S/O SURESH CHANDRA GUPTA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.1
ALLASANDRA CROSS
BELLARY ROAD, YELAHANKA
BANGALORE-560065
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. BASAVARJ V. SABARAD, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. H.L.PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R4 TO
R5;
SMT. MAINAVERMA AND K.L.GANGADHAR, ADVOCATE
FOR R6)
- 20 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.24536/12 DATED
20/6/2013.
IN WA NO. 4855/2013
BETWEEN:
1. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.14/3, RASHTROTHANA BUILDINGS
N R ROAD, BANGALORE-560009
REPRESENTED BY ITS
EXECUTIVE MEMBER
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
B'LORE DIVISION
NO.3/2, THIMMAIAH TOWERS
IIIRD FLOOR, GANDHI NAGAR
BANGALORE-560009
3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BANGALORE DIVISION
PRESENTLY AT NO.14/3,
RASHTROTHANA BUILDINGS
N R ROAD, BANGALORE-560009
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ V.SABARAD, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. H.L.PRADEEP KUMAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560001
- 21 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE
VIKAS SOUDHA
DR B RR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560001
3. SRI T KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/A SRIKANTPURA VILLAGE
MADHAVARA POST
BANGALORE-562123
4. SRI T VASUDEVAIAH
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/A SRIKANTPURA VILLAGE
MADHAVARA POST
BANGALORE-562123
5. SRI T RAJGOPAL
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/A SRIKANTPURA VILLAGE
MADHAVARA POST
BANGALORE-562123
6. SRI T DEVARAJU
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/A SRIKANTPURA VILLAGE
MADHAVARA POST
BANGALORE-562123
7. SRI T UMESH
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/A SRIKANTPURA VILLAGE
MADHAVARA POST
BANGALORE-562123
- 22 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
8. SRI T SRINIVAS
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/A SRIKANTPURA VILLAGE
MADHAVARA POST
BANGALORE-562123
9. M/S INDIAN MACHINE TOOLS MANUFACTURES
ASSOCIATION, S-906
9TH FLOOR
MANIPAL CENTRE, SOUTH BLOCK
NO.47, DICKENSON ROAD
BANGALORE-560042
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY DIRECTOR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.N. SUDEV HEGDE. AGA FPR R1 AND R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.18562-567/12 DATED
20/6/2013.
IN WA NO. 4856/2013
BETWEEN:
1. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.14/3, RASHTROTHANA BUILDINGS
N R ROAD, BANGALORE-560009
REPRESENTED BY ITS
EXECUTIVE MEMBER
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BLORE DIVISION
NO.3/2, THAMMAIAH TOWERS
IIIRD FLOOR, GANDHI NAGAR
BANGALORE-560009
- 23 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BANGALORE DIVISION
NO.14/3, RASHTROTHANA BUILDINGS
N R ROAD, BANGALORE-560009
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ V.SABARAD, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. H.L.PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560001
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE
VIKAS SOUDHA
DR B RR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560001
3. SRI SURESH CHANDRA GUPTHA
S/O LATE T C GUPTHA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
R/A NO.1581/C, BELLARY ROAD
YELHANKA, BANGALORE-560064
4. SRI RAVI AGARWAL
S/O SURESH CHANDRA GUPTHA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/A NO.1581/C
BELLARY ROAD
YELHANKA, BANGALORE-560064
5. SRI ANIL AGARWAL
S/O SURESH CHANDRA GUPTHA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/A NO.208, 5TH MAIN ROAD
- 24 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
GANGANAGAR
BANGALORE-560032
6. SMT USHA AGARWAL
D/O SURESH CHANDRA GUPTHA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/A NO.1801, SHOBA MAY FLOWER
8TH FLOOR, GREEN GLEN LAYOUT
NALLADUR, BANGALORE-560103
7. M/S INDIAN MACHINE TOOLS MANUFACTURES
ASSOCIATION, S-906
9TH FLOOR
MANIPAL CENTRE, SOUTH BLOCK
NO.47, DICKENSON ROAD
BANGALORE-560042
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY DIRECTOR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.N.SHASHIDHARA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. H.S. SUHAS, ADVOCATE FOR R4-R6;
SRI. M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.18558-561/12 DATED
20/6/2013.
IN WA NO. 4857/2013
BETWEEN:
1. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
NO.14/3, RASHTROTHANA BUILDINGS,
N.R.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
EXECUTIVE MEMBER.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
BANGALORE DIVISION,
- 25 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
NO.3/2, THAMMAIAH TOWERS,
III RD FLOOR, GANDHI NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 009.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
BANGALORE DIVISION,
NO.14/3, RASHTROTHANA BUILDINGS,
N.R.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ.V.SABARAD, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.
3. SRI M B SHANTHAPPA
S/O BASAVALINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO.3-A, GLENDEL APARTMENT,
BENSON ROAD, BENSON TOWN,
BANGALORE-560 046.
4. MRS. KRISHNOJI PUROHIT
S/O G.H.PUROHIT,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT NO.24, II MAIN ROAD,
10TH CROSS, N.R.COLONY,
BANGALORE-560 019.
