Karnataka High Court
Smt Susheelamma vs The Secretary To Government on 15 November, 2010
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY 01%' NOVEMBER 2.o~1_0»__*~V._
BEFORE
THE I-ION'}3LE MR.-JUSTICE D.v._JsHYLENDRé§::fiMAg 4
WRIT PETITION N0.99O8/ 5?.OO,3'{l';AAP§1f§B1 '
BEE WEEN:
1. Smt. Sushee1amma,_ __
W / 0. Late Venkataralinfinaswa
Aged about 45 years, " ' '
R/0. Kote Main Road,
Holenarasipurag' _ V .
Hassan
2. Smt. »
W / 0. Bombai
Aged a§3_oL1t' 55 _ --._
R / 0. Kerala-purada ~ ,
Ambedka1'<Nagarx; _ 2
Ho1eI_1.aVrasip"L11:f;1,' -
Has32g1nDistrict'.'~«v.V _
2 V 'BX... as,
A LS/Q. Ba.I'eVenKa_1_?aramaiah,
S:m(:.e' deceéjgseéd by his
LR "¢'1__1"}dV_-55011
B,G, Ranganatha.
"Aged ab.r;;i1t 45 years,
< f_' R/ VG;-..Na1a Street',
" , IvIO'}-3r'121ra1sipL:ra,
' H :e1s$a1'1 District.
.4 4. Rajaiah,
S/0. Ka1Iasaia}'1.
Aged about 66 year.<~s,
R/0. Kerz1121pu1'ada Roa<:1._
Ambedkar Nagar,
I~io1er1arasipu1*a,
Hassan District.
5. Puttaswamaiah,
S / 0. Late Thammaiah,
Since deceased by his
LR and son
Krishnamurthy,
Aged about 62 years,
R/ o. Pete, Holenarasipura ToW"n,V"'*i.
Holenarasipura,
Hassan District.
6. Smt. Gayathri '- V j
W'/0. HI). Venkagtesh,
Aged about 40;yeiarS'. '_ --.
R/ o. Hethago'»Iifd4a1fi}_al?alli;
Arakaigud Tsi1u.;;','_.V " x '
Hassan _F,)istri'o.t.'
7. H.J. 'Venkatesri;-~,A " ~-
S / o. Late' -J ai,reregow}da; ' ~ .__ " " e
Aged aboui45 yearsg "
R/ o. Hefhagowdariéihdilii
- V. 'I'a1uk;" _____ .. .
Vi*IasS'ari'"§):isf1?iet. ...Petitio1'1ers.
1Rao, Adv. for M / S. Indus Law for P1,
3 'Sri.I.).CLjgieigadeesh, Adv. R2 to 6)
i._'i'1ri~e Secretary to Governmeni
i D.ep'-ariment of Revenue (LA-1 and 3}
Building.
~ 'Bangalore -- 560 001.
2. T he Commissioner,
Karnaiaka Housing Board,
Cauvery Bhavara,
KG. Road,
Bangalore W 560 009.
3. The Sp}. Land Acquisition Officer,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Cauvery Bhavan,
KG. Road,
Bangalore - 560 009.
4. The Deputy Commissioiier,
Hassan District. . ._ . _ .--
Hassan. '_ ':-..,_._Responder1tsfi
(By Sri. Venkatesh Doddedriq 2\,G;A;foi'~R1 and 4,
Sri.V.Y. Kumar, Adv. ibr 8: 3}, " i
V
This Writ::_Petition4is'.'ifiie'd..urider Articles 226 & 227
of the Con..stiti_1tio*:::1__ .01'-»§_i1di'a'with.»a prayer to quash the
preliminary "rLotifica,tio--n"~dated-- 29.8.2006 and the final
notification ' d'ate'dj"».6;3,2*Q__(38 issued under Section 4(1)
and 6[1}' ,_of_ the LJ\..4"--Ac't""vide Annexures--C and E
respective1y~..]3y.the respondents insofar as it relates to
acquiisifion of land's of petitioners. as the same is iilegal
~" < ._ar1d,_." dnstistvainabie law.
' d' = -Petition coming on for further orders this
A 'day'-];___thev made the following: *
ORDER
V is Writ petitioners being seven in number claim to be _ oi-..viie'rs of small extents of agricultural iands and that they belong to weaker sections of the society and it is their V(3I'Si(JI1 that they have no other means of livelihood .. 4 _ except the avocation of tilling their lands. growing crops for their S1.1St'.€1']'c1I1C€'. etc.
