1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MRJUSTICE S N SATYANARAYANA W.A.NO. 2650-58/2010 (KLR) A/W MISC.W 6491/2010 BETWEEN: KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 14/3, R P BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY APPELLANT (By SRI P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV.,) AND: 1. COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE- 560 001. 2 2. FOREST DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, BANGALORE URBAN SOUTH SUB - DIVISION, BANGALORE. 3. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER. BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE. 4. TAHASILDAR, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT. 5. SRI R. SEETHARAM, AGE 67 YEARS, S/0 LATE C. K RAJARATHNAM, RIO 4TH CROSS, 5TH M.C. ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR EXTENSION, BANGALORE - 560 040 6. SRI L. SOMASHEKAR, AGE 66 YEARS, SON OF L. LINGAIAH, R/O NO. 157, 18TH CROSS. 1 l MAIN, MALLESHWARM, BANGALORE - 560 055 7. SMT. MUNITHAF YAMMA, AGE 64 YEARS, W/O MUNIYAPPA 8. SMT. MUNI AKKAYYAMMA, 70 YEARS, W/O POLICE MUNIYAPPA 9. SRI MUNIKRISHNA, 37 YEARS, S/O MUNJYAPPA, 3 10. SRI SUBBAIAH. AGE 62 YEARS, S/O GURAPPA, 11. SRI NARAYASWAMY. AGE 40 YEARS, S/O CHIKKANARASIMHAIAH, 12. SRI RAMAIAH, AGE 52 YEARS, S/O LINGAPPA, 13. SRI KRISHNA, AGE 35 YEARS, Sb MUNIYAMMA, RESPONDENTS NO.7 TO 13 ARE RIO DINNUR VILLAGE, KADUGODI PLANTATION, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS (By SRI M.B. VISHWANATH, AGA.,) (RESPONDENTS 5 TO 13 ARE DELEATED V/O DATED: 17/8/20 10) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 12322/2008 & W.P Nos. 16978 - 85 OF 2008 DATED Ti7öo iv MISC.W. 6491 OF 2010IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 27 READ WITH RULE 39 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT WRIT PROCEDDING RULES, 1977 TO PERMIT THE APPELLANT TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. (o 2O 4 THIS APPEAL ALONG WITH MISC .APPLICATION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, N KUMARJ., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (for short KIADB’) has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge only to the extent of the said order directing KIADB to hand over the land which is in its possession to the Forest department for the purpose of afforestation on the ground that in the said proceedings KJADB was not at all the party and it had not been heard in the matter. 2. One R Seetharam and eight others preferred writ petition Nos. 12322/2008 & 16978-85/2008 before this Court challenging the order dated 29-9-2006 - Annexure-B to the writ petition by which the Special Deputy Commissioner. Bangalore District held that the entire area of 572 acres 6 guntas in Sy.No. 1 of Kadugodi, Bangalore East Taluk, at present, assigned to Kadugodi Samoohika Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha, is the Government land 5 and directed resumption of the said land and consequently, cancelled the entries made in the revenue records such as RTC, etc., in the names of several persons who were put in possession by the Society/Sangha. Aggrieved by such orders, persons who have put in possession by the Sangha have preferred writ petitions before this Court. In the said writ petitions, the learned Single Judge while upholding the impugned order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, held that the entire extent of 700 acres in the said Survey number is a forest land: the said forest land could not have been granted to the Sangha without the permission of the Central Government in view of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and therefore even if such grant is made, it is null and void. While doing so, the learned Single Judge has also observed that if such land is granted to KJADB for industrial development and KIADB had granted the land to allottees, then the said grant in favour of KIADB and the allottees would be null and void and therefore, he directed the KIADB to follow the directions of the Court to handover the land to Forest department for the 6 purpose of afforestation. KIADB was not a party in the said writ petitions. 3. It is well settled that if any adverse order is to be passed against a party, principles of natural justice demand that he should be heard in the matter. In the proceedings filed by some of the petitioners, even if their claim is negatived on some reason, no order could have been passed against the person who is not a party to the proceedings, more so, when the party is a statutory authority. It is in these circumstances, present appeal came to be filed by the KIADB who was not a party before the learned Single Judge. 4. Earlier, the permission was granted by this Court to prosecute the appeal. In these proceedings, it is not necessary to hear the petitioners in the original petitions as their interest is not the subject matter of this appeal. The Government was duly notified and they have not filed any objections. 5. We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties. 7 6. The impugned order is passed against the appellant which is contrary to the principles of natural justice as the appellant has not been heard. The appellant is claiming proprietary rights in respect of the land which is now ordered to be handed over. A valuable right of the property of the authority cannot be taken away except in accordance with law. In these circumstances, that portion of the order of the learned Single Judge directing the KIADB to hand over possession to the forest department is void ab initio and it is hereby set aside. To that extent, the appeal succeeds. 7. Hence, we pass the following order: The appeal is allowed. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order to KIADB to hand over possession of the land in which they are in possession, to the forest department is hereby set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the State and the Forest department to initiate appropriate proceedings if they intend to recover possession of the land from KIADB which would meet the ends ofjustice. No costs. 8 In view of above, the application-MIsc.W.6491/2010 filed for additional documents Is ordered to be filed. Sd! JUDGE Sd! JUDGE *sp