- 26 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
5. MR GIRIYAPPA
S/O VENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO.19, MOUNT JOY ROAD,
HANUMANTH NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 018.
6. M/S INDIAN MACHINE TOOLS MANUFACTURES
ASSOCIATION S-906, 9TH FLOOR,
MANIPAL CENTRE, SOUTH BLOCK,NO.47,
DICKENSON ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 042,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY DIRECTOR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.H.N.SHASHIDHARA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. H.S.SUHAS, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4;
SRI. ADITYA NARAYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R6;
SRI. M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
VIDE ORDER DATED:02.04.2019, R5 IS ABATED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NOS.19405-405/2012
DATED 20/06/2013.
IN WA NO. 4858/2013
BETWEEN:
1. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.14/3, RASHTROTHANA BUILDINGS
N.R.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009
REPRESENTED BY ITS
EXECUTIVE MEMBER.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BANGALORE DIVISION
NO.3/2, THIMMAIAH TOWERS
- 27 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
III RD FLOOR, GANDHI NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 009.
3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BANGALORE DIVISION- PRESENTLY AT
NO.14/3, RASHTROTHANA BUILDINGS
N.R.ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 009
(THE NAME AND DESIGNATION OF RESPONDENT NO.5
IS MENTIONED CORRECTLY IN THE ABOVE APPEAL
WHEREAS IN WRIT PETITION IT WAS WRONG)
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ.V.SABARAD, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. H.L.PRADEEP KUMAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECFRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.
3. SRI MUKESH KUMAR
S/O SURESH CHANDRA GUPTHA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1, ALLALASANDRA CROSS,
BELLARY ROAD, YELHANKA
BANGALORE-560 065.
4. M/S. INDIAN MACHINE TOOLS MANUFACTURES
ASSOCIATION, S-906, 9TH FLOOR,
MANIPAL CENTRE, SOUTH BLOCK, NO.47,
- 28 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
DICKENSON ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 042
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY DIRECTOR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SMT. MAINA VERMA AND K.GANGADHARA, ADVOCATE
FOR C/R3;
R4 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.24536/12 DATED
20/6/2013.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 01.04.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
D K SINGH PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
The present batch of twelve (12) intra Court appeals have
been filed against the common judgment and order dated
20.06.2013 passed by the writ Court in W.P.Nos.18562-
567/2012 connected with W.P.Nos.18558-561/2012,
W.P.No.19405-407/2012 and W.P.No.24536/2012. The details
of the twelve writ appeals are given under:
- 29 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
i. Appeals with respect to the order passed in
W.P.Nos.18562-67/2012 (T Krishnappa & Ors-Sy.Nos.68, 69).
Sl.No. Writ Appeal Number Filed by (Appellants)
1. 4505/2013 T Krishnappa & Ors
KIADB - aggrieved by quashing of
2. 4855/2013 acquisition of 11 acres 1 gunta
3. 4548/2013 Indian Machine Tools
ii. Appeals with respect to the order passed in
W.P.No.24536/2012 (Mukesh Kumar-Sy.No.72).
Sl.No. Writ Appeal Number Filed by (Appellants)
1. 4657/2013 Mukesh Kumar
KIADB - aggrieved by quashing of
acquisition of 11 acres 1 gunta
2. 4858/2013
3. 4557/2013 Indian Machine Tools
iii. Appeals with respect to the order passed in
W.P.Nos.19405-407/2012 (Shanthappa & Ors - Sy.Nos.18/316,
18/317).
Sl.No. Writ Appeal Number Filed by (Appellants)
1. 4501/2013 Shanthappa & Ors
- 30 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
KIADB - aggrieved by quashing of
2. 4857/2013 acquisition of 11 acres 1 gunta
3. 4554/2013 Indian Machine Tools
iv. Appeals with respect to the order passed in
W.P.Nos.18558-561/2012 (Suresh Chandra Guptha & Ors-
Sy.No.72).
Sl.No. Writ Appeal Number Filed by (Appellants)
1. 4657/2013 Suresh Chadra Guptha & Ors
KIADB - aggrieved by quashing of
2. 4856/2013 acquisition of 11 acres 1 gunta
4557/2013
3. REPEATED-4544 Indian Machine Tools
2. The appellant-M/s. Indian Machine Tool
Manufacturers Association (IMTMA) in W.A.Nos.4548/2013,
4554/2013, 4544/2013 and 4557/2013 has been established as
a charitable company under Section 25 of the Companies Act,
1956 (now Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013). The Board
of Directors of IMTMA comprises of several big/prominent
industrialists, as of today. The company is managed by one
Director General and CEO alongwith 24 Directors, details of
which are available on the website of the Ministry of Corporate
- 31 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
Affairs. Further, The IMTMA has established the Bangalore
International Exhibition Centre (BIEC) which was approved by
the State Government vide Government Order dated
18.09.2003. Vide the said Government order, the State
Government had directed the land required for the Centre (38
acres) to be transferred by Nandi Infrastructure Corridor
Enterprises (NICE) out of the land acquired for Bangalore-
Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project (BMICP).
