Karnataka High Court
Shri Ganapati vs State Of Karnataka on 6 January, 2023
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
W.P.No.112223/2017
C/W
W.P. No.28661/2016 (GM-KIADB)
IN W.P. NO.112223/2017
BETWEEN:
1. GANAPATHI
S/O. PUNDALIK KHOT
AGE: 39 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE & TEACHER
R/O. YEDRAVI, TQ. RAIBAG
DISTRICT- BELAGAVI
2. UMESH
S/O. PUNDALIK KHOT
AGE: 36 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. YEDRAVI, TQ: RAIBAG
DISTRICT-BELAGAVI
3. PRAVEEN
S/O. PUNDALIK KHOT
AGE: 32 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. YEDRAVI, TQ: RAIBAG
DISTRICT-BELAGAVI
2
4. PRAMOD S/O PUNDALIK KHOT
AGE:26 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O YEDRAVI, TQ. RAIBAG
DIST. BELAGAVI.
5. RAMU SATYAPPA GODDALE
AGE:75 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O SAUNDATTIWADI, POST:SAUNDATTI
TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
(WITHDRAWN THE WRIT PETITION VIDE
V/C/O DATED 24.10.2019)
6. SHANKAR SATYAPPA GODDALE
AGE:72 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O SAUNDATTIWADI, POST:SAUNDATTI
TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
(WITHDRAWN THE WRIT PETITION VIDE
V/C/O DATED 10.10.2019)
7. NAGAPPA SATYAPPA GODDALE
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
7A. SMT. KAMALA W/O NAGAPPA GODDALE
AGE 72 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK.
R/O WARD NO.6, RAIBAG, TQ: RAIBAG
DIST: BELAGAVI.
7B. SMT. SUJATA W/O AMRTUTHESHWAR HIREKODI
AGE 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK.
R/O WARD NO.6, RAIBAG, TQ: RAIBAG
DIST: BELAGAVI.
7C. SMT. SANGEETA W/O SHIVANAND PATIL
AGE 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK.
R/O WARD NO.6, RAIBAG, TQ: RAIBAG
DIST: BELAGAVI.
7D. SRI KIRAN S/O NAGAPPA GODDALE
AGE 39 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE
R/O WARD NO.6, RAIBAG,
TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
8. APPASAB @APPAJI S/O TATYASAB PATIL
AGE:70 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
(DEAD BY HIS LR'S)
8A. SHANAKKA W/O APPAJI PATIL
3
AGE:73 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O # 1149, SAVNDATTIWADI,
SAUNDATTI, TQ. RAIBAG,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591213.
8B. SHRI GANAPATI @ GANAPATRAO
S/O APPASAB @ APPAJI PATIL
AGE:50 YEARS, OCC. KOOLI
R/O ANKALI-591213. TQ. CHIKKODI,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
9. ADIVEPPA S/O BABU BANE
AGE:70 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O SAUNDATTIWADI, POST:SAUNDATTI
TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 213.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI ANAND ASHTEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
UNDER SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AND INDUSTRIES, M.S.BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI
BENGALOORU-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB)
NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB)
PLOT NO.33/A, LAKAMANAHALLI
INDUSTRIAL AREA, P.B. ROAD
DHARWAD-580 004.
4. M/S SHIVA SHAKTI SUGARS
SAUNDATTI, REP. BY ITS CHIEF
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
SAUNDATTI, TQ.RAIBAG
DIST. BELAGAVI.
4
5. THE CHAIRMAN
M /S SHIVA SHAKTI SUAGARS
SAUNDATTI, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST.
BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1;
SRI K. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI SHASHANK S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3;
SRI GAUTAM BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SHIVARAJ C. BELLAKKI, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5)
***
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO:
A. DECLARE THAT SECTIONS 28(1) TO 28(4), 28(5),
28(6) , 28(7) AND SECTIONS 29 AND 30 OF KIAD ACT, 1966 ARE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEY ARE LIABLE TO BE STRUCK
DOWN, IN THE INTERST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
B. ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DATED 10.10.1983 VIDE
ANNEXURE-E ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
C. IN CONSEQUENCE OF GRANTING PRAYER (A) & (B)
ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DATED 29.09.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-C
ISSUED UNDER SECTION 28(1) OF THE KIAD ACT, 1966 AND
QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATE DATED 29.07.2016 VIDE
ANNEXURE-D ISSUED UNDER SECTION 28(1) OF KIAD ACT, 1966
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, SO FAR IT RELATES TO THE
LANDS OF THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
5
IN W.P. NO.28661 OF 2016 (GM- KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI GANAPATI S/O PUNDALIK KHOT
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE &
LTEACHER, R/O YEDRAVI,
TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI 591317.
