Karnataka High Court
Kurubara Pichhappanavara Lingappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 January, 2012
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
Bench: S. Abdul Nazeer
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 4Th! DAY OF JANUARY, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER
WRIT PETITION Nos.64364 to 64377/2010.
64380 to 64385/2010, 64387 to 64409/20 10,
64412 to 64429/20 10, 6443 1/2010 AND 64434 to
64441/2010 AND MISC. W. Nos.62144/2010 &
60360/2011 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
Sri. Kurubara Pichhappanavara Lingappa
S/o. late Sri Linganna Alias Lingappa
Aged about 85 years
2. Smt. Bheernakka
W/o. Kurubara Pichhappanavara Lingappa
Aged about 80 years
3. Sri. Palleda Doddabasappa
S/o. Sri. Doddappa
Aged about 75 years
4. Smt. Khaja Bani
W/o. late Sri. Chintakunta Tippu Sab
Aged about 75 years
2
5. Smt. GokTamrna
W/o. Sri. Nettakallappa
Aged about 60 years
6. Sri. N. Venkateshwara Reddy
S/o. Sri. N. Pichhi Reddv
Aged about 33 years
7. Sri. Sunkanna
W/o. Sri. Lakshmappa
Aged about 40 years
8. Sri. Murali Madava Sharma
Sb. late Sri.M. Subramanyarn
Aged about 61 years
9. Smt. M. Indira
W/o. Sri. Krishnaswamy
Aged about 46 years
Petitioners No.1 to 9 are farmers and
R/o. Siriwara Village, Moka Hobli
Bellary Taluk & District
10. Smt.LalBi
W/o. late Sri. Khajanna
Aged about 65 years
11. Smt. Hanumanthamma
W/o. late Sri. Ramaswamy
Aged about 66 years
12. Sri. Lakshmana
Sb. Sri. Doddabalappa
Aged about 60 years
3
13. Sri, Govindappa
S/o. late Sri. Karadi Hussainappa
Aged about 66 years
14. Smt. Huligemma
W/o. Sri. Govindappa
Aged about 60 years
15. Sri. Karurappa
© Dooda Karurappa
S/o. Sri. Chagappa
aged about 55 years
16. Sri. Bhogappa
Sb. Sri. G. Nagappa
Aged about 50 years
17. Srnt. Chowdamma
W/o. late Sri. Eranna
Aged about 60 years
18. Sri. Sridhara Chari
Sb. Sri. Srishyalappa
Aged about 50 years
19. Sri. Gowranna
Sb. Sri. Mallanna
Aged about 35 years
20. Smt. Parvathamma
W/o. late Sri. Sharanaiah Swamy
Since dead by L.Rs.
a) Sharanaiah Swamy
h) Yerri Swamy
c) Veeraiah Swarny
4
All are majors
R/a. Chaganur Village
Bellary District
21. Smt. Lingamma
W/o. Sri. Honnurappa
Aged about 40 years
22. Sri. Gouse Mohiddin Sab
S/o. Sri. Khaseern Sab
Aged about 55 years
23. Smt. Narayanarnma
W/o. Sri. Yalpi Rudrappa
Aged about 58 years
24. Smt. Eramma
W/o. Sri. Honnurappa
Aged about 40 years
25. Smt. Nagamma
W/o. Sri.Vonenur Honnurappa
Aged about 42 years
26. Sri. Kallaiah
Sb. late Sri. Nemakallappa
Aged about 68 years
27. Smt. Lakshmamma
W/o. Sri. Basappa
Aged about 45 rea1s
28. Smt. Dugyamma
W/o. late Sri. Bugulu Hanumaiah
Aged about 60 ears
5
29. Sri. Thippaiah
S/ o. late Sri. Dodda Hanumanthappa
Aged about 60 years
30. Sri. Dugyappa
Sb. late Sri. Bugulu Hanumaiah
Aged about 42 years