2. Petitioners claim that In respec~*§V_:1..'()'f"V..$'i1§}*;._._"'. lands and other lands the Goveriilllent oi"'Karnf:1taka., It "
appears, had caused issue of a p:re1i.rniz1ai'5z_ i1otiiicat.ioi?7!i_' bearing No.Ka.Gru .Mum.Bhu'.'Syva.V'-~6h/ diited 1' 29.08.2006 under Section the Iian'd.AcA(1:uisition Act, 1894 [hereinafterddrcierreidffto Act') which was Pubiish.¢d:..' in ;"'C'3'r'..':1.'z.,ette dated 14.9.2006 to the petition.
On a before the Court by the Rajamma, Special Land Acquisition u'(')f,fVicer; l't:'V'iS'.1:O11I1Cl that the Very notification stibseqdudently published in 2 Kannada local "Janata i\/Iadhyama" and "Kannada Pra'b.haif"'o.i'§i" A 2.1i.2006. Ii; is the version of the 1 VLV"p.efitioners that petitioners in terms of representations 23.11.2006, copies produced as Annexures D. "I51. D2 and D3 to the petition, had given representations objecting to the acquisition proceedings inter alia representing that their lands are very fertile. -5- agricultural lands; that it is their only source of livelihood; that there is no need to acquire sL1chvv1a'n_d*;s_:
that other lands are available and that .
proceedings in respect of their la1}d..s,_Sl'1o1_:1ld"be'.fdropped; it"
etc.
3. The Complaint of * it notwithstandirig the representations' -by the'1n,th.ey have neither been heard taken note of by the State Goyeifrinienjgp having gone ahead by of'-L5. v__deeiaration No.Karr1.E. 57 under Section 6(1) of the lSi3'«il{,'»as'~..per=AnnexurewE t.o the petition, the resppondent taking steps for passing an dflvaward and proeeeding further. Apprehending that dispossessed from their lands, the peti"t«i_oners.ih'aVe approached this Court praying for the .. ioliowing relief 2»
-"Issue a writ' or order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Prl. Notification bearing No.Ka. GRU. Mum. Bhu. SLUCL. V.65/200607 dated 29.8.2006 and the _['i.i'1<1l rlotijicatiori No. Kant E57 Bhu. -6- Swa.Haa.2007 dt.5.3.2008 issued under Section 4(1) and 6(1) of the LA. Act Annexures-C & 133 respectively by respondents insofar as it relates to in of lands of petitioners, as _:illjeg'nl.:
and unsustainable in law, in i}?_Le'*'t'inieresti"» 7-if justice and equity." V 2 it
4. Petitioners have inter"alialttcontended that the acquisition proceedings 'are respondents
-- the State. Coinmissioner for Karnataka and its Special Land Acquisrftion " ;:the3lr"""have committed various illegalities;' that the;_ijp_roc_:ecdings are not only vitiated by deviating »theA"v.statutory provisions i.e., Land 'l V. "'Acquisition"Act, but also having acted in violation of natural justice ignoring the objections the petitioners; that when the petitioners "are_srnal..l:land owners belonging to weaker sections, the " , Governnient could not have overlooked their interest to
-»s2,ib~serve the interest of some other persons; that the authorities have not conducted any spot verification to satisfy themselves of the suitability of the subject lands '-U <g _ for which the lands are sought to be acquired and so also the declaration issued; that the petitioners' interest has been totally ignored and sidelined in the cou;:§§'»gf the proceedings; that the authorities/ u not even examined the suitabilitympor "
petitioners' lands and the purpose acquired; that even when themselves were available:'V':-'in. of Holenarasipura Town instead o%.f'taking"'u_p development project in the*-available.fgove'rnnientvvaste lands, ernbarkiing on5jacqu3i.si't-i.on_'of _petitioners lands is vitiated due to thelundue'«infli1ve.nie.e'yielded by persons, who are politically powerful; that acquisition proceedings for .__similar purpose had been abdicated E"'lK):'ecVa2.ise oflfmlthe influence of politically and _finanecial»1_y"powerfiil persons, when 'their' lands got affehcrtedllvbjfitheacquisition proceedings; that though the extent of *l'and notified in terms of Section -4: [1] Y_i1Ol'.ifiC£3l'.iQH was as much as 252 Acres 0.30 5% gunt.as of V' f1a'11'cl~,_ the extent in respect of the declaration is issued " , l1:inderSec:i:ie11 6(1) notification is only 23 acres 4 guntas _ 9 _ ie, less than 1/10"') of the area originaliy proposed for acquisition: that the very purpose of acquisition,vit_Vany..u has Virtually failed and is frustrated. if as . extent of 230 acres of land is ex_<:l.:.ir.led of acquisition proceedings, it name for the purpose for whlilcih had initially notified and thereforei;--~tiVai»'elsoixghtfor qdashing of the notifications 6(1) of the LA Act and ail.,furtl*1er
