Karnataka High Court
Shabeerabi vs State Of Karnataka on 9 June, 2011
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
5 THESE PETITIONS AND MISCFN. COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE? COURT MADE THE FOli,l.OW'lNCZ":' ORDER
Provisions of Land Acquisition Act, the Act], a statute of the bygone~er_a, which can play havoc with the lives::._and owners, particularly 2 'coguntry ', it has continued to rule ,.-roost oiir 'country became independent and put the colonial concept of 'erninient the citizens, has weighed eourts and the power of lands in the name of public "merrily, in our country and more _o_ftenl4th.an.n,ot such acquisition of private land being "v.not-necessarily for"'a"public purpose, but in the name of a pfa_.rpose,:_jprivate interest being catered and fed.
2. Acqnivslition of lands initially embarked for a specific .r,.'pui*p4ose;' which is a public purpose and with a definite .' seheine and project, iose their significance and teeth over "a" period ef time, as the acquisition proceedings are 6 sketched eridiessiy and what with "
before courtsi stay orders being; Kg. first appeal and then a second appeaifa Supreme Court etc etc. A eat-.ma3Vri'i<iaVe our country litigation iasts even-generations'together!
3. One poor quidixotioaxzorld of acquisition of private lands' in the purpose is the land owner, _t:hev"i{ate":of compensation in favour of determined or freezes to be on the date of issue of preliminary the state government, which in the present . caseir.'vhai;3pened on 9~10-1997 as per notification iss'ued___Hunder Section 4(1) of the Act. Then »fo'i1owed'~a 'deeI_aration under Section 6 of the Act, which is l"po}{xu1ai"ijf_~v.._k1:?oxX?n as final notification, issued on 30~4- 1999. 'Hi::i"'\2irever, it is not forthcoming as to when the H""'-L"awardsfivere passed, but these writ petitions have been
--.fiier.i.'.ion the premise that awards had been passed beyond ..,.ti§1e period of two years from the date of issue of 7 declaration and that on such premise a gorod a writ petitions had come to be allowed 'sine ' . instance of other land owners wh.ose_A_'1andls.ais_o the very notifications and t1'i_er-eforeiivt these' writ petitions may be a11oWed_.___i: --
4. On behalf of the is placed on the order dated 2.5'-717:2-00 earlier in VVP No 22438 of 7i?ViO(;}_fi._._;:,'.x2\:z*« No 22943"'of 2001 followed by yet anotheVr--...¢a-riier ':24-3~2011 passed in WP No i3i§55_ as many as eight land owners have challenged' notifications. This court, noticing as '-
.. IN'WPs 22438 {$2. 22943 of 2001 _ 3., said lands and several other lands in "ioe.2je~ notified for acquisition for public ' -".'jpiir'pose i.e., construction of a drainage ' Jjiiater purification plant under the National Rivers preservation Scheme by a preliminary notification dated 09.10.1997 and final notifzlsaiion dated 30.04.I999r The petitioners have filed these petitions for qaashing the said notifications in so far as their lands are concerned on the ground that the finai notification was not issued i 9 demonstrate that the declaration tinder Se<:.6 cf the Act is in respect Qfiand-sV;~ 3 not covered by a notification tinder iSec;£;'.1'o}f' A the Act. In my opinion, such acqaasitioyti it _y void--al:>~initio and u)it_l1O»t.I.l_jtilfsditflififl, 'the ' reason being the additional; area »,no A' support of prior Sec.4"=noty'ication"de22.yi;igf. thereby the oiiiners to file'=their_.o-!;jeotioris '' under Sec. 5A ofThu:=.Vone'grourid is sufficient to y aside fllithe final notfication,-. issued "by the-.. ./State Governrrieritin so far" a.;s._the lands of the petitioners are conE:erned..V"»..That apart, a perusal of_..the'=.repo»rt 'lsubmyitted by the respondents to _:the._S*tate Government u/ s. ofthe Act would also demonstrate that the}. réspond'enis_' ,llcJS not taken into cons:-:l.eraIion"'any" one of the objections "filed "the~.p'etitioners to the preliminary ._ '.'?,Otlj7C'£1liOfl.Tli--7;S' clearly demonstrate that there "isfltotal'».non--application of mind by '*- iaacquirinyy authority.