31. Srnt. Sunkamma
W/o. Sri. Yalpi Nagappa
Aged about 50 years
32. Smt. Sakinabi
W/o. Sri. Saddiq Au
Aged about 33 years
33. Kumari C. Sindhu
D/o. late Sri.C. Sridhara Reddy
Aged about 20 years
34. Sri. C. Bhaskara Reddy
S/o. late Sri. Shankara Reddy
Aged about 55 years
35. Sri.C. Ravishankara Reddy
Sb. Sri. C. Bhaskara Reddy
Aged about 25 years
36. Srnt. Vijayalakshmi
W/o. late Sri.Sridhara Reddy
Aged about 41 years
37. Sri. C. Raghava Reddy
Sb. late Sri. Shankara Reddv
Aged about 68 years
6
38. Sri. C. Shesha Reddy
S/o. late Sri. Shankara Reddv
Aged about 60 years
39. Srnt. Yellamma
W/o. late Sri. Lakshmana
Aged about 78 years
40. Sri. Adinarayana
S/o. late Sri. Lakshrnana
Aged about 35 years
41. Sri. Pulakutti Lingappa
Sb. Sri. Hanurnanthappa
Aged about 70 years
42. Sri. Dugyappa
Sb. late Sri. Bugulu Honnurappa
Aged about 60 years
43. Sri. Veerashekarachari
S/o. late Sri. Rudrappa
Aged about 68 years
44. Sri. Eeranna
Sb. late Sri. Talavaru Narayanappa
Aged about 65 years
45. Srnt. Eeramma
W/o. Sri. Eeranna
Aged about 60 years
46. Smt. Lakshmamma
W/o. late Sri. Obuleshi
Aged about 55 years
7
47. Sri. Vasantha Kumar
Sb. late Sri. Lakshmana
Aged about 33 years
48. Sri. Basavaraju
Sb. late Sri. Doddabasappa
Aged about 40 years
49. Sri. K. Agalurappa
S/o. late Sri. Doddahasappa
Aged about 42 years
50. Sri. Sheik Sab
Sb. Sri. Peer Sab
Aged about 42 years
51. Smt. Rukrnanarnrna
W/o. Sri. C. Krishna Reddy
Aged about 60 years
52. Smt. Yellamma
W/o. Sri. Hosagerappa
Aged about 55 years
53. Sri. Anjaneya
S! Havalgi Honnurappa
Aged about 55 years
54. Sri. H. Rarnanjineyulu
S/o. Havalgi Honnurappa
Aged about 57 years
55. Kumari Aluvelamma
D/o. Havalgi Honnurappa
Aged about 59 years
8
56. Smt. Karnalamma
W/o. Sri. Anjaneya
Aged about 53 years
57. Smt. Maryamrna
W/o. late Sri. Sanna Thimmappa
Aged about 60 years
58. Sri. Giriyappa
Sb. Sri. Badmi Hanurnanthappa. S
Aged about 65 years
59. Srui. B. Amarnath
SI Sri. Giriyappa
Aged about 25 years
60. Sri. B. Vishwanath
S / o. Sri. Giriyappa
Aged about 30 years
61. Sri. G. Devendrappa
5/ Sri. G. Nagappa
Aged about 55 years
62. Sri. Srinivasa
Sb. late Sri. Sanna Basappa
Aged about 33 years
63. Sri. K. Jambu Lingappa
Sb. Sri. Basappa
Aged about 35 years
64. Smt. Bhuvaneswari
W/o. Sri. K. Jambu Lingappa
Aged about 33 years
9
65. Sri. B. Shivashankara
Sb. Sri. K. Doddahasappa
Aged about 33 years
66. Sri. K. Anandappa
S/o. late Sri. Parameshwarappa
Aged about 53 years
67. Srnt. Lakshmidevi
W/o. Sri. K. Dyavanna
Aged about 60 years
68. Sri. K. Kumarswamy
SI Sri. Konchigerappa
Aged about 28 years
69. Sri. K. Dyavanna
Sb. late Sri. Parameshwarappa
Aged about 65 years
70. Sri. K. Govardhana
Sb. late Sri. Shivarudrappa
Aged about 22 years
Petitioner Nos. 10 to 70 are the farmers and
Rio. Chaganuru village.
