Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2015 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION NOs.18477-18478/2015 (LA-KIADB) C/W WRIT PETITION NOs.18479-18480/2015(LA-KIADB) C/W WRIT PETITION NOs.18473-18474/2015(LA-KIADB) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.18476/2015(LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN
Mr. C.K. RAMPRAKASH, SON OF KRISHNAIAH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT No.14/3, MARKET SCHOOL DODDABALLAPUR, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN : 561203
Mr. JAVAHARLAL JAIN SON OF CHAMPALAL JAIN AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT No.249, GANDHINAGAR, DODDABALLAPUR, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN : 561203.
... PETITIONERS IN W.P.NOs.18477-478/2015
(BY SRI Y.R.SADASIVA REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI R.SRINIVASAGOWDA, ADVOCATE)
BETWEEN
Mr. SURESH KUMAR JAIN
@ SURESH JAIN SON OF CHAMPALAL JAIN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
Mr. SANDEEP SON OF SURESH KUMAR JAIN AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT No.249, GANDHINAGAR, DODDABALLAPUR,
BENGALURU – 561 203
... PETITIONERS IN W.P.NOs. 18479-480/2015
(BY SRI Y.R.SADASIVA REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI R.SRINIVASAGOWDA, ADVOCATE)
BETWEEN:
Mr.D.NANJE GOWDA,
S/O DODDANANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
Mr.D.BACHE GOWDA,
S/O DODDANANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT ADINARAYANA HOSAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR
TALUK-561 203.
... PETITIONERS IN W.P.NOs.18473-74/2015
(BY SRI Y.R.SADASIVA REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
BETWEEN
Mrs. KESAR DEVI WIFE OF LATE. CHANDANMAL AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
Mr. GOUTHAM CHAND SON OF LATE CHANDANMAL AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
Mr. KISHOR CHAND SON OF LATE. CHANDANMAL AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
Mr. VINOD KUMAR SON OF LATE CHANDANMAL AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
Mr. DHANPAT RAJ SON OF LATE CHANDANMAL AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
Mr. DILIP KUMAR SON OF LATE CHANDANMAL AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NOs. 17,18, & 19, M B T STREET NAGARTHPET CROSS, BENGALURU - 560002. ... PETITIONERS
IN W.P.No.18476/2015
(BY SRI Y.R.SADASIVA REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI R.SRINIVASAGOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND :
STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KHANIJA BHAVAN, 5TH & 6TH FLOOR RACE COURSE ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU - 560001. ... COMMON RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.K.VIDYAVATHI, AGA FOR R1 SRI B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
W.P.NOs.18477-478/2015 ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 14.06.2013 AND DECLARATION DATED 30.01.2015 ISSUED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURES-C & E IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LANDS ARE CONCERNED AND ETC.,
W.P.NOs.18479-480/2015 ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 14.06.2013 AND DECLARATION DTD.30.01.2015 ISSUED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURES-G & N IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LANDS ARE CONCERNED AND ETC.,
W.P.NOS.18473-474/2015 ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 14.06.2013 AND DECLARATION DATED 30.01.2015 ISSUED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURES D & J IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LANDS ARE CONCERNED AND ETC.,
W.P.No.18476/2015 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED.14.06.2013 AND DECLARATION DTD.30.01.2015 ISSUED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURES-C & F IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LANDS ARE CONCERNED AND ETC.,
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Since common questions of fact and that of law arise for decision making, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, petitions are clubbed together, heard finally and disposed of by this order.
In W.P. Nos.18477-18478/2015, land measuring 1 Acre 13 guntas in Sy. No.60 and land measuring 1 Acre 14 Guntas in Sy. No.49/2 of Adinarayana Hosahalli village, Doddaballapur Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, as at Sl. Nos.55 and 33 respectively of the final declaration dated 30.01.2015, Annexure ‘E’, are said to be owned and possessed by the 1st petitioner. The land measuring 36 Guntas in Sy. No.60 in the very same village as at Sl.No.55 is claimed to be the absolute property of the 2nd petitioner.
In W.P. Nos.18479-480/2015, lands measuring: 3 Acres 26 Guntas in Sy. No.51/1; 2 Acres 12
Guntas in Sy. No.54/1; 3 Acres in Sy. No.55 and 01 Acre 13 Guntas in Sy. No.57/2 of Adinarayana Hosahalli village, Doddaballapur Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, as at Sl. Nos.35, 43, 46 and 52 respectively of the final declaration dated 30.01.2015, Annexure ‘N’, are claimed to be the absolute properties of the 1st petitioner while land measuring 20 guntas in Sy. No.48/2 and 20 guntas in Sy. No.48/3 in the very same village as at Sl. Nos.29 and 30 of the said final declaration are claimed to be the properties belonging to the 2nd petitioner.
In W.P. Nos.18473 and 18474 of 2015, land measuring 36 guntas in Sy. No.53/1 and 32 guntas in Sy. No.54/4 of Adinarayana Hosahalli village, Doddaballapur Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, as at Sl. Nos.39 and 45 of the final declaration dated 30.01.2015, Annexure ‘J’, are claimed to be the properties of the 1st petitioner and land measuring 36 guntas in Sy. No.53/1 in the very same village as at Sl. No.39 of the said final declaration is claimed to be the property belonging to the 2nd petitioner.
In W.P No.18476/2015, 3 Acres 13 guntas in Sy. No.53/5 of Adinarayana Hosahalli village, Doddaballapur Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, as at Sl. No.42 in the final declaration dated 30.01.2015, Annexure ‘F’ is claimed to belong to the petitioners.
The common grievance of the petitioners is that though several objections relevant for consideration by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for passing an order under Section 28(3) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short ‘Act’) were advanced in the statement of objections pursuant to the notice issued under sub-section(2) of Section 28 of the said Act, nevertheless, Special Land Acquisition Officer by the common order dated 15.03.2014 in a single sentence, rejected the objections without even pointing out as to what are the objections and recording reasons and findings to reject the same. In the circumstances, it cannot but be said that there is denial of justice. It is elsewhere said that recording of reasons is a part of fair procedure. Reasons are harbinger between the mind of maker of the
decision in the controversy and the decision or conclusion arrived at. They substitute subjectivity with objectivity and therefore, failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reference may be made to the decision in Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works –v- Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore and another1.
Yet again, in Commissioner Of Police, Bombay –v- Gordhandas Bhanji2, Apex Court observed thus:- “We are clear that public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.”
1 (2005) 2 SCC 329 2 AIR (39) 1952 SC 16
This was the view that was followed in yet another decision of the Apex Court in M/s. Woolcombers Of India Ltd –v- Woolcombers Workers’ Union And Another3 and in State of Orissa Vs. Dhaniram Luhar4, it was observed by the Apex Court that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless.
In the absence of assigning reasons, the order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer exercising jurisdiction vested in him under sub-section (3) of Section 28 of the Act suffers from denial of justice to the petitioners calling for interference.
Petitions are allowed in part. The order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer under sub-section (3) of Section 28 of the Act dated 15.03.2014 and 12.05.2014 in so far as it relates to petitioners is quashed. Sequentially, final declaration dated 30.01.2015 issued under Section
3 AIR 1973 SC 2758 4 AIR 2004 SC 1794
28(4) of the Act in so far as it relates to petitioners is quashed.
Petitioners are directed to be present before the 2nd respondent - Special Land Acquisition Officer on 21.12.2015 at 3.00 p.m. for an enquiry without further notice.
Sd/- JUDGE
sma