2. SHRI UMESH S/O PUNDALIK KHOT
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O YEDRAVI, TQ: RAIBAG
DIST: BELAGAVI. 591317.
3. SHRI PRAVEEN S/O PUNDALIK KHOT
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O YEDRAVI, TQ: RAIBAG
DIST: BELAGAVI. 591317.
4. SHRI PRAMOD S/O PUNDALIK KHONT
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O YEDRAVI, TQ: RAIBAG
DIST: BELAGAVI. 591317.
5. SHRI RAMU SATYAPPA GODDALE
AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTLKURE
R/O SAUNDATTIWADI, POST: SAUDATTI,
TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. PIN: 591213
(WITHDRAWN THE WRIT PETITION
V/C/O DATED 24.10.2019)
6. SHRI LAXMAN SATYAPPA GODDALE
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S.
6A. SMT. KASHEVVA W/O LAXMAN GODDALE
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE
R/O SAUNDATTIWADI, POST: SAUNDATTI
TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-599213.
7. SHRI SHANKAR SATYAPPA GODDALE
AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O SAUNDATTIWADI, POST:SAUNDATTI,
TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-591213.
8. SHRI NAGAPPA SATYAPPA GODDALE
SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY
HIS LR'S.
6
8A. SMT. KAMALA W/O NAGAPPA GODDALE
AGE 72 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK.
R/O WARD NO.6, RAIBAG, TQ: RAIBAG
DIST: BELAGAVI.
8B. SMT. SUJATA W/O AMRTUTHESHWAR HIREKODI
AGE 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK.
R/O WARD NO.6, RAIBAG, TQ: RAIBAG
DIST: BELAGAVI.
8C. SMT. SANGEETA W/O SHIVANAND PATIL
AGE 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK.
R/O WARD NO.6, RAIBAG, TQ: RAIBAG
DIST: BELAGAVI.
8D. SRI KIRAN S/O NAGAPPA GODDALE
AGE 39 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE
R/O WARD NO.6, RAIBAG,
TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
9. SHRI APASAB @ APPAJI S/O TATYASAB PATIL
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S.
9A. SHANAKKA W/O APPAJI PATIL
AGE:73 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O # 1149, SAVNDATTIWADI,
SAUNDATTI, TQ. RAIBAG,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591213.
9B. SHRI GANAPATI @ GANAPATRAO
S/O APPASAB @ APPAJI PATIL
AGE:50 YEARS, OCC. KOOLI
R/O ANKALI-591213. TQ. CHIKKODI,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
10. ADIVEPPA S/O BABU BANE
AGE:70 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O SAUNDATTIWADI, POST:SAUNDATTI
TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591213.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI ANAND ASHTEKAR, ADVOCATE)
7
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
PLOT NO.33/A, LAKAMANAHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA
P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD-580004.
3. M/S SHIVASHAKTI SUGARS LTD
SOUDATTI, TQ: RAIBAG, BELAGAVI DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICER.
4. THE CHAIRMAN
M/S SHIVASHAKTI SUGARS LTD.,
SAUDATTI, TQ: RAIBAG,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT.
5. THE COMMISSIONER FOR CANE DEVELOPMENT
AND DIRECTOR OF SUGARS, CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BENGALURU.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 & R5;
SHRI K. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SHRI SHASHANK S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SHRI GAUTAM BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI SHIVARAJ C. BELLAKKI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4;
P5 & P10- DISMISSED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO:
A. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT,
OTHER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE NOTIFICATION DATED
29.09.2015 PASSED U/SEC.3(1) OF THE KIAD ACT ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.1 PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-A IN SO
FAR AS PETITIONERS ONLY.
8
B. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE NOTIFICATION DATED
20.09.2015 PASSED U/SEC. 1(3) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.1 PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-B IN SO FAR AS
PETITIONERS ONLY.
C. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE NOTIFICATION DATED
29.09.2015 PASSED U/SEC.28(1) OF THE KIAD ACT, 1966
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C
IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ONLY.
D. ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT
ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE NOTIFICATION DATED
29.07.2016 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 28(4) OF KIAD ACT, 1966
BY RESPONDENT NO.1 PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-K, IN THE
INTERST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
W.P.Nos.112223-112231/2017 are filed seeking for a declaration that Sections 28, 29 and 30 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1966 Act' for brevity) are unconstitutional. The consequential prayer in these writ 9 petitions is to quash the notifications issued under Section 28(1) and (4) of the 1966 Act.
2. W.P. Nos.28861-28670/2016 are filed seeking for quashing of the notifications issued under Sections 3(1) & 1(3) and the notifications issued under Sections 28(1), 28(4) of the 1966 Act.
3. As far as the prayer for declaring that Sections 28, 29 and 30 of the 1966 Act are invalid, that question has been decided in Writ Appeal No.1105/2019 and connected matters by the Division Bench and it is held by the Division Bench that the provisions of the Act are not repugnant to the 2013 Act and have not been impliedly repealed on the commencement of 2013 Act.
4. In view of this decision, the first prayer in W.P.Nos.112223-112231/2017 would have to be rejected.
5. Facts of the case:
On 29.09.2015, a notification under Section 1(3) of the 1966 Act was issued by which Chapter 7 of the 1966 Act was brought into force into the area specified therein. 10
On the same day, a notification under Section 3(1) of the 1966 Act was also issued declaring that the area notified therein was to be an industrial area.
Further, on the same day, the State Government issued a notification stating that the lands required therein were needed for the purposes of the expansion of the Sugar plant capacity of M/s Shivashakti Sugar Limited from 3000 TCB to 7500 TCB and the cogeneration plant from 12 Megawatts to 45 Megawatts and an ethanol plant from 30 KLPD to 60 KLPD.
Notices were also issued to the landowners, such as the petitioners, under Section 28(2) of the 1966 Act calling upon them to show cause as to why the lands should not be acquired.
The landowners, including the petitioners, filed objections on 27.11.2015 and the date of the hearing was fixed as 11.01.2016.
On 11.01.2016, additional objections were filed by the petitioners and by an order dated 24.02.2016, the 11 authorized officer rejected the request of the petitioners for dropping the acquisition.
On 12.05.2016, W.P.Nos.28661-28670/2016 were filed challenging the notifications and the petitioners therein were granted an interim order on 20.09.2016 restraining their dispossession.
Thereafter, on 7.09.2016 notices were issued to the landowners to deliver possession.
On 25.11.2016, the Committee formed for determination of compensation determined the
compensation that could be offered for the landowners at Rs.9,00,000/- per acre and this was approved by the Board on 19.12.2016.
6. Subsequently, on 13.12.2017, W.P.Nos.112223-112231/2017 were filed seeking for a declaration that Sections 28, 29 and 30 of the 1966 Act were unconstitutional.
7. Contentions of the petitioners:
12
It is the case of the petitioners that the sugar factory had already been established and the expansion plan had also been carried out in the lands which were handover by the consenting landowners and there was thus no need for acquisition of the lands.
It is their contention that as a matter of fact, land in excess of the requirements of the sugar factory was sought to be acquired and this was a gross misuse of power. The petitioners seek to highlight the fact that the expanded plant was already running and there was absolutely no need for the land of the petitioners to be acquired. It is also contended that there is no approval from the Government for this acquisition of land as a part of the expansion and therefore, the acquisition cannot be sustained.
8. Contentions of the respondents:
Learned Senior counsel appearing for the Board, Sri Shashi Kiran Shetty, on the other hand, submitted that there was absolutely no merit in any of the contentions advanced by the petitioners. He submitted that an extent 13 of 29 acres 18 guntas was notified for the expansion of the Sugar Factory and all the land owners except the petitioners herein had acquiesced to the acquisition and the petitioners, who were the owners of the only 3 acres of lands, were litigating. It was contended that this extent of land, according to the plan approved by the Board, was required for setting up a cane yard, which was essential for running of the plant and the challenge to the acquisition should, therefore, be negatived.
9. Learned counsel further submits that the lands had been acquired only after the State High-Level Clearance Committee (SHLCC) had granted approval for the project and as a matter of fact, the Board had not acquired the extent of land for which the approval was granted. Learned Senior counsel, therefore, submitted that the challenge to the acquisition should be repealed.