Moka Hobli
Bellary Taluk and District .. PETITIONERS
(COMMON)
(By Sri. V.M Lakshmipathi. and
Sri. C. Mallikarjuna Reddy, Advs.)
10
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
Rep. By the Chief Secretary
Vidhana Soudha
Dr. Arnbedkar Veedhi
Bangalore 560 001
-
2. The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board
No.14/3, 2nd Floor
Nrupathunga Road
Bangalore 560 001
-
Rep. By its Chief Executive Member
3. The Land Acquisition Officer
The Karnataka Industrial Area Development
Board, Dharwar
4. The Deputy Commissioner
Bellary District. Bellary 583 101
5. Under Secretary to the Government
Industries and Commerce Department
M.S. Building
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi
Bangalore 560 001
-
6. The Principal Secretary
Infrastructure Development Department
Vikas Soudha
Dr. Amb;edkar Veedhi
Bangalore 560 001
-
11
7. The Airports Authority of India
Rep. By its Chairman
Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan
Safdarjung Air Port
New Delhi 110 003
--
8. The Ministry of Aviation
Government of India
Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan
Safdarjung Air Port
New Delhi 110 003 .... RESPONDENTS
(COMMON)
(By Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, Advocate General.
and Smt. K. Vidyavati, AGA for R- 1, 4, 5, and 6
Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Counsel
For Sri. Mahesh Wodeyar, Adv. for R-2 and R-3
Sri. A.T. Savanur, Adv. for R-7 and R-8
Sri. Mruthyunjay Tata Bangi, CGSC, for R-7 and R8)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to
quash
notification at Annexure-K dated 23.5.2009 and etc.
Misc. W. No.62144/2011 is filed under section 151
of
CPC for vacating stay, etc.
Misc. W. No.60360/2011 is filed under article 226 of
the Constitution of India praying for vacating interim
order
of stay. etc.
These Writ Petitions & Misc.Ws. having been hear
d
and reserved for Orders, this day the Court pronounc
ed the
following:
12
ORDER
In these cases, the petitioners have called in question the validity of the notification at Annexure-K dated 23.3.2009 issued under Sections 3(1) and 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act. 1966 (for short The Act') and a final not 'kation at Annexure-N dated 30.1.2010 issued under Section 28(4) of the Act and also another notification at Annexure-O dated 23.1.2010 issued under section 28(1) of the Act.
2. The petitioners contend that they are the owners of different extent of lands at Chaganuru and Siriwara villages of Bellary District, morefully described in paragraph 7 of the writ petitions. Chaganuru and Siriwara villages are the riparian villages situated on the left bank of the river Vedavathi (Hagari). The lands situated in the villages of Chaganuru and Siriwara and Thagginabudihalu are the irrigated lands under the Thunga Bhadra Project. Earlier to that, the lands in these villages were irrigated from the 13 waters of the Vedavathi River. The petitioners are the poor farmers belonging to Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe and other backward classes, The lands of the petitioners are being acquired for the establishment of green field airport. Bellarv district has already a civilian airport at cantonment. Apart from the said airport, there is an air-strip belonging to Jindal Steels which is situated at about a distance of 25 kms. from Bellary City. It is further contended that a private low budget airline was operating its weekly flights from Bellarv to Bangalore and Goa. In view of the low occupancy and lack of adequate passengers on the flights. Deccan Air ways stopped its operation. It is only a mining lobby at Bellarv District, occasionally using the airports for the helicopters. The lands situated in Chaganuru, Siriwara and Thagginabudhihalu villages are being irrigated under the right bank high level canal of Thungabhadra project under dry-curn-wet (SCW) Scheme. In addition to this, there flows a natural stream of water through the lands of Chaganuru village from a vast basin running about 6 kms. in length and 14 about 2½ acres width, popularly known as Chagalamma Flalla. wherein the rain water collects and flows to which the agriculturists have built a barrage (check dam) wherefrom the water is drawn through canals to irrigate the lands on either side for cultivation purposes. The farmers of the said villages grow cereals and pulses like maize, jowar, ragi, toor, Bengal Gram, green gram, cotton, sun flower, ground nuts, oil seeds, vegetables and so on. Paddy is grown in about 2.000 acres of land in the three villages. High quality of rice is produced in these lands.
