Karnataka High Court
Nandi Economic Corridor Enterprises ... vs State Of Karnataka on 15 June, 2011
Author: Manjula Chellur
Bench: Manjula Chellur
1;?
,'''f'
Q
THESE VVRIT APPEALS ARE) FILED U/S 4» OF' THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 R/W RULE 27 Q-I'.._»\VRIT
PROCEZEDING RULES 1977 PRAYING TO SET
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PE'I'I'I'IQ}¥sI__1$L ,'13298;
13297/2009 {LA-KEADB} DATED 19/O3/2010.
THESE WRIT APPEALS HAVING_ BEEN'
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT; _ A FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT or JUDGMENT 'rHis 1:»A__Y,--.
CHELLUR J., DELIVERED THE .t«"o__1,LoWr1$;G:
::oM1i*ro'i A ' '-ON,
J U D G 2 "
These writ _ar_ise_ common order
dated 19.3.2010 paee'ed..by'the_ iteégrnedtttsingle in W.P.
NOs.13296:§.,97§[Q_9.~.
:2'; 1%-;s;2e9V5--9e/'zeoito are filed by the writ
petitioner:-3.. by the denial of some of the
reliefis sougmg b§z'.'--tne.nr;":Writ appeal Nos.2887-68/2010
by Nantdiwfiiyeonomie Corridor Enterprises Ltd.
"x.uV'V:;,!:§.:._i.~N0s.2756-57/2010 are filed by Nandi
Infrezstruettiire Corridor Enterprise Ltd (NIGEL) and
W,A.No.e:.858 & 859/2011 are filed by the Karnataka
'' '~I_n'd:r'etr§a1 Areas Development Board (KIADB).
'E
3. The writ petitions came to be filed by the
private parties who Claim to be the owners of land in 53;'.
10
No.64/ l of Gottigere Village, Uttarahalli Hobli villager
Bangalore South Taluk, in all measuring 4 aerfies: 8
guntas. Petitioners case before the learned_e¥ingle.'
was, they were running eco~friendIy_resort"Call'eel"'SLir1riy" "
Holiday Village' by investing, /41' Crores :"~after
obtaining necessary permissions, licences' ..et'e_._"frorn thew '
competent authorities.' Accortling theim notification
dated 2.6.1999 came section 28(1) of
the Karnataka.:ln_(ius:trial' Act, 1966
('the Act' acquisition of 2
acres "o1i~--t of 4 acres and odd.
Accorcfing guntas of land belonging
to the also proposed to be acquired.
ll/le.an\Vhi1e, one Suresh Heblikar approached
ihi.sijo'oi_«t.'inlalpublic interest litigation contending that
the""pro;.:iose'd peripheral road would bisect the Gottigere
l;'als:e. which was not for the benefit of the public at large,
l"'ifherefore, on 16.61999 this Court directed the BDA not
"to biseet the Gottigere lake but lay the road on pillars by
constructing a road across the lakes T his was brought to
the notice of the NECEL by the BDA. However, on
ll
31.77.1999 petitioners received notice under:__see'tifo--nT
(2) from the concerned authority end on; =
Bangalore Mysore Infrastruettire Co.rridor_Are'a Piannwin
Authority (BMICAPA) deelzirggg the_iiitenitio'niu.to_
an Outline Development izsiorking on
the new alignment Of.:tl'i'_€ lielbbvorently, it
had taken a decision lake instead
of building 0ver----pass over
the lakef i:?'etitio--nefsL'j'--contendedV before the learned
single, J-t1dige_'.thii;t.._tiiits-proposal} to skirt the Guttigere
lake VlVaS'-[118vél1C3Z7t'€St'p§.SSlb1'€ alignment but however, it
would bisect the T. John virtually cutting his
propertgz into" 2._VVpV0rti:<.)ns. At the relevant point of time,
the writ petitioners was Completely
dei$elo'pei,~i,i__Vlfiiereas the land of the 431 respondent was
barren,._g' -_'AAceording to the petitioners, they filed ohj_ecti'ons to the notice sent under section 28 (2) and f_;ii'eo.Ai"ehallenged preliminary notification dated 2.6.1999 W.P.No.26228/O8. The writ petition came to be dismissed on l8.ll.2005 by a Division Bench of this Court reserving liberty to the writ petitioners to file 5"
l2 further objections, if any, before authority' Pursuant to the saiai'"oi*der'l.petit:ioners-filled additional objection statement ahd were'*no«tit1edVlto._ appear before the eompeteizt"aiithority~ Matter got adjourned. and 'soti--g;ht for 'partvieulars of proposed alignment biit it ifievef given to them.