3. Pursuant to the said Government Order, the NICE
transferred a total extent of 34 acres 11 guntas of land (i.e.,30
acres in 2003 and 4 acres and 11 guntas in 2006). Originally
the BIEC project was established over 34 acres 11 guntas of
land. In September 2013, IMTMA, being in need of an adequate
access road for movement to and from the facility, acquired an
extent of 6 acres 10 guntas more land from NICE. According to
the IMTMA, the approach road has been developed by using the
said land. Because of the exponential growth in the scale of its
activities and since the the four exhibition halls put up on the
said land originally made available was not sufficient, IMTMA
sought and obtained approval for expansion of BIEC by
construction of two additional halls. The land to the extent of
- 32 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
22 acres and 38 guntas was identified for this purpose and the
Government order dated 25.11.2014 approved establishment of
the project on the said land to be acquired after seeking
permission under Section 109 of the Karnataka Land Revenue
Act, 1964.
4. Pursuant to the said Government Order and after
obtaining permission under Section 109 of the Land Revenue
Act as mandated thereby, IMTMA purchased 22 acres 33 guntas
from Mr. Mathukutty Vaidhyan and others vide sale deed dated
25.03.2015. The IMTMA had constructed two additional
exhibition halls on the aforesaid extent of land. The IMTMA had
acquired title to 73 acres and 14 guntas of land.
5. The IMTMA requested the State Government to
initiate acquisition proceedings to acquire further lands in
Sy.Nos.18/316, 18/317, 68, 69,70 and 71 of
Madanayakanahalli village, in all measuring 23 acres 38 guntas
in its favour for the purpose of construction of multi-level car
parking facility. The State Authorities accepted the request of
the IMTMA and issued notifications under Section 28(1) of the
Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (for short,
- 33 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
'the KIAD Act'). Notices under Section 28(2) of the KIAD Act
were issued to the land holders calling for objections in respect
to the preliminary notification issued under Section 28(1) of the
KIAD Act. The land holders filed their objections to the
proposed land acquisition of their lands. However, rejecting
their objections filed to the preliminary notification dated
19.08.2010, Final notification dated 02.05.2012 under Section
28(4) of the KIAD Act was issued restricting land acquisition to
17.38 acres as against 23.28 acres. The writ petitioners' lands
were part of the final notification under Section 28(4) of the
KIAD Act.
6. The landowners whose lands were part of the final
notification, challenged the land acquisition proceedings by
filing petitions before the writ Court.
7. The learned Single Judge vide impugned order has
held that the land acquisition can be upheld only for pure public
purpose that too after paying prevailing market value to the
land holders. The learned Single Judge further observed that
various unscrupulous methods are being adopted and the
power is abused by the revenue authorities in granting land to
- 34 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
various persons from whom it had changed hands by way of
sale even before the expiry of time granted for non-alienation.
8. The learned Single Judge took note of the fact that
the Deputy Commissioner who was present before the Court,
after spot inspection, had submitted that there was no adjacent
Government land available for grant for allotment to the
IMTMA. In the guise of acquisition, Government should not
support the activities of IMTMA or any other similarly situated
persons to go for excess acquisition at the cost of poor
farmers/agriculturists. It was further noted that NICE had
undertaken to provide 5 acres land to the IMTMA for multi-level
parking area free of cost, and that would meet the needs of the
IMTMA. So far as other expansion activities were concerned,
the IMTMA was shown to have entered into an agreement with
Mr. Mathukutty Vaidhyan to purchase 7 acres of land for value
prevailing in the market. However, keeping in view the need of
the IMTMA, it would be appropriate to part with 7 acres of the
land in favour of the IMTMA out of total area proposed to be
acquired. Thus, the land acquisition proceedings in respect of
the 7 acres of land out of 17.38 acres have been upheld, but
there are no demarcations such as survey numbers etc. in
- 35 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
respect of which the land acquisition for 7 acres has been
upheld mentioned in the impugned judgment.
9. The appeals have been filed by the Karnataka
Industrial Area Development Board (4 in number) as well as
IMTMA (4 in number) and land owners (4 in number).
10. This Court on 26.03.2026 passed the following
order in these batch of appeals:
"Having heard the learned counsels for the parties,
we would require a clear stand of the KIADB and
Respondent No.6- Indian Machine Manufacturers
Association (for short 'the Association') regarding the land
in question, which was said to have been acquired by
issuing a final notification under Section 28(4) as modified
by the learned Single Judge on following aspects:
i. What is the total extent of land
excluding/besides the seven (7) acres, which
is under dispute in the possession and
ownership of the respondent No.6, including
the land purchased by them through private
negotiation as well as from the BMIC project?
ii. Whether respondent No.6 requires the
seven (7) acres or more land in dispute for
its exhibition center and related facilities or
not?
iv. If they require the land in question,
whether they are willing to pay the
compensation based on the market rates
prevailing today inasmuch as no award has
- 36 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
been passed and no compensation has been
deposited or paid to the landowners till date.
Despite there being no interim order against
the KIADB not to pass the award and assess
the compensation and deposit the same.