3. It is further contended that as the clamour for a green field airport grew at the instance of the mining barons on 2.2.2009, the Thasildar, with his team of officials like Revenue Inspector. village accountant and survey officials and the like, commenced to conduct survey of the lands in Chaganur and Siriwara villages. The petitioners and the other farmers reported the matter to the jurisdictional police about the unauthorised act of the Revenue Authorities. The 'ii 15 jurisdictional police refused to receive the complaint. Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 have obtained a feasibility study report from respondent No.7 to suit their convenience as per Annexure-G on 27.1.2009. The farmers of Chaganuru and Siriwara village started their protest against the proposed acquisition of lands by observing 100 hours hunger-strike at Chaganur village. On 14.2.2009, the farmers protested the proposed acquisition of lands by rolling on the road by themselves for about 2 kms. on Moka-Bellary Road. On 15.2.2009, the farmers staged a protest stop driving vehicles movement' on National highway No.63 at Godehal Cross. The Tahsildar. with police force rushed to the spot and ordered lathi charge and police firing on the farmers to prevent the protest of the farmers. The prohibitory orders were also imposed in the said villages. The police misusing their powers, ill treated the villagers including women and children. The police assaulted and arrested 11 farmers including the women. The cases were registered under Section 307 of IPC. On 2.3.2009, the Chairman of the 16 Human Rights Commission (Karnataka State) visited the place of incident and also the lands proposed for acquisition at Siriwara and Chaganur villages and observed that the nation is facing food problem. The airport should not be constructed on the fertile irrigated lands at the time of food crisis. The Human Rights Commission registered a case against the State for the incidents occurred on 15.02.2009 and a report was called from the Chief Secretary of the State of Karnataka, the 1t respondent herein. The Chief Secretary appears to have sent an irrelevant and unsatisfactory report to the Honb1e Commission. On 11.3.2009, the farmers again protested the acquisition of lands by carting the bullock carts. Despite the above protests, the State Government has issued a notification dated 23.5.2009 under Sections 3(1) and 28(1) of the Act declaring that 1213.26 acres of lands in Chaganur, Siriwara and Thagginabudihal villages are the industrial areas. In the notification, the lands were deliberately shown as dry lands. The special Land Acquisition Officer. the 3rd respondent herein issued a 17 show cause notice to the owners of the lands in question. On 19.8.2009, the land owners filed a common statement of objections as per Annexure-L. The 3rd respondent without considering the objections of the petitioners passed an arbitrary order as per Annexure-M on 10.11.2009 to acquire the lands. Consequently, about 632.45 acres for the fertile irrigated lands in Chaganuru and Siriwara village are acquired as per the notification at Annexure-N dated 30.1.2010. Yet another notification as per Annexure-O dated 23.1.2010 was published on 30.1.2010 in Karnataka Gazette under Sections 3(1) and 28(1) of the Act notifSjing 260.28 acres of lands for acquisition and the show case notices have also been issued to the land owners. Similar objections have been filed to the said notices. That is why the petitioners have filed these writ petitions for the aforementioned reliefs.