5. the meanwhile, proceeded? 28 (3) of the Act and ojornbinehdllllldeclaration was issued undefseetion:2éV"(4tl) dated 2.6.2009. However, the Split" them to Contact the Deputy ChiéetllEngineerl..l:(vSot1th) for alignment. On 8.12.2006 they before the Spl. L.A.O. seeking time on the gt"-ifintilth.atft'h'ey were in the process of seeking the final alig-nm_ent,'ot" the road details and they would be able to file effective objections only after getting such details of thefifalignment. Howevert the SLAO concluded the ____hearing and rneanwhile, they again wrote to the Deputy Chief Engineer seeking alignment map and other On 18.12.2006 FWD informs the writ getitioners that the approved alignment is available with details.
13 the KIADB and inspite of several requests, they' given the approved alignment other authority. Therefore, they had an»'a_}fipi»ieat1ori.,to~_ the mane under the an t:me,dthe"~--:l?$iVi'iCAPA informed the petitioners that._the._aiignment_is stiill under the process of finalisatlonl'.anld} in that regard may be aseert.ained.~"fro:jn of the Project Coordinator; 2008. This was again brough§t:'to the State Information _Ir..lo't$zVeVer, on 24.2.2009 with the Information Commission, the the alignment plan may be co1ie(:te'd from-v._the. office of the Chief Engineer, Finally on 31.3.2009 an endorsement SLAO to the petitioners informing the aelq-uisVi'tionl"' of their land and it was not possible for them drop the lands of the petitioners. However, at C'--Vthist'lstage also alignment details were not furnished to V. them.
N { '"-Si;ix \.\\:§
8. Uititnately on 2.9.2009 final notification under section 28 {4} of the Act came to be issued and this was V l6
9. T he learned single Judge after entire material on record and after referring t'of_i"eeveral_& decided cases held that the questioryof reached finality. Therefore, it was hot a case Vv;rhere~.VV the acquisition notifications:couldh be 'interfered' 'with. V' But so far as the alternative-prayer'-.of the petitioners for postponing the date heopined that the Writ petitionerstwere 'delay of 2 years and thereris ho of the concerned auth01f_i.'5.i..'"el~f"'l"" " acquisition proceedings with :'long-- he held that the date of prelimilnarly to be postponed for the pur;oo'se. of 'pa_Vssingv' of the award after taking into theflfldelay of 2 years in passing the final A no{tifica.tion atthe instance of the petitioners. l .. According to the writ petitioners who are the it atipellants herein, though they have sought for smashing of the acquisition notifications, the main vlargurnent was on the issue of postponement of the date of acquisition for passing the award. According to the appellants the peripheral road now formulated to 17 I?
accommodate the 4111 respondent «~-- a fO1'rIi€i':'Ii'i*i«i1Vii.Sl__tl€;'ithis State for Infrastructure and Civil Aviation,__they'acqtiirledu only l-4 guntas of land of Mr. ..vinstead__":
16 guntas which was offered hypllvlr.
peripheral road now propojsied has it and' unscientific curves is against the fundamentals rule as high--spe€:jd« avoided at all costs. B37; road the entire land of peripheiralii-road frontage which was otherwise of petitioners is increased from 2 acres and giintas to 3 acres 1 gunta and they eonterod thatuthe c'ori}e made in the road is totally iiriscientifio andwmrestricts the speed of the Vehicles which is Contrary to guidelines laid down by tliiejldlndiarifioads Congress.
it They further contend that without following procedure contempiatedf by issuing notice before taking possession, in the wee hours of the morning, NIGEL and its rnen descended on the property on
3.?'.20lO demolishing the resort run by the petitioners l8 which is evident by the photographs now ' additional records, as it is a sub_s'eqo.efn»t"*V.Vevent. W V According to them, KIADB acknowledged' neither authorised NICEL.'to.___ derriolish thelt property nor requested polioleoorotection derriolition, Therefore, they have no right to Challenge the single Judge having J[or:'tk€1"]'$~I')'(:A);.Sl"-.v€SS:l'_'()1']g in an erroneous manner' with the order.
