Karnataka High Court
Mr.Prakash vs The Secretary To Government, on 10 October, 2017
Bench: L.Narayana Swamy, H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF OCTOBER 2017
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H. B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY
WRIT APPEAL No.100600 of 2017
AND WRIT APPEAL Nos.100608-100616 OF 2017(LA-RES)
BETWEEN
1. MR.PRAKASH MAHADEV KOUJALAGI
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. POST HUNSHYAL P.G.,
TALUK GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. MR.CHARANTAYYA GANGAYYA MATHAD,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. POST HUNSHYAL P.G,
TALUK GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. MR.SHINVANGOUDA NINGAPPA PATIL,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. POST HUNSHYAL P.G.,
TALUK GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
4. MR.MAHANTAYYA PATRAYYA CHARANTIMATH,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. POST MASAGUPPI,
TALUK GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
5. MR.CHANDRASEKAR RAMASIDDAPPA KARGI,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. POST MIDAKANATTI,
TALUK GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
6. MR.MAHESH CHANDRAKANT BOREGAON,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. POST MELAVANKI,
2
TALUK GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
7. MR.SATTEPPA RAMAPPA TIGADI,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. POST MASAGUPPI,
TALUK GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
8. MR.SAMIULLA SAHEB PASHA KHAZI,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. POST HULIKATTI,
TALUK GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
9. MR.BHIMAPPA VITHAL SAYANNAVAR,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. POST KEMMANKOL,
TALUK GOKAK DIST: BELAGAVI.
10. MR.BASAVARAJ SHIDDAPPA KARIHOLI,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NAGNUR TALUK GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
... APPELLANTS
(By Sri PRASHANT F GOUDAR, ADV.)
AND
1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE &
INDUSTRIAL, GOVERNMENT OF KARNTAKA,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
ZONAL OFFICE, ARAVINDA BHAVAN, 14/3,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD, PLOT NO.33-A,
LAKKAMANHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD-580004.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Smt H.R. AMARAVATHY, HCGP FOR R1,
3
SRI. G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADV. FOR R2 AND R3.)
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S.4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE
COURT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
DATED:08.08.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP.NO.103174/2016 AND
WP.NOs.103200-103204/2016 AND W.P.NOS.103205-
103208/2016 (LA-RES) AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITIONS, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, L.NARAYANA SWAMY J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These writ appeals are filed by the appellants seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 08.08.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge WP.No.103174/2016 and WP.Nos.103200-103204/2016 and W.P.Nos.103205- 103208/2016.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the owners of the lands in question which are situated at Beeranholi village, Hukkeri taluk, Belagavi district are eking their livelihood out of the income from the said lands. On 01.01.2010, respondent No.1 issued a notification bearing No.CI 561 SPQ 2009, Bengaluru, under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 4 1966(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), giving notice to the appellants and other land owners of its intention to acquire the land in an extent of 732 acres and 25 guntas situated at Beeranholi village of Hukkeri taluk, Belagavi district for the purpose of an Industrial Corridor Project. Pursuant to the notification, respondent No.3 has issued a notice under Section 28(2) of the Act, to the appellants and other owners of the land to show cause within thirty days as to why their lands should not be acquired. The appellants filed objections requesting the respondents to drop the proceedings. Counsel further submits that though the respondents had intention to acquire the land, have not taken steps to issue any further notification under Section 28(4) of the Act and therefore the prescribed period of completing the process of acquisition is deemed to have been lapsed as per the provisions of Section 24(2)of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and the notification issued under Section 28(1) and the notice issued under Section 24(2) deserve to be quashed. Thereafter, the 5 appellants preferred Writ Petition No.103174 of 2016 seeking to quash the notification dated 01.01.2010. The learned Single Judge by order dated 08.08.2017 disposed of the writ petitions directing respondent No.2 to take swift action to complete the acquisition proceedings. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have preferred these appeals. He further submits that respondent No.2-Executive Officer of the Board filed an affidavit stating that they are going to issue a fresh notification as required under Section 28 of the Act.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the objections to the notification under Section 28(2) of the Act were considered and rejected. Hence, these appeals have to be rejected by confirming the order of the learned Single Judge.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the order of the learned Single Judge.
5. If the Government proposes to acquire the land, a notification has to be issued under the relevant Act and objections have to be called for. After consideration of the 6 objections made by the land owners, the Government has to take appropriate steps for issuance of final notification without any delay. Though respondent No.2 submits that objections have been considered and rejected, no notification under sub-section(4) of Section 28 of the Act has been issued and communicated to the petitioners and for what purpose it is not communicated is not known. It is seen that the Government, except issuing notification, has not made further progress in the matter. The subject matter in the writ petitions was whether the notification issued under Section 28(2) of the Act would remain in force for a considerable period of time. It is hereby held that when a notification is issued under Section 28(2) of the Act and when there is no condition or limitation prescribed for its implementation, then it is the reasonable period which comes into picture. It also depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Section 25 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, reads as follows:
25. Period within which an award shall be made.- The Collector shall make an award 7 within a period of twelve months from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 19 and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse:
6. The acquisition in the instant case is of the year 2010. For better understanding of the word "reasonable" or "reasonableness of period" we have borrowed the above provision.
7. In the instant case, though notification under Section 28(2) of the Act was issued on 01.01.2010, till now no progress is made by issuing a notification under Section 28(4) of the Act. Hence, it is to be held that the same is beyond reasonable period and hence gets lapsed on its own. While disposing of the writ petition, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to respondent No.2 to take swift action to complete the acquisition proceedings by sending the proposal within three months from that day positively without fail; and on such report or proposal by respondent No.2 the Government shall swiftly act upon and complete the acquisition proceedings within three months thereafter, is contrary to the provisions of the Act. The directions to be 8 issued have to be in accordance with the letter and spirit of the provisions of the relevant Act. In the instant case, notification under Section 28(4) of the Act has not been issued within a reasonable period and therefore notification under Section 28(1) of the Act is deemed to have lapsed.
8. Under this circumstance, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Single Judge has to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.
Accordingly, the writ appeals are allowed. The notification issued under section 28(1) of the Act dated 01.01.2010 in No.CI 561 SPQ 2009, Bengaluru, is held to have lapsed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE kmv