In vieio of the above, in my opinion, Vapetitioners' are entitled to the relief sought in this writ petition. Accordingly, the ~pe_tition is allowed in part in so far as .peti'tioners lands are concerned. The final . "1j:oafi'cation to that extent is set aside.
"Liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed with the acquisition of petitioners land, if they so desire, from the stage the defects are noticed by this Court.
Petitioners are directed to appear before the respondent authorities on 27.3.2001 to receive further instructions in the matter. All the other contentions ofboih the parties are left open. Ordered accordingly. 5:.10
allowed the writ petitions, quashecl notifications of the years f'llM§9'7'« e_ and buts'. unfortunately for the other ~'owl*ne"rs' an§:i~.."yet'y fortunately for the state anLi_ti:.e beneficiary; was only to the extent of the respe_t:Vtiy_e ipetitihoxaetis interest.
5. The present these orders, have appr0a;'ehet1:yI'*thiis eoi;irt'=e1tii'te.'___t§elatedly. In this backgrouriol, on behalf of the respondentsp: lfiayanlfgere mahanagara palike, whichviwpaséljoinetlfajs 'tieshpondent in these petitions on seeking - is that these petitions are belateci hit by delay and laches and are to . be ,diS-t_Il"iSS€k(i*~. in limine. t':'e.A the submission of Sri R Omkumar, learned 'x__AGA that awards in the instant case had been passed it two years from the date of publication of Section 8 oteelaration and though this submission is not "forthcoming in any Counter filed on behalf of the state, it 11 is sought to be buttressed by placing the for the perusal of the court.
7". Sri B K Manjunath, lea.:ne'dl.:l'eot1nsle:l' respondentrnahanagara _ attention to the counter tins submits that while it is true for acquisition was to an extent of View of various writ petitions" h3i§ziI1g beean'vno:§v the available land is only to guntas, but it is now realized" extent of land is good enouglfi-_f(§r: the treatment plant, in View of the ad\f'ane'en1ent"v_in"'"science and technology and the '3"=.._pI'0j.éCt2_'~b€CQH1€éV'V'i'Zi'Lj1€ or feasible even if this extent of and as the land had already been notified forlaeqnisifionltvay back in the year 1997, there is no need for lhiterfefenoe at this stage and therefore these writ V.pxetit.ions should be dismissed.
12
8. In this regard, it is significant to notice the.t the contents of the counter filed on behalf government in VIP No 13404 of 2007, counter is filed by the state go\{eff1ri'1et1t..i the bi' counter, which is relevant, reads es I V l
5. It is submitted Vthatggthe "said _aeqai_sitio:*i proceedings relating to".,Chikkab~udhihal'2: and Bethur villages have bee-n.odropp'ed at 'theinitial stage on the basis. of the vrepo_rt«.Submitted by the beneficiary. The 'benrefikc-iarg.d_onceV again has given the_proposa.l_forxthe 'acquisition of the same lands,-._ which ii.aere"~.no_ti'j'ie'd ' in the final notificationE&d_ated 30. O-4.' 1.999;' fter perusing the rec0rds;"-'a'.._repojr_t submitted to the deputy.' Comr-?1isslio'rier"d stating that the acquisition 'ji%:z"oce'edings""hate to be taken up afresh in".re_speCt,_"of__ the lands notified in the final .noigfic'a.tion,~_.tU.higth has been quashed by this'*- _Hon'b-le ' in W.P. No.18755/2000 _dated"= 14..Q3.2t_>0:'2; W.P. No.33089--90/2001, dated 31;'8.20OI, W.P. NO. 22438/2001, dated "'25;.7.QAO01 W.P. NO. 22043/2001, dated _ 25.27.-12001. Except the said lands, the V riaequisditiofi proceedings in respect of other lands 't£L_n.chg:allenged. As such taking up of the aCq~:tisition proceedings once again is not permitted under law.