10. Learned Counsel appearing for the beneficiary, Sri Goutam Bharadwaj, apart from adopting the arguments of the Board also submitted that it was impermissible for a small fraction of landowners to stall 14 the implementation of the project by challenging the acquisition. He submitted that except for the petitioners, all other landowners had given up their lands and it was only the petitioners herein who were holding the entire project for ransom. He, therefore, submitted that the claim of the petitioners to quash the notifications cannot be entertained.
11. Learned counsel placed reliance on the recent decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4678/2021 decided on 11.10.2022 to contend that challenge made by a small fraction of landowners having land less than 10% of the total acquisition should not be entertained.
12. In view of the above-said submissions, the principal question to be considered in this writ petition is whether the petitioner's challenge to the acquisition can be entertained.
13. At the outset, it is to be stated here that out of the 29 acres 18 guntas of land which were declared to be needed by the issuance of the declaration, except for the 15 petitioners, all the other Khatedars had consented for the acquisition and the only challenge remaining to the notifications were by petitioner Nos.1 to 4 (in W.P.Nos.112223-112231/2017), who were the notified Khatedars in respect of 3 acres 36 guntas. In other words, only a minority of the landowners are challenging the acquisition and the majority have acquiesced to the acquisition.
14. It is the contention of the petitioners that the petitioners did report to the office of respondent No.2 for being heard in support of their objections on 11.01.2016, but they were not afforded any opportunity and instead negotiations were sought to be held with them about the purchase value.
15. Respondent No.2 has produced the order dated 18.02.2016 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 28(3) of the 1966 Act. The said order indicates that the petitioners had appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and they had reiterated the objections that they had filed. The said order also records 16 the opinion of the Land Acquisition Officer and the same reads as follows:
"EzÀgÀ C£ÀéAiÀÄ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è M¼ÀUÉÆAqÀ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À ¨sÀƪÀiÁ°ÃPÀjUÉ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ «µÀAiÀÄzÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ CªÀgÀ DPÉëÃ¥ÀuÉUÀ¼ÉãÁzÀgÀÆ EzÀÝ°è, CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃnøÀÄ ªÀÄÄnÖzÀ 30 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À°è ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆa¹, ªÉÄð£À G¯ÉèÃR 2 gÀr vÀºÀ²Ã®zÁgÀ ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ £ÉÆÃnøÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ 5-11-2015 gÀAzÀÄ eÁåj ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ EzÀPÀÌ£ÀÄUÀÄtªÁV ¤UÀ¢vÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è F PɼÀPÁt¹zÀ DPÉëÃ¥ÀuÁzÁgÀjAzÀ DPÉëÃ¥ÀuÁ CfðUÀ¼ÀÄ ¹éÃPÀÈvÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛªÉ. ¹éÃPÀj¹zÀ DPÉëÃ¥ÀuÁ CfðUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ CªÀÅUÀ½UÉ C£ÀĸÀgÀuÁ ªÀgÀ¢ F PɼÀV£ÀAwzÉ :