appeals"filed;.lh$;::§:l'ienli.l»'in iv;As;2ee7~6s/2010 and WA. 2756-V57/2Ol(larer:inaintainable. Aoeordingll'toTMr. Mandagi, the learned senior orderll of the learned single Judge is as laid down by the Division Bench of this Coort;i:nllILR 1995 Kart Page I at para 8 in the ease Of COMMISSIONER 8: LAD VS. KAZI ATAULLA I§L4;?UNI. According to him, the learned single Judge not at all assigned reasons Why the date of oreliminary notification be postponed to 2007'. 19
13. The iearned counsel Mr. Nayak _ the appellants in W.A.2'756~5'?'/2010 coaaéaasrti-tiriat V' the judgments relied upon by the were cases where they opined that---the notifi!.:atioAns'Were"=t to be quashed but not quas'I1«e::€i;. According? it is abuse of process of law,
14. Learned counsel Sri. P.V. Chandrashe}'._§tar:.1:"h KIADB in the arguments of the i.\)Ir:viMandagi contends that the date of cost cannot be postponed. Therefore,i"'t-he" orgd-.ers_»of~*the learned single Judge deserve asidef" -----
._ 15I"_..vg'Vj'1~:re"learned counsel Mr. GS. Bhat appearing for""the--..':-<10? "respondent T. John contends that on earlier oeeasion also a writ petition challenging the ODP of alignment in W.P.E332~»533/2010 was flied? but .,,_.hoWeVer, by accepting and admitting that the contentions raised in the writ petitions were covered by the decision of the Division Bench reported in H352 _ eonsequen "
20
VIJAYARAGHAVAN 3; ANOTHER Vs. MAiiéi*i*Hit'e p oas a 2009 (5) KLJ 375 the... _\:_'\7I'ii_".l1Zi«"Ef'"'L"i--i,.i'§>i"li.';~: V'_'Werell"
dismissed as they did not su'rVi\ze'efor'rr.cor1sideratie:;ri*. Therefore, they cannot question the oi? peripheral road. With thelsepp' they have sought for setting of learned single Judge by dismispsingp l6. «CotinAsvelepl\/Ir. Holla seeks to set aside the aeq-uilsitio.n'~on--the"grounds of rnalafides and exercise of it i'r*au_d«.pon_"pVower in acquiring the lands. Aceordingtg) "once establishment of fraud or Inalafides lWh_ilev.eXei?eising the power in acquisition of "aeeepVte'd';"'Vdelay of a long period is of no He also contends that under eminent dornain_ deprivation of the lands of the private parties'; is permissible, but eventually the said A deprivation of the lands while exercising eminent dornain power to satisfy the private needs of individuals also amounts to fraud on power. Hence, acquisition ea deserves to be set aside. He made reference to the 22 in the case of H.V. VIJAYARAGHAVAN & MALATHI DAS & omens reported in 20.0,E_i_tEi) 'i~:jtii_ .3'7e._ Having said so before the learned fS'i;ngie* 17.3.2010, Virtually petitioners'----Alare challenging the acquisition oi<i:Clifferent_V_gi**o:iincisg If the ground of malafid'e.:=i.A_ anti" unclerlying the acquisition of their' It within their knowledge ':~fror§;riVV' they could have agitated so The re alignment _ Ieroadj oer Oiftline Development Plan of 2064 l\Io.26228/2003 disposed of on l8.l'l*.i¥()O5.l" information pertaining to road in the year 2006 has nothing ease of the petitioners as the said re- upheld by this Court. Therefore, the leai'nect 'Single Judge was justified in saying that the it petitioners were aware of the entire details, After ''''hearing the petitioners only, the orders came to be
-»-passed under Section 28(3) of the Act foilowed by declaration under Section 28(4) of the Act. The petitioners had challenged the notification issued for the 23 acquisition of the adjacent lands of the ' Sy.l\lo.64/ 1 of Gottigere Village and the said Writ petiton was dismissed As already stated above, of was' not at all necessary for thee-'purpose of eh'allenging the impugned notification it -of the Special Deputy Comn1lis'sione;rV'uVnder_:Section was just and proper. :_ -. A ~ ,1-8--;» fa'r;as"--tli--e' lan-d....in question, the road is complete'-on. in portion of Sy.No.6-4/1 of Gottiglerel villager INDIA MANUFACTURERS OR(_;}Al\llSATIlONV':s Case referred to supra, it was held that project in question is meant for larger public interest°'_in_ State of Karnataka. In the ease of BAKSliIl€f§lVlURTHY .VS. BK. DAS, lAS 8: OTHERS reported' in (2010) 1 SCC 64, the Apex Court has ""ll_AAd§_re'sted the State Government to constitute a eornmittee headed by the Chief Minister of Karnataka "for the purpose of implernentation of the project in question. In the said decision, it is further held that the project shall he altowed to he Completed as per the 24» alignment specified in the Outiine dated 12.2.2004 issued by the Bi\{iiCAPA.-" ~Ti§¢_e1:¢'i:%:~e._ the 2 ~ learned Single Judge was justified was no need to go into the allegation of»'In;3..iafides consider the challenge to the._n%'acqui--siti_on': notification made by the petitione;ijs';._