We direct the State Government to make its stand
clear on whether the land in question is situated within
the prohibited distance (i.e., 75 metres) from the bank of
the waterbody.
We make it clear that we are not inclined to grant
any further adjournment/accommodation, as the matter
pertains to 2013. If the stand by the KIADB and
Association (Respondent No.6) is not clarified on the next
date of posting of these appeals, we will draw negative
inference on these aspects and decide the matter
accordingly.
Post this appeal on 01.04.2026."
11. In compliance of the said order the IMTMA has filed
the affidavit of Mr. Jibak Dasgupta, the Secretary, Director
General and CEO of IMTMA. The details of the land besides the
land in question have been given in the aforesaid affidavit and
as per the affidavit, IMTMA had acquired title to 73 acres 14
guntas of land.
- 37 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
12. The Financial statement of the IMTMA for the year
2019-20 to 2020-24 would establish that the company is in
huge profits and capable of acquiring lands on its own for its
purposes through private negotiations. It is also not in dispute
that no award has been passed and no compensation has been
deposited or paid to the landowners till date despite there being
no interim order for not to pass the award and assess the
compensation and deposit the same.
13. The following issues arise for determination in these
appeals:
i. Whether the land acquisition proceedings
in respect of the land in question have become bad
inasmuch as no award has been passed and no
compensation has been paid till date, even after 14
years from the date of the final notification issued
under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act?
ii. Whether the land acquisition proceedings
could have been undertaken on behest of a private
entity which is in capacity to purchase the land
through private negotiations and therefore, the land
acquisition proceedings were bad in law?
- 38 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
14. The statements of objects and reasons of the KIAD
Act read as under:-
"It is considered necessary to make provision
for the orderly establishment and development
of Industries in suitable areas in the State. To
achieve this object, it is proposed to specify
suitable areas for Industrial Development and
establish a Board to develop such areas and
make available lands therein for establishment
of Industries."
15. Thus, the object of the KIAD Act is for the orderly
establishment and development of industries in suitable areas
in the State and for such purpose, to make available lands
therein for establishment of industries. The suitable area has
to be identified by the State/KIADB and not the private/non-
Government persons/agencies.
16. The object of the KIAD Act is to acquire the land for
the purpose of setting up the industrial areas and not for
acquiring the land for an individual entity. After setting up an
industrial area, the Government may allot the land to an
applicant for setting up the industries in the industrial area. The
Government cannot acquire the land for an individual entity of
its choice at the expense and cost of the poor landowners. The
object of the Act is public purpose in creating industrial areas
- 39 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
for development of the industries and industrialisation of the
State. The Government cannot acquire the land for an
individual person/entity of its choice by exercising the power of
eminent domain.
17. The functions and powers of the Board, as provided
under Section 13 of the KIAD Act, are to promote and assist in
the rapid and orderly establishment, growth and development
of industries and to provide industrial infrastructural facilities
and amenities in industrial areas. Therefore, the Government
may acquire the land to set up the industrial area and the
Board would then have to provide industrial infrastructural
facilities and amenities for the rapid and orderly establishment,
growth and development of industries in the said area. The Act
does not contemplate to acquire the land for an individual
entity and such a purpose cannot be said to be a public
purpose. Setting up an industrial area is a public purpose and
acquiring the land for a profit making entity for its expansion
would not be in the line of the objects of the KIAD Act, and it is
nothing but a fraud committed on statute by the authorities to
divest the landowners from their land holdings for a pittance in
favour of a private entity for expansion of its business and
- 40 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
making more and more profit. This kind of exercise of power is
a statutory and constitutional fraud by the State Authorities.
18. The acquisition and disposal of land is provided in
Chapter VII of the KIAD Act. Sections 28 and 29, which are
relevant, are extracted hereunder:-
" 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.
(2) On publication of a notification under sub-
section (1), the State Government shall serve
notice upon the owner or where the owner is
not the occupier, on the occupier of the land
and on all such persons known or believed to
be interested therein to show cause, within
thirty days from the date of service of the
notice, why the land should not be acquired.
(3) After considering the cause, if any, shown
by the owner of the land and by any other
person interested therein, and after giving
such owner and person an opportunity of
being heard, the State Government may pass
such orders as it deems fit.
(4) After orders are passed under sub-section
(3), where the State Government is satisfied
that any land should be acquired for the
purpose specified in the notification issued
under sub-section (1), a declaration shall, by
notification in the official Gazette, be made to
that effect.
- 41 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
(5) On the publication in the official Gazette of
the declaration under sub-section (4), the land
shall vest absolutely in the State Government
free from all encumbrances.
(6) Where any land is vested in the State
Government under sub-section (5), the State
Government may, by notice in writing, order
any person who may be in possession of the
land to surrender or deliver possession thereof
to the State Government or any person duly
authorised by it in this behalf within thirty
days of the service of the notice.
(7) If any person refuses or fails to comply
with an order made under sub-section (5), the
State Government or any officer authorised by
the State Government in this behalf may take
possession of the land and may for that
purpose use such force as may be necessary.