4. Respondent Nos. 1, 4 to 6 have filed their written statements coraending that initially four places at Bellary 18 were identified for development of the airport. The officials of the Airport Authority of India having inspected all the four locations found the present location as the most feasible and convenient location for establishing the airport at Bellarv. The decision to develop an airport was taken only after examining the report of the Deputy Commissioner wherein it has been pointed out that there is rapid increase in the major industries in Bellary district and the same is resulted in increased number of employment to the unemployed persons. 95% of the farmers have agreed to part with their lands on receiving the compensation. As per vision 2020 programme announced by the Government of Karnataka, atleast 7.2 lakhs of employment in sectors other than agriculture has to be created annually. It is also mandated that atleast 3.2 lakh persons dependent on agriculture should move out of agriculture annually, so that the dependence on agriculture for labour is reduced from the present level of 61% to 35%. The high level committee headed by the Hon'ble Chief Minister approved steel projects 19 so that the steel production from the mining area of Bellary gets enhanced from 34 million tons from the present level of about 7 million tons. This would bring in substantial investment into the State through big companies. It will also produce value added products from the iron ore in that area. The State Government has already decided to develop a sophisticated Industrial park. VlJayanagar Area Development Authority has already been constituted In that direction. The State Government having noticed huge tourism potential In Bellanj region as well as the inclination shown by huge industrialists to establish huge Industry like steel industry etc and noticing that such a step would help the development of the district including boosting tourism, the State has decided to develop an airport. Bellaiy being a backward region, taking Into consideration the overall situation particularly In the direction of development of the region both through industrial development and tourism development of the airport. It would help to a greater extent in the said direction. They have denied the allegation made 20 by the petitioners that the development of an airport at the instance of mining lobby is imaginary. The object of developing an airport is to ensure overall development of the district including increase in the employment potentiality to boost the tourism in region. The extent of land acquired is keeping in view the future demand and for the purpose of extension of an airport at a later date. The State Government after examining all the aspects, particularly the merits and demerits of developing an airport in a backward region like Bellary, and in the light of tourism and the employment potentiality, taken a decision to develop an airport. Developing the airport and process adopted is strictly transparent procedure where there is no room for any illegality. The development of airport is in the larger interest.
5. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have also filed their statement of objections contending that the Bellary city is situated adjacent to the world heritage Centre, Hampi and 21 many industries have been established within the vicinity of Bellarv. Respondent No.7 after holding an enquiry has identified the land situated between Sanganakal-Moka road to be more suitable for development of aerodrome. Chaganur, T.Budihal and Siriwar villages come within the area identified by the expert committee. Respondent Nos.2 an 3 have issued the impugned notification under Section 3(1) of the Act followed by another notification under Section 28(1) of the Act intending to acquire an extent of 251.53 acres of land situated at Siriwar village, to an extent of 947.57 acres situated at Chagnur village and to an extent of 14.16 acres situate at Teggin Budihala village, totally to the extent of 1,213.26 acres. After the issuance of the said notifications, notices have been issued to the Khathedars and Anubhavadars as provided under Section 28(2) of the Act. In response to the said notices, several persons, including the petitioners filed their objections. The petitioners appeared before the authorities concerned. They were heard individually. The petitioners failed to produce the documents 22 and failed to establish the reasons to drop the acquisition proceedings. Respondent No.3 after holding an enquiry and after considering the objections filed by several persons including the petitioners has passed an order dated 10.11.2009 under Section 28(3) of the Act and rejected the objections for the reasons stated in the said order and ordered for acquisition of the lands. Thereafter, a final notification under Section 28(4) has been issued. They have issued yet another preliminary notification dated 23.1.2010 intending to acquire to the extent of 260.28 acres of land at Siriwar and Chaganur villages. After complying all the mandatory provisions of the Act, an order under Section 28(3) came to be passed. A final notification has been issued on 7.6.20 10 under Section 28(4) of the Act as per Annexure R6. The order referred to above have been passed after holding a full fledged enquiry. They have denied that the lands belonging to the petitioners are the irrigated lands. They have sought for dismissal of the writ petitions. 'F 23
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