Ewhilie it is true that the present Writ petitions are
-»-after a considerable lapse of time and particularly the 13 petition filed in the year 2010 is almost after the declaration, the question is as..to4_:"i1{h:at lcanbed detriment or disadvantage to the;.Jres:tjondent's hi. to entertain these petitions at thislvbellated of if
10. In this regard, snbmisAsi.onv:.oi".Snri learned AGA and Sri 'eounsel for the respondent--palil;e_ is land is now found to be techni.e.allg{stiitable the Vicinity of the existing advantageously located, and interference by this court to exarnine" the tneifits V _the'se petitions. g_ be so'; «butvthe larger question before this court towhether this court should permit such acquisition began in the year 1997 to go on in the year 20:1. l'*'or thereafter when nothing much has taken plane in 'between and the date of passing of the award is not -dbeing placed before the court and is also not ..._s'tipported by any affidavit of the responsible officer and it 14 being not the function of the court to records of the respondent-state, beeaiise:fthe=:o'fiic:i_al's . of the state government and Vgevenr fthe,ir~..eeun.selii:.:;ai*e irresponsible not to place relevant and:"figiI,.1jes Ebeforei» the court, which again is a that has developed in all states interest is being defended before jVv«.'.2t7hiCh is most undesirable strongly, but the question should be allowejilutoy \fiVh:e'11 thuerevis even no record or proof placed";_be_fore "ti.ie__ "that the land owners had been compensated at earliest point of time in letter and spirit" to be" ..precise, if the land owners had been Veoni'pefisate'd_._within immediate Vicinity of passing of the have been within a period of two yela-rs fromuiithe date of issue of the declaration. it * «._W"hile it is quite possible and there is no impediment :
l for the state government to issue fresh notifications for .4 'acquisition in favour of respondent~paiil<:e and if the state ,/ /"l / 2/ A_ technical side. it 15 is so desirous, on examining the technical'~fe'asihiii.ty afresh but not to put up some patchwork' defence for the State before this co1;1i*--':,. A
18. Allowing such acquisition will also result in the statelvlvtheirigqq practice discrimination ableto get out of the acquisition proceedings orders passed by this court:_"in':p;tlie pearliierl and those who either did or have approached belaterllyllbeing on the ground of delay and laches and that the available land being sufficien't in-the of the changed scenario on the 4;.-"_ q'Si;1(:lZ"l"lJEt.TSi.fuE1lLlOI1 results in state indulging in gross discrirniriatifon in the matter of payment of compensation the }.a:hd owners, also, as if the state government and A ti:e_respondent~paiike find some more land is required and Wis} to be notified for acquisition afreshi such persons, 16 though perhaps. figure in the earlier notiili/3::at»ionls llwhilel' will be compensated at the market' y'alue, as on b 7 the date of fresh notification to of the Act, others like the 1i¥etii;ioner~s:vv*i1i i.a-vilesscri' compensation, as the date kiof market value gets pegged doiyrilion 'issue of notification which was in the case in the year l997. A
15. This Itcourt';Vhay'i11§'l*.:.a ujconstitutional duty to ensure that the provisions.of-theyfionstitution, particularly mticle 14 of mandated against the state, all are strictly adheredto by the State Government and
-'V.,,_car.;':rlot;y_..ipermit such' discriminatory act or even such 'posaibivlitiesvcoming into existence only because of belated filing' 'ofthej --piéesent petitions.
ln..-tact if it is found by this court at the earliest point tinie in the year 2001 that the acquisition proceedings hflwere VOlCl ab initio, the entire notification should have 17 been quashed then and there and not II18.I1I1€F. _
17. Be that as it may, thegvacqiiisitiron...' 9 cannot be sustained, whether inV"res'peetrVoi*Vf1rie pjjreslenlts, petitioners' lands or in respe'e.t:"of_ othersV§R%«ho:, perhaps, have not approached' court: an_d_it..can again result in the discrimination against_th.e'rest~of--tl'ie.7~owners who are still left out in tl:ee.'guis.e of aequi'i.sitio.1l1__ifiroceedings.
18. It... petitions are allowed, impugi1ed_ on 9-lO~l997 and 30~4~ 1999 are'--q'uiashetl."'iVn»-- entirety by issue of a writ of certior'ari.
is always open to the state to acquire siieh extent Aland if is available for any public purpose incliidihg for the purpose of setting up of a sewage A V~:lf"treatment plant for the benefit of the citizens of .' Dgavanagere Town in accordance with law. 18
20. Writ petition allowed. Rule made absolute? sdfé §ad§§qfl:'C*