PÀæ. DPÉëÃ¥ÀuÉzÁgÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ¸À.£ÀA DPÉëÃ¥ÀuÉAiÀÄ CA±ÀUÀ¼ÄÀ «ZÁgÀuÁ¢üPÁjAiÀÄ ¸ÀA. D©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ 1 2 3 4 5 1 CrªÉ¥Àà ¨Á§Ä ¨Á£É ¸ÀªÀzÀwÛ 177/1C ¥ÉÊ 1-20, C.£ÀA 1 jAzÀ 8 gÀ ªÀgÉV£À PÀ®A 29(2) gÀrAiÀÄ°è 0-32 J DPÉëÃ¥ÀuÉ ¸À°è¹zÀ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ½UÉ AiÉÆÃUÀå 2 C¥Áà¸Á§ vÁvÁå¸Á§ ¸ÀªÀzÀwÛ 177/1C 7-15 J ¨sÀƪÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀ CfðUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ªÀiÁ°Ì ¥Ánî AiÀÄqÁæ« 96/6 0-30 J MAzÉà vÉgÀ£ÁVªÉ. CªÀÅUÀ¼À PÀlÖqÀUÀ½UÉ ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀ 3 ®PÀëöät ¸ÀvÀå¥Àà UÉÆqÁØ¼É ¸ÀªÀzÀwÛ 177/4 0-30 J ¸ÀAQë¥ÀÛ «ªÀgÀ F ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä 4 £ÁUÀ¥Àà ¸ÀvÀå¥Àà UÉÆqÁØ¼É ¸ÀªÀzÀwÛ 177/6 0-30 J PɼÀV£ÀAwzÉ. CªÀPÁ±À«zÉ. G½zÀAvÉ 5 gÁªÀÄÄ ¸ÀvÀå¥Àà UÉÆqÁØ¼É ¸ÀªÀzÀwÛ 177/3 0-30 J F d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨sÀÆgÀ»vÀgÀÄ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À 6 ±ÀAPÀgÀ ¸ÀvÀå¥Àà UÉÆqÁØ¼É ¸ÀªÀzÀwÛ 177/5 0-30 J ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹ vÀªÀÄUÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ C£ÀĸÁgÀ ¸Ë®¨sÀåUÀ¼À£ÀÄß 7 1) C¥Áàf 2) ¨Á§Ä 3) AiÀÄqÁæ« 96/5PÀ 2-39- AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà d«ÄãÀÄ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä CªÀPÁ±À ªÀiÁgÀÄw ¹zÀÝ¥Àà ¥ÀÆeÁj 14.67 J EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. vÀªÀÄäzÀÄ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀjAzÀ 8 1)UÀt¥Àw 2) GªÉÄñÀ AiÀÄqÁæ« 95/1C 3-36 J C«¨sÀPÀÛ ¸ÁªÀÄÆ»PÀ CªÀgÀÄ ¥ÀAiÀiÁðAiÀÄ
3)¥Àæ«Ãt 4) ¥ÀæªÉÆÃzÀ PÀÄlÄA§ªÁVzÉ. PÀȶ ªÀiÁUÀð PÀAqÀÄPÉƼÀî®Ä SÉÆÃvÀ ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ°è CZÀPÁ±À«zÉ.
¨ÉÃgÉ AiÀiÁªÀzÉà GzÉÆåÃUÀ ¨sÀƸÀé¢üãÀPÉÌ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¦¹zÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. PÉ®ªÀÅ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀzÀgÀ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨Á«, ªÀiÁvÀæ ¤ÃgÁªÀj ¸Ë®¨sÀå ¨ÉÆÃgÀªÀ¯ï UÀ½AzÀ ¤ÃgÁªÀj ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÀÛªÉ. DzÀgÉ ¸Ë®¨sÀå ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÀÛªÉ. CªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ GzÉÝòvÀ EzÀgÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ¢AzÀ ¸ÀzÀgÀ PÉÊUÁjPÁ ¥ÀæzÉñÀzÀ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À°è PÀ§Äâ, DAiÀÄPÀnÖ£À°è §gÀĪÀ ¸ÉÆÃAiÀiÁ©£ï, UÉÆâü, PÁgÀt EªÀgÉ®ègÀ UÉÆë£À eÉÆüÀ EvÁå¢ CfðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß «¯ÉPÉÌ ¨É¼ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨É¼ÉAiÀįÁUÀÄwÛzÉ. ºÁQzÉ. 2013 gÀ ºÉƸÀ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ Cfð PÁAiÉÄÝ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¥Àæw±ÀvÀ 80 ¸À°è¹zÀ AiÀÄqÁæ« UÁæªÀÄzÀ QÌAvÀ ºÉaÑ£À ¨sÀƪÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ j.¸À.£ÀA 96/5PÀ £ÉÃzÀÝgÀ M¦àUÉ ¤ÃrzÀ°è ªÀiÁvÀæ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ FUÁUÀ¯Éà d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀPÉÌ PÀA¥À¤AiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ C¼ÀªÀr¸À¨ÉÃPÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀgÀ°è GzÉÆåÃUÀªÀPÁ±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àæw±ÀvÀ 90 gÀµÀÄÖ d£ÀgÀ PÀ°à¹zÀÄÝ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä vÁªÀÅ vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀgÀ vÀ¥ÀÄà w¼ÀĪÀ½PɬÄAzÀ DzÁAiÀÄ¢AzÀ¯Éà vÀªÀÄä vÀPÀgÁgÀ£ÀÄß PÀÄlÄA§ªÀÅ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀÅzÁV FUÀ CªÀ®A©vÀªÁVzÀÄÝ, «µÀAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÀªÀjPÉ G¥ÀfêÀ£ÀzÀ KPÉÊPÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀiÁUÀðªÁVzÉ. FUÁUÀ¯Éà ªÉÆzÀ®Ä ¸À°è¹zÀ PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄÄ C¹ÛvÀézÀ°èzÀÄÝ, vÀPÀgÁgÀ£ÀÄß »AzÀPÉÌ CªÀjUÉ ºÉZÀÄѪÀj d«Ää£À ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÁV CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. PÁgÀt ¢£ÁAPÀ 23.01.2016 vÀªÀÄä d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨sÀƸÀé¢üãÀ¢AzÀ PÉÊ©qÀ®Ä ¤ÃrgÀĪÀgÀÄ. «£ÀAw¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ 17
16. As could be seen from the above, the contentions urged by the petitioners have been considered and having regard to the fact that the petitioners did not dispute the fact that they were present before the 2nd respondent, their argument that they were not heard in support of their objections, cannot be accepted.