7. Learned Cousnel for the petitioners would contend that the lands In question are the Irrigated lands. However, In the acquisition notification, the respondents have fraudulently shown them as dry lands. He further contends that the petitioners have filed the detailed objections to the notices Issued by the Land Acquisition Officer as per Annexure-L dated 19.8.2009. In the objections, the petitioners have raised specific contentions that the lands in question proposed to be acquired for the airport are most fertile lands. Annually 2 to 3 crops like paddy, cereals and pulses like maize, jowar, ragi, toor, Bengal Gram, green gram, cotton, sun flower, ground nuts, oil seeds, variety of vegetables are grown In these lands. The petitioners have assigned cogent reasons for dropping the acquisition proceedings. However, the Land Acquisition Officer has not considered the objections and proceeded to pass a cryptic order. Learned Cousnel for the petitioner has taken me 'a 24 through the provisions of the Karnataka Command Areas Development Act. 1980. and submits that the lands in question fall within the command area. He has also taken me through several decisions of this Court and also the Apex Court in support of his contentions that the Land Acquisition Officer ought to have considered their objections and passed an order as provided under Section 28(3) of the Act before issuance of declaration under Section 28(4) of the Act. It is further submitted that as per the feasibility report, only 600 acres of land would be needed for the proposed airport but the notified land is 1213.26 acres, which is unnecessary.
8. On the other hand, learned Advocate General appearing for respondent NOs. 1, 4 to 6 submits that the lands in questions are the dry lands and not the irrigated lands as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The total lands notified for acquisition under two preliminary notifications is 1,457 acres and the final notification ha been issued in respect of 897.73 acres. The 25 additional land is required for future development. The Land Acquisition Officer has passed an order after considering the objections. The lands have been acquired in public interest keeping in view overall development of backward area like Bellarv district and to generate employment. Many industries are being set up at Bellary District, Bellary is also a tourism center. Therefore, an airport is essential to cater the needs of the tourists as also the industrialists and other needy persons.
9. Learned Counsel appearing for the Board has made similar submissions. He submits that the intention of Section 10 of the Command Area Development Act is only to protect irrigated lands and to develop the agricultural land. The lands in question are neither irrigated nor developed agricultural lands. Therefore, the said Act is not applicable to the facts of these cases. He has also taken me through the records maintained by the Land Acquisition Officer and prays for dismissal of the writ petitions. 26
10. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned Cousnel for the parties made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record.
11. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are the owners of the lands in question. It is also not in dispute that for the notice Issued under Section 28(2) of the Act, they have filed their objection as per Annexure-L within the prescribed period. They have participated in the enquiry proceedings before the land acquisition officer. Objections at Annexure-C shows that the petitioners have opposed the acquisition of the lands on various grounds. There is a specific contention that the lands in question are agricultural lands. Having regard to the Command Area Development Act, the said lands cannot be acquired. It is evident that Land Acquisition Officer has not considered the objections ified by the petitioners.
27
12. Sub-section (2) of Section 28 of the Act provides for Issuance of notice after Issuing the prellmlnaiy notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the said Act. It also permits the land owners to file their objections to the notice Issued under Section 28(2) of the Act. Sub-section (3) of the Section 28 states that after considering the cause, If any, 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 order as it deems fit. Therefore, the owner of the land has to be given an opportunity to state his objection to the acquisition. It is enjoined on the authority concerned to discuss the objections In his report and state his reason for over ruling them. An enquiry under this provision has two fold purpose. It Is intended to Instruct the mind of the Government to decide whether any particular land Is Indeed for a public purpose. Consequently. it Is also meant to act as a safeguard against any ifi-Informed action on the part of the Government. Since, It Is left to the 28 satisfaction of the Government to decide whether any particular land is indeed for a public purpose. the law has provided the safeguard for an enquiry, so that there may be proper and adequate material for the Government to arrive at a satisfaction. The enquiry also enables the persons interested to show how the acquisition of land in question will serve the public purpose stipulated or that there was no public purpose at all involved in the matter. The fact that ultimate decision has to be made by the State Government does not relieve the competent authority from his statutory duty to enquire into the objection and make the recommendation.
