G.BYRAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) The respondent, KIADB, has in its statement of objections contended that the official notification under Section 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.

(3.) 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.