5. Ndt_ice:l"had"'- bee7.ri."issL1e(1: 'to respondents. Sri Keshava directed to take notice for respon'dentvNo.llM~d and Sri V.Y. Kurnar, learned counsel took.' for respondent Nos.2 and 3. l " * Vb'..jA_ 1A--'-.tt<:A.r"*hearing learned counsel, this Court on 1L4fi.2«O0§)' li'a;slA'.Igr3.nted interim order to maintain status quo l"o.1*l'a iéeriod of eight weeks, which has since been V' lv~:ife§§teii.ded from time to time. 7'. Writ petition was admitted by issue of rule on 18.10.2010 and iespondents were given opportunity to file counter, if any, within two weeks therefrom. VVhen V _11m notification dated 14-9-2-O16 and this is oniy _ a sampie of the uncertain and indefinite tvat; offunctioning of the acquiring authority even without any definite plan or scllemell the, acquiring auth.ority has S' acquisition proceedings etc. ' Learned counsei for the 'petitioners? also points out that notwitlistandirtg the of Section 4 r1otif=ication.t-"l3ei_ngr"sustained, any int'erpretatiori'- the provision, even theft. secitioft is neverthe_tes'j§, ' bad published beyond from the date qf'ptib1:.§:fatic$}i§§of i-he"seci_io:1'-4: notification. V ' "learned counsel for the respondents 22" submits that details of lithe purpose' tvhich the acquisition was '-':,.f4:'I'Il3tt3'i(ll'C'.'(3i. the"""nurrtber of beneficiaries who identified jor allotment of houses by the board and such other pa_rticxi'lar's tutti be placed and necessary rrtaterials will aiso be placed before the court' V lllfto point out that Section 6 declaration has been issued well within time as provided under the second proviso to Section 5 of the Act, and requests a weeks tirne for such purpose.
List on I I I-2010' /brjuz"ih.er orders. /"4 "
It is in this background the matter has eome".uVp.4'_'fo_r furthers orders today before the Court.
8. Sri V.Y. Kumar, kearriedi~'c'ounsei.L.ao.;§:earirig4.'.for..A respondent Nos.2 and 3 pkacesnffifbeferev statement of objections (inclusive of State Governmernltigii'.State'Gov'ernment has not cared to file though the learned Court on the iast date '~--t'he'f"%officials of the State Governrrhentf to the notices issued by this' Court' "State Government and its Officjiaise wVii_1 i's'sue timely instructions to the V:GQi}ern:inen:t«.AdVocates to file counters and statements State Government in time and to bring to 'thev--..1fioti'ce of the Court the precise facts and for Vfpietcingv the records.
9. No such action is forthcoming either on behalf of the State Government: or its officials or even by the learned AGA appearing on behalf of the respondents
--1_3~ before this Court. I-iowever, submission of Sri Venkatesh Dodderi, learned AGA is that the State Government has only acted at the behest of and that the plan and scheme was conceived V' Board and has incidentally drawgithe.at"te11:tioia._of the Court to the delegation of powers fa§}'g.;_ir--..of it Commissioner for KHB, even"to:*eXereisC_: of the State CtOV€I'I1l'I1€fI%1JL'~..'_ of lithe: State Government for :'[vA]Ai>1}3'll'CO1"I1II1iSSiOIl€I' of KHB has as a Deputy iallvstatutory functionary under LA Act for acquiring any privai-;e"lands for purpose etc. In response to the Court to Respondents 2 and 3, Sri V,Y. 'I'{ui'r.1a.~r,"'learne.d"oounsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 has
-- filedka "oorn'prehensiVe statement of objections in the it today on behalf of KHB, along with Annexures R1 lcm;§
10. I have heard Sri Nikilesh Rao, learned counsel for the first petitioner and Sri D.C. Jagadeesh, learned -14- counsel on behaif of rest of the petitioners and Sri V.Y. Kurnar. iearned counsei for respondent' and 3 at some length of time.
