Karnataka High Court
Smt Lakkamma W/O Late Munithimmaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 June, 2011
Author: Manjula Chellur
Bench: Manjula Chellur
THESE WRIT RETITIONS ARE FILED IINDER 226 AND 227 OF THE) CONSTITUTION OF _ QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DA'rE-D: 02:36'. I99.g_f WHICH WAS PUBLISHED IN OAzETTEDATED_.'3;'e'.«--I§R9"IIsEDE.D BY THE RESPONDENT NOs.I <31 2 As RERI.ANN-EXI;RE7§"Tu\ID«
FINAL NO'I"£FICATION BEARING NO. 6:3_5" _SI>Q EENOALLIRII DTD 2.6.2009, As PER'v-ANNEXLTREJG NOTICES DTD 45.2009 BEARIN_{}..NO. LAQ -SR '-.45'{..1]'/T1398-99"I AND LAQ SR 46(2) OF' I998~99'*-IN REsI>EeT"OR LANDS IN SURVEY NO. IO/IA MEAs.URIN.Or2«.AERE_s 07 GIINTAS AND IN RESPECT OF SURVEY N'LI_I\}II3I:R 1;}/2" ~IIIEAEI_IRINO I ACRE 12- 1/2 GUNTAS OF MAINAVAIflT{fEiE§I3IVAJ,?'UfIfI'}<\;5AIeIAJ4L1 HOELI, BENGALURU SOUTH TAL-UK Ara P1EII.'_ANI~IEX:;IREs -- K 8: L AND DROP THE SAME ¥AcQLIIEITION'._"-- ..
THESE;.\VRI;'I' PETITIONS EEING HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDE7Rs,_.."'=_ ""C<?;MII§I'jc,..A"'ON:, RRONOUNOEMENT OF ORDERS I_vIANJULA__ OHELLUR J., MADE THE PetifiOIIe1"s._1fV 'the legal representatives Of one late ,NIl1'f1iUfiII1'IvI1Eti::ih,'ff-Claim to be the Owners Of property 1'(V)'/"1'AL'Of Uttarahalli Manavarthe Kaval and prgtifiefiey one Of the children of TN. Ramaiah, owner Of .a_IDOrtiDII':--§II'::Iand bearing Sy.NO_ 11 situated at Uttarahalli ' Manfavarihe Kaval.
: 2. The petitioners have sought for quashing Of '""p§I*e1iminaI*y and final notifications dated 2.6.1999 gazetted on 3.651999 and 2.6.2009 gazetted on AnneXures~ F' and G and notices dated AnneXures»K & L respectively and have' for exclusion of the lands from acquisitiion (froth. ViI3'...(:l?L':jS't?€jl;':'1'l.. area). _'
3. Petitioners arefheforeppeth:isvCourt second round of litigation. They had earlier seeking quashing of the year 1999 and the same Writ Appeal No. 1093/2005. These writ petitions are _ it notification in the year 2o09.:_ :' . =., Main_lchailer1'ged"of the petitioners is, in View of the ..,iAadop'tecl---r.Apolicy olf"t'h'eV Government not to acquire garden 'Fri. x'_ ,'.'§' grown trees, the lands in question ought acquired as these two lands bearing Sy.
Nos; and ll,' 2 were shown partly as garden land in the 'vzjevelnue records, The lands are situated far away from "proposed Bangal0re~l\«'lysore infrastructure Corridor it Hl'ro_§ect {hereinafter referred to as 'Bl\!ilCP'} road and therefore, they are not at ali required fer the road; ' in question is situated in the rnids.t~of_the_'residential _area.:_V it the respondents have failed to the' Vested in them and without ascertaining all the and 2 L' earlier acquisition proeeedings,____h'ave*proceeded to Fpass the final notification; even tliei"diAfi'ere2jr1eel'in nieasurernents in respect of the land bearinglSy.No. Ll /lfiyis'*njo--t"aseertained; no necessary sai{ict1{:inlV'.va*s talienf' .and" -th'ere is nothing on record to s1i1:ov¢{_i§;fhyll'itliellandoi" tlzelllpetitioners is required when no iroad'~Vpas"se_s_ti1rou_gh theszsime. S3. Appajrentl3'I' only «V4131 respondent has filed statement of objections bringi'ng~_on._ree.ord details of earlier litigation in respect of vaeqiiisition filed by several land owners, zbinterest litigation challenging the very approval of proljectll'anCi.ls1ibsequent events why excess land was needed for e'rnbankrner1t and ramp, which necessitated issuance of fresh aelqnisition notifications.