(8) Where the land has been acquired for the
Board, the State Government, after it has
taken possession of the land, may transfer the
land to the Board for the purpose for which the
land has been acquired.
29. Compensation.- (1) Where any land is
acquired by the State Government under this
Chapter, the State Government shall pay for
such acquisition compensation in accordance
with the provisions of this Act.
(2) Where the amount of compensation has
been determined by agreement between the
State Government and the person to be
compensated, it shall be paid in accordance
with such agreement.
(3) Where no such agreement can be reached,
the State Government shall refer the case to
the Deputy Commissioner for determination of
the amount of compensation to be paid for
- 42 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
such acquisition as also the person or persons
to whom such compensation shall be paid.
(4) On receipt of a reference under sub-section
(3), the Deputy Commissioner shall serve
notice on the owner or occupier of such land
and on all persons known or believed to be
interested herein to appear before him and
state their respective interests in the said
land."
19. Section 28 provides a complete machinery in
respect of the method and manner in which the land can be
acquired by the State Government, non-compliance of any of
the provisions would render the acquisition invalid, illegal and
fraud on statute. Sub-section (1) of Section 28 specifically
provides that the State Government may acquire the land for
the purpose of development by the Board or for any other
purpose in furtherance of the objects of the Act. If the land is
not acquired either for the purpose of development by the
Board or for any other purpose in furtherance of the objects of
the Act, such acquisition is nothing but a mala fide and illegal
and colourable exercise of power and a fraud on statute and
Constitution in exercising the eminent domain by the State.
20. Sub-section (2) of Section 28 provides an
opportunity for filing objections by the landowners or other
interested persons and sub-section (3) provides for considering
- 43 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
the objections and affording an opportunity of hearing to them.
After the aforesaid exercise is undertaken, then only the final
notification is to be issued under sub-section (4) of Section 28
of the Act. Under sub-section (5), it is provided that on
publication of the final notification under sub-section (4), the
land vests absolutely in the State Government free from all
encumbrances, but sub-section (6) requires the Government
Authorities to serve a notice in writing and order on the person
who is in possession of the land to surrender or deliver the
possession thereof to the State Government within thirty days
of the service of the notice. Sub-section (7) provides that if
such a person refuses or fails to comply with the order made
under sub-section (5), the State Government may take
possession of the land by using the force as may be necessary.
21. Under Section 29 of the KIAD Act, the Government
is under a statutory and constitutional obligation to pay
adequate compensation in accordance with the provisions of
the Act for the land acquired, and if the landowner is not
satisfied with the compensation, the reference has to be made
to the Deputy Commissioner for determination of the amount of
compensation to be paid for such acquisition. Before deciding
- 44 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
the reference, the Deputy Commissioner is required to serve a
notice on the owner and on all such persons who are interested
in the land, to appear before him and to state their respective
interests in the land so acquired.
22. Thus, Sections 28 and 29 provide a complete
mechanism for acquiring the land under the provisions of the
KIAD Act i.e., issuing the notification under Section 28(1), filing
the objections, considering the objections, providing
opportunity of hearing, issuing the final notification under
Section 28(4), issuing notice to surrender or deliver possession
of the land to the State Government and thereafter, for
payment of compensation. All the steps are to be taken in the
manner as provided for in the statute and if time has not been
granted for filing the objections or the objectors have not been
heard or no notice has been issued for surrendering possession
or no compensation has been paid, then the land acquisition
proceedings cannot be said to be complete and would be
susceptible to be declared illegal and ultra vires the statute and
the Constitution of India being in violation of Articles 14, 21
and 300A of the Constitution.
- 45 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
23. Article 300A of the Constitution of India provides
that "no person shall be deprived of his property except by
authority of law". The right of property is not only a
constitutional or statutory right but also a human right. Though
it is not a basic feature of the Constitution or fundamental
rights, the human rights are considered to be in the realm of
individual rights such as, the right to health, right to livelihood,
right to shelter and employment etc.
24. The Supreme Court, in the case of TUKARAM
KANA JOSHI AND OTHERS THROUGH POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER vs M.I.D.C. AND OTHERS (AIR 2013
SC 565) , has held that now human rights are gaining even
greater multifaceted dimension. The right to property is
considered very much to be part of such new dimension. The
expression 'property' in Article 300A is not confined to land
alone. It includes intangibles like copyright and other
intellectual properties and embraces every possible interest
recognized by law.
25. A Constitution Bench, in the case of K.T.
PLANTATION PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER vs STATE
- 46 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
OF KARNATAKA ([2011] 9 SCC 1) , has held that the right to
compensation is inbuilt in Article 300A. Just, fair and
reasonable compensation is inbuilt in right to property and is
also a requirement of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 26(b), 30(1-A)
of the Constitution. No person can be deprived of his property
merely by an executive fiat, without any specific legal authority
or without support of law. Deprivation of property even under
the provisions of the statute within the meaning of Article 300A
must take place for public purpose or public interest. It has
been held that any law which deprives a person of his private
property for private interest will be unlawful, unfair and
undermines the rule of law and can be subjected to judicial
review.