17. The second contention advanced by the petitioners is that the lands in possession of the 4th respondent company on whose behalf the notifications had been issued are already in possession of the required extent of land and there was no need for acquiring the lands of the petitioners.
18. It is to be stated here that on 07.11.2007, the Government granted permission to the 4th respondent Factory to purchase 77 acres of land under Section 109 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Further, on 21.04.2012, the Factory was accorded approval to acquire or purchase an additional extent of 75 acres.
Thus, as of 2012, the SHLCC had accorded approval to the Beneficiary-Factory to either purchase the property 18 and also for the acquisition of a total extent of 152 acres. The 4th respondent Factory on the strength of the permission granted under Section 109 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, purchased 61 acres 9 guntas and a further extent of 26 acres 25 guntas was acquired under a declaration dated 31.12.2010. Thus, as against the approval granted for acquiring a total extent of 152 acres, the 4th respondent Factory had purchased 61 acres 7 guntas and 26 acres 25 guntas had been acquired on its behalf by the Board. In other words, 87 acres 32 guntas had been acquired by the 4th respondent-Factory, either by way of purchase or by way of acquisition.
19. By the impugned notification, an extent of 29 acres 10 guntas was declared to be needed. Thus, if 29 acres 10 guntas is also taken into consideration, the total land holding of the 4th respondent Factory would only be 117 acres 02 guntas (i.e., 87 acres 32 guntas + 29 acres 10 guntas).
20. Thus, as against approval accorded to acquire 152 acres, the 4th respondent Factory would be holding 19 only 117 acres 02 guntas including the lands notified under the impugned notifications. In the light of the fact that the approval accorded to the Factory was for 152 acres and the 4th respondent Factory would be in possession of 117 acres 02 guntas, including the lands which are the subject matter of these writ petitions, it is clear that the 4th respondent Factory is not in possession of any excess land.
21. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent Factory has also produced a copy of the Master Plan in respect of the Sugar Factory. In this Master Plan, in the lands belonging to the petitioners i.e., Sy.No.95/1A, the plan indicates that a water treatment plant, SEPU and a cane yard are to be established.
It is, therefore, clear from the Master Plan that the lands of the petitioners would be required for the establishment of a water treatment plant and a cane yard and it cannot, therefore, be contended by the petitioners that the 4th respondent Factory had already started production and their lands would not be required. 20
It is to be stated here that the establishment of a sugar factory would be a progressive act and as and when the land becomes available, the 4th respondent Factory would erect the structures as per the Master Plan. The 4th respondent Factory having secured a Master Plan from the Board would have to necessarily abide by the same and the petitioners cannot contend that their lands would not be required or that the structures indicated in their lands, can be established elsewhere. These arguments of the petitioners are, therefore, rejected.
22. An argument was also advanced that the lands of the petitioners, being fertile, cannot be acquired in view of the circular issued by the Government. It is to be stated here that the Sugar Factory has already been established by the 4th respondent and in order to enable its expansion, it was found that additional land was required. In such a situation where the Sugar Factory already exists and lands are required for its expansion, this argument that there was a Government circular which prohibited the fertile lands cannot be acquired cannot be pressed into service. 21
23. In the result, since the petitioners are unable to establish that they have not been heard in the matter before the order under Section 28(3) of the 1966 Act was passed and since they have also failed to establish that the excess lands were sought to be acquired on behalf of the 4th respondent Factory, the writ petitions are dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE AM