6': We have gone through the relevant material relied rnpeniby the parties.
7. As could be ascertained from the stand the petitioners, 43' respondent antifizhe f,i:he parties, Bangalore-Mysere lnfrastrnei:*_irel Cerrieterr iitnjeetg known as 'BMICP' has come .i_n'Ln existence 5u.nde_r"'fi'ame'-V work agreement dated 3.4. l§97_ __le'nte1*egd intohetween the 4:"
respondent and the GoVeinn'i.en:t Kernataka. The BMIC Project consists__ of A hf way between Bangalore anti 4l_ .(ii"';jie:*ipheral road around the periphery link road linking down vi't<5WnAx"j;Ban§;aloreg&V'*-to "the'" Express way, ramps, intereh'a_nge_s, ' be hreegcieeiiljéindh other infrastructure facilities including llfivie tovsn3_,ship:s«.._eLll along the Expressway between Bangalcsre and-.MVys°ore.' This i%ei'3I.__p:'oject was challenged by one retired ' Qfihief of FWD ~-- Mr. Somashekara Reddy in W.P.No. /V'l'8;--§3?'.lfllltimately, this Court upheld the frame work agreernentes legal and Valid by dismissing the writ petition .. byliits etcler dated 21.9.1998 which attained the finality in ' --.,Si;P..i'Ge. 1423/1999 before the Apex Court by orders dated 26.3.1999.
9. Several Challenges came to be madetoll't1i¥§\:.,.t.é1§l.:iT' . acquisition by individual land owners contending. t'h.at_th,e aequisitien of land fer the intention, etc., connected matters.
10. The learned np'hield_the aeauisition of land for the roatl the townships component 'tehallenged by the 4th respondent'; the Division Bench and the appeals challenging that portionz'-.d)f:t.he lot Single Judge which held that the uacquisitiqnl7,ef"~--l'and for the road component is proper". » 121: During«th.e.pendency of the above said appeals, a 'Ceinmit_tee:'aeame to be constituted called as Review HCeihnxnitteefanagivsubsequently re~narned as Expert Committee to '.4enqi1ire' into the allegations. Two public interest litigatiens came to be filed, one by the All India Vx» X ., l fliiarinfaeturers' Organisation (AIMO) in W.P.Ne. 45334»/2004 "-and another by One Mr. Dakshina Murthy in W.P.Ne. in we .»Nos.28953428955/:;fi)Q3 :;afie_:V 48981/2004 challenging the constitution of Committee. Another writ petition also <:am'e'~to:'~be"~Vfiled W.P.No.45386/2004 by one public interest litigation seeking enqtJi.:*;§{. into"; l.theV.g allegations of irregularities in the:zBMlCl3f' Committee also submitted its repo'lr':..A_0n sirnilanlines with its interim report given on earlie.rlc»ccasi'olrl.in
12. So far as Writ-.petition._ filed &l§y."AlMO, they had sought for a_Vd_iiree?tio:1;_the _p_lrojve'ct"work be completed in its original lforrn 1'3'.""1%CCVQI'dluI'lL:g"tO"'J{he. respovndents, the direction sought to implement the 'conceived originally' related only to the efforts made erstwhile State Government to redujgev the qulanturn of land to be provided for BMICP and . thereby' put. end to the project. All these were discussed lli~nl"l--._the" judgment including the purpose of eoristittitioirof the Expert Committee. In the said judgment. the__ Exnert Committee itself was quashed and its report "wherein a specific finding of excess land was set aside '*i-iiltimately the project was held as a valid project for the er".
public purpose. This was confirmed by the Court in its judgment dated 20.4.2006.