26. Paragraphs 180, 181, 182, 183, 189 and 190 to
193 of the judgment in K.T. PLANTATION (supra) are
extracted hereunder:
" Public purpose
180. Deprivation of property within the
meaning of Article 300A, generally
speaking, must take place for public
purpose or public interest. The concept of
eminent domain which applies when a
person is deprived of his property
postulates that the purpose must be
- 47 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
primarily public and not primarily of private
interest and merely incidentally beneficial
to the public. Any law, which deprives a
person of his private property for private
interest, will be unlawful and unfair and
undermines the rule of law and can be
subjected to judicial review. But the
question as to whether the purpose is
primarily public or private, has to be
decided by the legislature, which of course
should be made known.
181. The concept of public purpose has
been given fairly expansive meaning which
has to be justified upon the purpose and
object of the statute and the policy of the
legislation. Public purpose is, therefore, a
condition precedent, for invoking Article
300A.
Compensation
182. We have found that the requirement
of public purpose is invariably the rule for
depriving a person of his property, violation
of which is amenable to judicial review. Let
us now examine whether the requirement
of payment of compensation is the rule
after the deletion of Article 31(2).
183. Payment of compensation amount is a
constitutional requirement under Article
30(1-A) and under the second proviso
to Article 31-A(1), unlike Article 300-
A. After the Forty-fourth Amendment Act,
1978, the constitutional obligation to pay
compensation to a person who is deprived
of his property primarily depends upon the
terms of the statute and the legislative
policy. Article 300A, however, does not
prohibit the payment of just compensation
when a person is deprived of his property,
but the question is whether a person is
entitled to get compensation, as a matter
- 48 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
of right, in the absence of any stipulation in
the statute, depriving him of his property.
189. Requirement of public purpose, for
deprivation of a person of his property
under Article 300-A, is a precondition, but
no compensation or nil compensation or its
illusiveness has to be justified by the State
on judicially justiciable standards. Measures
designed to achieve greater social justice,
may call for lesser compensation and such
a limitation by itself will not make
legislation invalid or unconstitutional or
confiscatory. In other words, the right to
claim compensation or the obligation to
pay, though not expressly included
in Article 300-A, it can be inferred in that
article and it is for the State to justify its
stand on justifiable grounds which may
depend upon the legislative policy, object
and purpose of the statute and host of
other factors.
190 . Article 300-A would be equally
violated if the provisions of law authorizing
deprivation of property have not been
complied with. While enacting Article 300-
A Parliament has only borrowed Article
31(1) (the "Rule of law" doctrine) and
not Article 31(2) (which had embodied the
doctrine of eminent domain). Article 300-
A enables the State to put restrictions on
the right to property by law. That law has
to be reasonable. It must comply with
other provisions of the Constitution. The
limitation or restriction should not be
arbitrary or excessive or what is beyond
what is required in public interest. The
limitation or restriction must not be
disproportionate to the situation or
excessive.
- 49 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
191.
The legislation providing for
deprivation of property under Article 300-
A must be "just, fair and reasonable" as
understood in terms of Articles 14,
19(1)(g), 26(b), 301, etc. Thus in each
case, courts will have to examine the
scheme of the impugned Act, its object,
purpose as also the question whether
payment of nil compensation or nominal
compensation would make the impugned
law unjust, unfair or unreasonable in terms
of other provisions of the Constitution as
indicated above.
192. At this stage, we may clarify that
there is a difference between "no"
compensation and "nil" compensation. A
law seeking to acquire private property for
public purpose cannot say that "no
compensation shall be paid". However,
there could be a law awarding "nil"
compensation in cases where the State
undertakes to discharge the liabilities
charged on the property under acquisition
and onus is on the Government to establish
validity of such law. In the latter case, the
court in exercise of judicial review will test
such a law keeping in mind the above
parameters.
193 . Right to property no more remains an
overarching guarantee in our Constitution,
then is it the law, that such a legislation
enacted under the authority of law as
provided in Article 300-A is immune from
challenge before a constitutional court for
violation of Articles 14, 21 or the
overarching principle of the rule of law, a
basic feature of our Constitution, especially
when such a right is not specifically
incorporated in Article 300-A, unlike Article
30(1-A) and the second proviso to Article
31-A(1)"
- 50 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
27. Thus, depriving the landowners of their land for
private interest and merely incidentally beneficial to the public
is against the foundational principle of the Constitution i.e., the
rule of law and it is against the constitutional mandate as
provided under Article 300A.
28. The aforesaid principles have been reiterated by the
Supreme Court in the case of KOLKATA MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION AND ANOTHER vs BIMAL KUMAR SHAH
AND OTHERS ([2024] 10 SCC 533) and further explained. It
has been held that the right to property has to be given
broader and meaningful interpretation. The right to property
has seven sub-rights and it does not limit to twin components
of public purpose and compensation. The seven sub-rights or
strands of the swadeshi constitutional fabric constituting the
right to property, which are non-exhaustive, have been
enumerated as under:-
"(i) The duty of the State to inform the
person that it intends to acquire his
property - the right to notice,
(ii) The duty of the State to hear objections
to the acquisition - the right to be heard,
- 51 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
(iii) The duty of the State to inform the
person of its decision to acquire - the right
to a reasoned decision,
(iv) The duty of the State to demonstrate
that the acquisition is for public purpose -
the duty to acquire only for public purpose,
(v) The duty of the State to restitute and
rehabilitate - the right of restitution or fair
compensation,
(vi) The duty of the State to conduct the
process of acquisition efficiently and within
prescribed timelines of the proceedings -
the right to an efficient and expeditious
process, and
(vii) The final conclusion of the proceedings
leading to vesting - the right of conclusion.”