13. In THE BARIUM CHEMICALS LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. A.J.RANA AND OTHERS - AIR 1972 SC 591, the Apex Court was considering the meaning of the word consider'. It has been held thus:
29
The words 'considers it necessary' postulate that the authority concerned has thought over the matter deliberately and with care and it has been found necessary as a result of such thinking to pass the order. The dictionary meaning of the word 'consider' is 'to view attentively, to survey, examine, inspect (arch), to look attentively, to contemplate mentally to think over, meditate on, give heed to. take note of. to think deliberately bethink oneself, to reflect' (vide Shorter Oxford Dictionary). According to Words and Phrases -- Permanent Edn: Vol.8-A to 'consider' means to think with care. It is also mentioned that to 'consider' is to fix the mind upon with a view to careful examination; to ponder; study; meditate upon, think or reflect with care. It is therefore, manifest that careful thinking or due application of the mind regarding the necessity to obtain and examine the documents in question in since qua non for the making of the order. If the impugned order were to show that there has been no careful thinking or proper application of the mind as to the necessity of obtaining and examining the documents 30 specified in the order. the essential requisite to the making of the order would be held to he non-existent.
14. This Court in the case of D. HEMACHANDRA SAGAR AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS - 1999 (1) KU 510 was considering the case relating to consideration of objections by the Bangalore Development Authority under Section 17(5) of the Act. It has been held as under:
"A statutory Authority like BDA evolves its own procedure to consider the representations filed by the owners in respect of the proposed acquisition. There is no hard and fast rule that the Authority itself should consider each of the representations before making appropriate orders. However, it is settled that the consideration of the representation by any Authority should be in the manner recognised by law. Consideration of representation' postulates that the Authority concerned has thought over the matter by applying its mind to the relevant portion of the 31 representations and may make its recommendation assigning reasons for such recommendation. Mere extracting the nature of objections and his remarks without assigning reasons is no consideration at alL"
15. The Apex Court in the case of HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD., Vs. DARIUS SHAPUR CHENAI AND OTHERS - 2005 (7 SCC 627. was considering the scope of Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, which is in pan materia with Section 28(3) of the Act. It has been held as under:
"The Land Acquisition Act is an expropriatory legislation. In such a case the provisions of the statute should be strictly construed as it deprives a person of his land without consent. Section 5A of the Act confers a valuable and important right in favour of a person whose lands are sought to be acquired and having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300-A of the Constitution it has been 32 held to be akin to a fundamental right. The State in exercise of its power of "eminent domain" may interfere with the right of property of a person by acquiring the same but the same must be for a public purpose and reasonable compensation therefor must he paid".
It has been further held that as under:
"The conclusiveness contained in Section 6 of the Act indisputably is attached to a need as also the purpose and in this regard ordinarily, the jurisdiction of the Court is limited but it is equally true that when an opportunity of being heard has expressly been conferred by a statute, the same must scrupulously be complied with. For the said purpose, Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act must be read conjointly. The Court in a case, where there has been total non-compliance or substantial non-compliance of the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act cannot fold its hands and refuse to grant a relief to the writ petitioner. Section 6(3) of the Act renders a declaration to be a conclusive evidence. But when the decision making process 33 itself is in question. the power of judicial review can be exercised by the Court in the event the order impugned suffers from well-known principles, viz., illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. Moreover, when a statutory authority exercises such enormous power, it must be done in a fair and reasonable manner."
16. In MALLEGOWDA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS (ILR 2010 KAR 4930?. this Court has observed that the Board has to examine as to whether it is necessary to keep acquiring fertile agricultural lands in the name of development and for the so called special economic zone' at the cost of losing valuable agricultural lands which can definitely contribute to the depletion of the food grain production and in turn may result in a possible disaster to the society as without food no one can live and a development without adequate food and 34 nutrition is no development. It is for the State Government to bestow its attention in such areas.