14. In View of the rnagnitud_e..of_the _p'rojeett,. plarilfiting "
work has to commence with the prepar'atii'on'iia_ndjleireuitatioii of myriad maps and listed o-fa survey V§'hich._* necessitated certain changes p.rojvect,lVlfthe same was placed before this interest litigation filed by Mr. J .C. the petition, the constitution_ its consequential action were question of Validity of alignniilentplof roadmas contained in O1)? is no longer res has been upheld.
15. The=final notification dated 8.4.2003 in respect of 2 aeires_l"35 gulntaSV____()fvland in Sy.No. 10/ 1A and 9 acres 4 ' gur1.tas.V_o11t«.eot'v 10 acres 4 guntas of land in Sy.No. 11 was ll iiever by any of the land owners and the land is used 'thelsperipheral road and respective land owners have revce_iVevdl the compensation except for a small extent of land lllvghere no claim has been made before the Special Land ' Acquisition Officer.
, 10 l6. During the construction of peripherai' U.M.Kaval Village, the need arose for fora. putting up embankment along the the said area was a valley and it required a support. by} of a huge embankment. The State Goyernriient,l:'when the project proponent approaehedll for additiponal issued a fresh preliminary notification
17. Mr. R, Annadanappa._4'»;_ 6"'; petitioner is entitled only to an in as per the original suit in mutation entries are changed arid' already_ received the compensation of Rs.i,2o,.ooo_/4. .
18, So W.P.25126/2009, the entire 2 acres 7 . lligiintasilof land inV"Sy.lNo.lO/ 1A is already handed over by respondent and the same is utilised for the con.struoti:o"ri, of embankment and partly for construction of ' ramp." The photographs are placed on record vide AnneXure-- \V'i"'~w§J"i'°*«i" A' ll 19, Apparently so far as W.P.No.25l27/ is concerned, the (SW petitioner » Sri R. Vh_:f14sfi received the compensation in respect of a pori;ior1..of=the_lan'd ., pp which has been allotted to his shareiipeze '1 property. In that View of the Vrnatter,__ writ _--pe*tit1on.:\nee:i._VV not be Considered and the sarneeteserveslto' he 'dislniéS'eel.
20. So far as is eonoerned, the documents produced by indicate there are two notitieatioris tlrei"i'1gi:id_'_heering Sy.No.lO is concerned the 4.1" respondent, it is Clearleie' fael;oi'tione;l"'létnd came to be acquired. This iéineitzers _ VV petition filed by one Mr. Munithimrtiztiah, Vearlierfirnd the present writ petitioners. Howxéver,' the faet rernains, a peripheral road came in so far ~ as the Iai1d'aeqnired earlier and so far as the additional land, it had to'he--.aeqVuired for putting up an ernbankrnent because of efristenee of a huge Valley and it required support by Way ot"..-embankment. The documents placed on record
-Woultl indicate that subsequent to the preliminary and: final VA Wniotifications, the land in question is already made use of for 12 putting up a ramp and a huge erribankment. in View of the fact that the Compensation of the land is aiready paiiiF3.nci the land is being used for the project, the loft dropping of acquisition proceedings would not.'e_'irisei.A_0.It is not the ease of the petitioners that so as 'the«_ea*ri~ie.r'litigation in WA. 1093/2006, there was stay inj»'Vi1i\'fo'ur of present petitioners. Therefore';«r,.V::éi's the ttiigieistion is already used for the prnzject,the"oriIir"recoiirse"ojfien to the petitioners is to seek by bringing on record thejmziteriai of fruit bearing trees, ete., on V :§wu§ these obsfifiafions, VVIKNo25126/2009 is disposei:1o_f2009 is dismissed.
Sdfw Eefigs Sfif Eeégs