29. These seven rights though are procedures, but they
do constitute real content of the right to property under Article
300A and non-compliance of these will amount to violation of
the right to property being without the authority of law. It has
been specifically held in paragraph 33.4 that it is the duty of
the State to acquire the property only for public purpose, and it
is an important fetter on the discretion of the authorities to
acquire property. The acquisition of the property must be for
larger constitutional goals of a welfare State and distributive
justice.
- 52 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
30. The State can exercise the eminent domain power
for a private entity, but only when there is a genuine public
purpose and cost of acquisition (including compensation) is
borne by the State instrumentality or the public fund so that
the transaction remains by the State for public purpose.
31. The Supreme Court, in SOORARAM PRATAP
REDDY AND OTHERS vs DISTRICT COLLECTOR, RANGA
REDDY DISTRICT AND OTHERS ([2008] 9 SCC 552) , has
held that if the power of eminent domain has been exercised
mala fide or for collateral purposes or the purported action is
dehors the Act, irrational or otherwise unreasonable or the so-
called purpose is "no public purpose" at all and fraud on statute
is apparent, the writ Court would have the jurisdiction to
interfere with such acquisition and exercise of the power of
eminent domain by the State. Paragraphs 128 and 133, which
are relevant, are extracted hereunder:-
" 128 . Applying the aforesaid principles to
the case on hand, in our considered
opinion, it cannot be said that the
proceedings initiated by the State for
acquisition of land under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 are illegal, unlawful,
unwarranted, mala fide, fraud on statute or
have been taken in colourable exercise of
power.
- 53 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
133 . The entire amount of compensation is
to be paid by State agency (APIIC) which
also works as nodal agency for execution of
the project. It is primarily for the State to
decide whether there exists public purpose
or not. Undoubtedly, the decision of the
State is not beyond judicial scrutiny. In
appropriate cases, where such power is
exercised mala fide or for collateral
purposes or the purported action is dehors
the Act, irrational or otherwise
unreasonable or the so-called purpose is
“no public purpose” at all and fraud on
statute is apparent, a writ court can
undoubtedly interfere. But except in such
cases, the declaration of the Government is
not subject to judicial review. In other
words, a writ court, while exercising powers
under Articles 32, 226 or 136 of the
Constitution, cannot substitute its own
judgment for the judgment of the
Government as to what constitutes “public
purpose”.
32. The acquisition of land or the property of individuals
in exercise of the powers of eminent domain must not be
conveyable exercise or fraud on statute or merely a device to
transfer land to private hands. When an act is done by the
State under the colour of authority of law, it must be for lawful
purpose envisaged under the statute. If the purpose namely,
public purpose as envisaged under a statute under which the
property is acquired is not subserved, then the exercise of the
power of use of eminent domain must be held to be a
colourable exercise of power and fraud on the statute.
- 54 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
33. In ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LIMITED AND
ANOTHER VS G. JAYARAM REDDY AND OTHERS ([2011]
10 SCC 608), the Court was confronted with transfer of land
required for public purpose (Golf-cum-Hotel Resort) to private
transferees, and it was held that such acquisition was fraud on
the power where the land acquired ostensibly for public use got
diverted to private beneficiaries. It has been held that in
exercise of the power of eminent domain, the State can
compulsorily acquire land of private persons, but this
proposition cannot be overstressed to legitimize a patently
illegal and fraudulent exercise undertaken by depriving the
landowners of their constitutional right to property with a view
to favour private persons. Paragraphs 36 to 39 of the said
judgment are extracted hereunder:-
"36. The next question which merits
examination is whether the High Court was
justified in directing restoration of land to
Respondent 1. In Behroze Ramyar Batha v.
Land Acquisition Officer [Behroze Ramyar
Batha v. Land Acquisition Officer, (1992) 1
Kant LJ 589 : ILR 1991 Kant 3556] , the
Division Bench of the High Court
categorically held that the exercise
undertaken for the acquisition of land was
vitiated due to fraud. The Division Bench was
also of the view that the acquisition cannot
be valid in part and invalid in other parts, but
- 55 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
did not nullify all the transfers on the
premise that other writ petitions and a writ
appeal involving challenge to the acquisition
proceedings were pending. In Annaiah v.
State of Karnataka [Annaiah v. State of
Karnataka, WPs (C) Nos. 19812-16 of 1990
order dated 18-9-1991 (Kant)] the same
Division Bench specifically adverted to the
issue of diversification of purpose and held
that where the landowners are deprived of
their land under the cover of public purpose
and there is diversification of land for a
private purpose, it amounts to fraudulent
exercise of the power of eminent domain.