17. In a recent decision in the case of RAGHBIR SINGH SEHRAWAT VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS - Civil Appeal Nos.10080 to 10081/2011 disposed of on 23.11.2011, the Apex Court was considering the validity of the notifications issued by the Government of Haryana for acquisition of lands for the development of Industrial Sector 38, Sonepat. It has been held as under:
"26. Before concluding, we deem it necessary to observe that in recent past, various State Governments and their functionaries have adopted very casual approach in dealing with matters relating to the acquisition of land in general and rural areas in particular and in a large number of cases, the notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) with or without the aid of Section 17 and the consequential actions have been nullified by the Courts on the ground 35 of violation of the mandatory procedure and the rules of natural justice. The disposal of cases filed by the landowners and others take some time and the resultant delay has great adverse impact on implementation of the projects of public importance. Of course, the delay in deciding such cases may not be of much significance when the State and its agencies want to confer benefit upon private parties by acquiring land in the name of public purpose. It if difficult, if not impossible, to appreciate as to why the State and its instrumentalities resort to massive acquisition of land and that too without complying with the mandate of the statute. As noted by the National Commission of Farmers. the acquisition of agricultural land in the name of planned development or industrial growth would seriously affect the availability of food in future. After independence, the administrative apparatus of the State has not spent enough investment in the rural areas and those who have been doing agriculture have not been educated and empowered to adopt alternative sources of livelihood. If land of such persons is acquired, not only the current but the future 36 generations are ruined and this is one of the reasons why the farmers who are deprived of their holdings commit suicide. It also appears that the concerned authorities are totally unmindful of the plight of those sections of the society, who are deprived of their only asset like small house, small industrial unit, etc. They do riot realise that having one's own house is a lifetime dream of majority of population of this country. Economically affluent class of society can easily afford to have one or more houses at any place of locality in the country but other sections of the society find it extremely difficult to purchase land and construct house. Majority of people spend their lifetime savings for building a small house so that their families may be able to live with a semblance of dignity. Therefore, it is wholly unjust, arbitrary and unreasonable to deprive such persons of their houses by way of the acquisition of land in the name of development of infrastructure of industrialisation. Similarly. some people set up small industrial unit after seeking permission from the competent authority. They do so with the hope of generating additional income for 37 their family. If the land on wh ich small units are established Is acquired, the ir hopes are shattered. Therefore, before acquiring private land, the State and/or Its agencies/Instrumentalities sh ould, as far as possible, use land belonging to the State for the specified public purposes. if the acquisition of private land becomes absolut ely necessary, then too, the concerned authorit ies must strictly comply with the relevant sta tutory provisions and the rules of natural justic e."
18. ComIng to the facts of the present case, the petitioners have filed detailed objections to the notice issued under Section 28(2) of the Ac t. The Land Acquisition Offic er without considering the sai d objections has rejected the same stating that the lands are being acquired in the publi c interest and that the petit ioners have not produced any documents in support of the ir contentions. I am of the vie w that the Land Acquisition Officer ought to have conside red the objections and passed suitable orders. Therefore, the order at Annexure-M in so far as the petitioners' lands are 1 38 concerned is hereby quashed. Consequently, the final notification at Annexure-N dated 30.1.2010 In so far as the petitioner's lands Is concerned Is also quashed. The Land Acquisition Officer is directed to reconsider the objection s filed by the petitioners at Annexure-L keeping in mind the principles laid down In the decisions referred to above and pass appropriate orders thereon after granting the petitioners an opportunity of being heard. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.
20. In view of disposal of the writ petitions as above. MIsc.W.Nos.62l44/2010 And 60360/2011 do not survive for consideration. They are accordingly dismissed. No costs .
Sd/° JUDGE Cs/BMM/