19. 'i'1:-.:e;'n.._ of suitable compensati'on..__ the proceedings, apparent1yAi:are with Sy.No.E_-34/1 of Gottigere'--Village':-V..Titst instance 28(1) notification came to 2 acres 18 guntas in this land on 'Later on, another 28 guntas came to be notiiied'i*L1i"id_er secam 28(1) of the Act on 29.1.2003. ~n'o.ti_fication under section 28(4) of the Act toébie'j_:tiade only on 2.6.2009 i.e. almost ten years latet... sugitv is pertinent to mention that petitioners are '8 'X1' aiieging demoiitioii of the resort run by their; in the land in question without even issuing notice before taking possession. it is also pertinent to mention that the writ petition filed by them seeking quashing of the acquisition came to be dismissed on 19.3.2010. But, N "iitgri ~\_% 25 the date of preliminary notification was postponed to 2.6.2007. it is alleged that without even prior of taking possession, the officials and other staflof H entered the resort and dernolishedmthe re-sort the 2 petitioners. Petitioners clairnigthata hadV::13_evLe:1"
authorised NICEL to dernolish "their mace, requested police protectiong___io'1r:__suoh'gtnfholitiion. The photographs and R6 indicate the presenceiolfl when the resort of; demolished. The 'appealsiare not able to show whether Vacant possession of land and'i"aVhethe_r time was granted to these pe.t__itione1*s to Vacate and hand over possession of the '.4'l"h:e's.e are the facts that have to be taken into consideration while assessing the quantum of conipensation by the concerned authorities.
20. Then coming to the postponing the date of acquisition, learned senior counsel Mr. Ananth lvlandagi relies upon the decision of this Court in the case of KAZI ATAULLA HARUNI referred to supra. in this case, 26 their Lordships considering the powers of the re'fe_i"er:ee Court under Section-18 of the Land opined that the Court cannot;ignorej'the':..proVieio1'is§uit contained in Section~28 of the:"Act._'_'ir:iV market Value of the land date of hofrii' the notification under Sectio_ri'-..-%i(l.}_v ofand the Courts have to exerci.ee«-- only in accordance with the mandatory in the Act.
Learned eou;'1set_re1ie:s on made by this Court in which reads as it V _ * 8 Board, State of' and' J.vs. Ban Bihari Mahato and (AIR 1988 SC 2134), Their L4Ordehipo"of"'the Supreme Court, in the _ 'facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation for the a.co,ui:eition should be paid as if the zaetguisitions were made as on 1.3.1988. In Ujjain Vikas Pradhikarana .275, Raj Kurnar Johri and others (AIR 1992 SC 1538), in the facts and circumstances of the case, though the Notification under Section 4(1) was in 1985, T heir Lordehips of the Supreme Court, 27 held that the notifieatien under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act shall be deernVed_'"v to have been on 11.1988 and directe.d,_'4:the'4't:43 authorities to fix the cornpensatihrieiiii accordingly. No principle or g_nide'iirIeV"i'sV'_' mentioned in the aforesaid how the date of sectiQn_4(lirictificatienshalt'; be advanced and to wlzati-rextent--;'They be confined to the fact~----eif'Lvthese cas'ee...a1dne. Learned counself fore '4"re's]§'ondent laid great stress 0n_..th_e--,recenndecisidn of the supreme"««T;.Vt:ou%_t 'i§i1:5ii'§/i-w.._.HC}TEiAI'\TD AND 0TH.EI?:s_Vti¥at.;aé5." 4.j_tI__NIQ:xI -{t)I+'» INDIA AND OTHERS i"~epQ1'ted::ViI]I" 1_:QQV4.€1) scc (44). In that awarcjl was passed nearly 14 to 2'1 years Vafter_'ithe"-notification under section 4(1V)*nIf the-__La_nd.._"~Acquisiti0n Act and after elaborately considering the matter, came to the"e_onc1usion that some additional * has to be awarded to the cuitiéiaters. Taking into consideration the it ..interest of the cuitivators and the public, instead of qtiashing the preceedings for acquisition, Their Lordships directed that the petitioners shall be paid an additional amount of compensation to be calculated at the rate {if 12% per annum after the expiry of two years from 23.83974, the date of the 28 Judgment in AFLATOON AND OTHERS .VS. LT. GOVERNOR or DELHI AND OTHERS}?-,g reported in 1975(4) sec 285, till the date the making of the awards by the Co11e_cil--or,: I"