37. The pleadings and documents filed by the
parties in these cases clearly show that the
Corporation had made a false projection to
the State Government that land was needed
for execution of tourism-related projects. In
the meeting of officers held on 13-1-1987
i.e. after almost four years of the issue of
declaration under Section 6, the Managing
Director of the Corporation candidly admitted
that the Corporation did not have the
requisite finances to pay for the acquisition
of land and that Dayananda Pai, who had
already entered into agreements with some
of the landowners for purchase of land, was
prepared to provide funds subject to certain
conditions including transfer of 12 acres 34
guntas land to him for house building
project. After 8 months, the Corporation
passed a resolution for transfer of over 12
acres land to Dayananda Pai. The
Corporation also transferred two other
parcels of land in favour of Bangalore
International Centre and M/s Universal
Resorts Limited. These transactions reveal
the true design of the officers of the
Corporation, who first succeeded in
persuading the State Government to acquire
a huge chunk of land for a public purpose
and then transferred a major portion of the
acquired land to a private individual and
corporate entities by citing poor financial
- 56 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
health of the Corporation as the cause for
doing so.
38. The courts have repeatedly held that in
exercise of its power of eminent domain, the
State can compulsorily acquire land of the
private persons but this proposition cannot
be overstretched to legitimise a patently
illegal and fraudulent exercise undertaken for
depriving the landowners of their
constitutional right to property with a view to
favour private persons. It needs no emphasis
that if land is to be acquired for a company,
the State Government and the company is
bound to comply with the mandate of the
provisions contained in Part VII of the Act.
Therefore, the Corporation did not have the
jurisdiction to transfer the land acquired for a
public purpose to the companies and thereby
allow them to bypass the provisions of Part
VII. The diversification of the purpose for
which land was acquired under Section 4(1)
read with Section 6 clearly amounted to a
fraud on the power of eminent domain. This
is precisely what the High Court has held in
the judgment under appeal and we do not
find any valid ground to interfere with the
same more so because in Annaiah v. State of
Karnataka [Annaiah v. State of Karnataka,
WPs (C) Nos. 19812-16 of 1990 order dated
18-9-1991 (Kant)] the High Court had
quashed the notifications issued under
Sections 4(1) and 6 in their entirety and that
judgment has become final.
39. The judgment in Om Parkash v. Union of
India [(2010) 4 SCC 17 : (2010) 2 SCC (Civ)
1] on which reliance has been placed by Shri
Naganand is clearly distinguishable. What
has been held in that case is that quashing of
the acquisition proceedings would enure to
the benefit of only those who had
approached the Court within reasonable time
and not to those who remained silent. In this
case, Respondent 1 independently
questioned the acquisition proceedings and
- 57 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
transfer of the acquired land to M/s Universal
Resorts Ltd. In other words, he approached
the High Court for vindication of his right and
succeeded in convincing the Division Bench
that the action taken by the Corporation to
transfer his land to M/s Universal Resorts
Limited was wholly illegal, arbitrary and
unjustified."
34. The public purpose doctrine survives constitutional
th
amendments and remains a test even after 44 Amendment,
while Article 300A requires that in order to become "authority
of law" and in order to become a cause for deprivation of
property of an individual, public purpose continues to frame the
legitimate scope of acquisition, and the manner of
compensating owners. If the acquisition is challenged, it would
be the obligation of the State to prove the public purpose and
adhere to the statutory procedures as prescribed under the
statute. In any acquisition of the land or the property, public
purpose is a constitutional precondition besides compensation.
35. In K.T. PLANTATION ( supra ), it has been held
that public purpose may be scrutinized in the light of
developmental goals, economic sovereignty and broader
welfare considerations as was held in SOORARAM PRATAP
REDDY ( supra ). It would be a colourable exercise of power of
- 58 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
eminent domain if the project is framed for public purpose, but
it is, in substance, for private gain. When the acquisition is not
for genuine public purpose, but it is masked for private gain,
this would be a colourable exercise of the power and fraud on
the statute and Constitution and against Articles 14, 19 and 21
of the Constitution of India.
36. Looking at the facts of the case, we are of the view
that the entire exercise of acquiring the land in question for
IMTMA was vitiated under the constitutional scheme.
37. As no award has been made determining the
compensation for 14 long years from the date of the final
notification, we are of the view that the land acquisition
proceedings have lapsed. The State could not have acquired
the land for the purpose of a private entity which is profitable
venture, as is evident from the financial statements mentioned
above for 4-5 years.
38. We, therefore, allow the writ appeals filed by the
landowners and dismiss the writ appeals filed by the KIADB and
IMTMA and set aside the judgment and order passed by the
learned Single Judge. Consequently writ petitions filed by the
- 59 -
WA No. 4647 of 2013
C/W WA No. 4501 of 2013
WA No. 4504 of 2013
AND 9 OTHERS
land owners are allowed quashing the acquisition notification as
sought in the petitions. No order to costs.
39. In view of disposal of the writ appeals, pending IAs,
if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they
stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
RKA