be calculated with referenceto value of the lands in questionnli the the notifications under sViib--l9sectionV_"_I'[ 1) 'of II Section 4. In that not advance the date____oi'~.notification_AAuVnder section 4(1) additional compensation in the peculiar' of the case and§~inl"'vieiiz-';of th_e__1'fa_ct"--"tlilat,__nearly 14 to 21 the date of :vsec_ti.onl5f4;(1}:'«not.iiicati_on and the award. In that decisicldlllfrofii. paragraph 4 it is clear _ thatfiiheir exercised their power ~ iiiider 42 of the Constitution of India ylvhiclti-._is Very wide and can be exercised in of justice. That aiso was a case whrerein acquisition proceedings were itself ~ challenged and Their Lordships exercised their power under Article 142 of the I Constitution of India. Article 142 of the Constitution of India gives wide powers to the Supreme Court to pass such decree or make such orders as is necessary for doing eornplete justice in any case or matters 29 pending before it and they shall enforceable throughout the territory of l"
That power can be exercised Supreme Court, but the -I , Vested with such a power Courts are boundl--_Dl-zxy the__ V contained in 'Section__l:V"'-?i3--..__vof Land Acquisition Act.;:_<_._l:t can that the orders were passed-thy; Court in eXercis e«g):fA§rticle 142 of the Court is not eiatiitl/3651,' to" «.
'-- Levariiefdseniorcounsel Mr. Holla pressed into service the_Vldecis.ioi1_ 'of.._¥the Hon'ble Supreme Court in I?RAl__{ASiH" OTHERS .VS. UNION or INDIA 'Al\lD_O7fl*lE3l§S-ereported in (l994)l SCC 44 to contend Jt'1§E'1';tV"'.lih€r€ is a delay in completion of the aequisifion proceedings, damages suffered by the owner "7_.has""A_to be taken into account in fixing compensation. further contends that reasonable time for making award is about two years and beyond two years, the time taken for nialcing the award is deemed unreasonable' After expiry of two years, additional compensation has to be awarded to cziltivatorsl in ease 30 of delay, the best solution wouid be grantiiéig i additional compensation ii'iStV€€£'{i'---Qf V proceedings.
22. In the Division Court stated above, Their of law laid down in RAM reported in 1994(1) ijjaieiijiiiew laid down in AF reported in 1975(4) sec .'2a5;- 4' it
23."«e1;i the .eee_e COMPETENT AUTHORITY .vs. FACTORY AND OTHERS reported in 477, the Hon'b1e Apex Court has .\\ jwb under in paragraphs 16 and 17.
V (16) "Having held that the impugned it notification regarding acquisition of land is it invalid because it fails to meet the statutory requirements and also having found that taking possession of the iand of the writ petitioners in the present ease in pursuance of the said notification was not in accordance with laws the question arises as to what reiief can be granted to the 3l petitioners. T he High Court rightly observed that the acquisition of land in the present'--.p case was for a project of great importance, ie. the construetion_Il---oi :"
national highway. The _peonstr_u'eti«o:r;vllof national highway on the already been completed l during the course of__l'hVearing_, 'l\lo':: 1;1"sefu'i"
purpose will he serx7_es(lfl:A'»v._l§>y1_vquashiinglthe impugned notii7i_e::1tic;n fat " stage. We cannot be position that i 'can always issues'; 'noti__f1eation_'fo_r acquisition of the V the impugned anotif_ieat.ion Vheiiigquasljied. The consequence of this keeping in View the rising trend in, pi'i.ees of land, the amount of eompenls'atio_n_p,payable to the land owners 'loge more. Therefore, the ultimate will be about the quantum of it eoniplensation payable to the land owners. a Qtiashing of the notification at this stage will " give rise to several difficulties and practical \%H§T::::h:"s ' problems.
Balancing the rights of the petitioners as against the problems involved in quashing the impugned notification, we are of the View that a better eourse will be to eornperisate the land owners, that is, writ 32 petitioners appropriately for what they have been deprived of. Interests of justic'e'*, persuade us to adopt this course of actiexij (17) Normally, compensation is as per the market price offlandenlthel issuance of the notiffcaticnl acquisition of land. There are» pr eceld,er1ts~--b.y--'t way of judgments of .Cour't in similar situativ«')ins_ 1. the impugned n0tificat;ion',e'--t'h§s {3:.bii_rt"'shifted the date of _the n¢>'tificat;ZQ:nA.V:'ve'sc the land owners,' . ulmcsompensated.
Refereni:_e;»'ma'y'be"nf1ade"t0f"; V 'Vtl{:1s»..:l?'radhil§aran V. Raikurnar Jchrl and mscc 328] (b) Gauri Shankar V. State of UP & Ors.
;' ~{1t994't(niscc 92] (c) Haji Saeed Khan & Ors. l xkfistate of ups: QISS [2001 (9) scc 513} _ ,_that.:d1recti0n the next step is What should H " be crucial date in the facts of the present for determining the quantum of ifs?
cernpensaticn. We feel that the relevant date in the present case ought to he the date when possession of the land was taken by the respondents from the writ petiticners. This date admittedly ts l9th February; 2003. We therefore, direct that eempensatlsn 33 payable to the writ petitioners be determined as on 19th February, 2003, the date onhhfl which they were deprived of possession".H:oi'. their lands. We do not quash the :"
notification in order not to already taken place by xyay j;ds_e acquired land for pyconsltiiuetilon wtliel ' national highway. direct that compensation for the___flaequ_iredl "ia,ndJ?be determined as ehtir1_ary, 2003 expeditiously anpdl from today the §ani_otitnt'«.Vo'i'Ijeornpensation so deteririiiiedi--';he' jxvrit petitioners after already paid by vyay _' within eight weeks of interest on the amount"of eornpeiasation so determined is to decided._in_.aeeordanee with law by the g_{p:pr.op--riate authority. We express no other statutory rights, if any, it available to the parties in this behalf and the parties will be free to exercise the same, if A' ayailablei The compensation as determined r"t:'::» \<J by us under this order along with ether benefits, which the respondents give to parties whose lands are acquired under the Aet should be given to the Writ Petitioners 84 along with what has been directed by us in this judgment."
24. In the above case, there was acquisition of certain lands belonging-togthe -, petitioners by virtue of Section 3 Highway Act of 1956. Thexyrit fietitioners 'choallerliged the acquisition of their _gro1inds and the Division Bench ._cliSpOS€d of the writ petition ' _:'--ho1din"§ . notification regarding to be bad in law. the fact that possession of been taken over by the authorities.,_v%hthe"Court felt that no useful purpose served' 'by..q'uashing the notification. Therefore the"High'Coiirt..taking note of the power of the acquiring au,thority'toissue a fresh notification for acquisition of the lanci which could lead to possible increase in the anioiant of compensation payable to the owners, ordered ____that an additional amount of compensation be awarded to the land owners and accordingly, an additional amount calculated at 30% over ano above the
--._\_,2;» f 35 compensation already determined Was; erdered to be paid to the land owners, This came to be chaliehged before the Apex Court. Ultimately. after referririg decision in the case of UJJAIN VIKAS --« .VS. RAJKUMAR JOHRI AND OTHERS refitted' 1992 SC 1538 and other«.__.veasVee_,'V' the postponed the date of _notificetie.n. _»
25. As a matter!' Single Judge after referringédtefiabotve proceeded to postpone for purpose of after taking into consideratiorl years at the instance of the';'petitioner',V_V" taking into consideration the flo'f._.'the land owners that there eannot be any ec'cess'» remaining portion of their land, the leetrnedi .Si'r1g1e Judge was justified in directing the d' i'e>:~pendente therein to retain the existing access to the rernetining portion of the petitionersi Iands. Having it regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court, we are of the opinion that there is he merit in the contention of the tearned counsel for the project proponent and