ii. Mr. Nikilesh Rao and»~iVi.r4.D.€:iWJagadieesh,'-._V learned counsel have reiterated t'he7.grou1ids' the writ petition and they that counter filed on behaif» of before the Court does not grounds indicating ignore the representationsrriade:by':--..th'e.__fiietitioners; that while the _o.nWi)ieha1f of some of the petitioners! "on while even the paper pubiieation nreiirninary notification was only on fbzit thewrieispondents have taken the hyper the representations are beyond the _ period of days from the date of publication of the notifications in the gazette issued on though the notification itself is dated
-258.2006 and ignoring or not taking into consideration. ii the obje<;:tio11s is nothing short of a hyper technical g1'our1d that even accordirlg to the 1'espo11dents, if either M / /-"' _ 15 -
some of the petitioners' objections were albeit; within 30 days from the gazette notification to contend petitioners were given an opportunity of indicated in their counter. respond.ez1_t.s within that time issued notices toz'°the'_'_'p'evtit'ioneits extend an opportunity of hvetairing vvithin _31(b)fd'ay's...ffon1 * if the date of gazette noti.fieation--;----that is.o'n1y_.tof;1eprive the valuable right, whieii' in favour of the petitioners under 'LA Act, such contentions ifj fwthe ground of technicalities:~i.5'th_at3.itheavery attitude and Conduct of respondents any bona fides and even otherjwtse the..,vAentire."-proceedings has lapsed by the of scheme in the sense the scheme for a public purpose vi;:c.. for providing V _ hou"sir1g.__'faeitities to the people of Holenarasipura Town :ja:ndo_.by initially notifying 252 acres 0.30 3/ 4?" guntas of _' 1a_nt1"on the premise that there is fast urbanization of if the town and therefore. there is need for a well planned layout and housing facilities to meet the growing demands due to theaexpansion of the town and if an -16- exteiit. of 252 acres 0.30 3/ 4"' guntas of lands were initially conceived for such developmental activities implementing that scheme not in its original but in truncated manner. that too only in ~ meagre extent of 23 acres 4 gurrtiasépis 5 s§/T"
scheme sub--servir1g the purpose original notification; that it'-._i's..p>nothing,hut'"'~--;a""'failed scheme and therefore,_ thpe""'a.cqn'isitio11"A'proceedirigs deserves to be quashedr Vi learned coac_1rise:1 _appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 has Very' Vvehremeiitly that when once it is borne out 9:: record the 'petitioners had not given their ,representati"o:1s to object the acquisition proceedings t"'wiVi:'t1.<1iiA1 period of 30 days from the date of puEiiica't.ioi'i"of the gazrpette notifying the petitioners lands .,fo1';tacqVnisition under Section 4 (1) of the Act, their right tottotbject: to the acquisition proceedings is lost; that 'while the authorities did give a hearing to such of those persons who were interested in the su3:)jeet lands and who had filed their objections well withi_n 30 days by '.
- 13 -
Government and therefore. the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. V t
14. Records relevant to the proceedings has also been placed Specific attention has been the proceedings, which is a otvhdon 26.4.2006 at 5.30 pin... 'to-ffice' Chief Minister in the Soudha and under the Kumara Swamy. the has submitted that the presentacVc1i'ii's_iitiori"~iprvo_ceedings had a back ground as indicated in its }'ec»ording of meeting. A perusal of thisgiroceedingvviteseif will bear out the bona fides (or t.o;"beV pvrecise"-.the lack of bona fides) of the present aC'qii'f.sition"."p:proceedings for the purpose for which the ]VLand'Ac;'(;uisition Act is pressed into service. A perusal of the proceedings of this meeting also indicates that it bears the signature of the then Chief Minister Sri.I~i.D. Kumara Swamy; that the project of providing housing facilities to the residents of _ 19 -
Holenarasipura Town was earlier i.e., in 1998M 1.999 mooted by the Town Municipality of Ho1enarasipuvra:'a,ndV they had been entrusted with the such acquisition proceedings not.__rnal{i11g"'~hea'dvvay'-,_ it particularly, as it was found somel"-of for such acquisition locatedVig-..j5Iolenarasipdu'ra._;'Village, an extent of 20 to 25 'very valttable trees and the land that the decision was uvvdgovernment to drop it proceedings, but the1'eaf!:_:ermV vast growth of Holenarasipéura'To'veh-land':urbanization of the Town and keeping in View, 'the large number of citizens requiring V flvhouvses people living in this town and to provide houisingwfor people and with the earlier schemes V _ mootec1.._foz'-such purpose having become a. failure, a proposal was mooted through KHB and the r~__rC:SvI3onsibi1ity for providing housing to the houseless people of Holeriarasipura Towra was entmst.ed to the it KHB and in this background the earlier proceedings were taken note of and also the availability of land with E)?' -20- the Board and the extent of various lands, which were in litigation before the Courts and were subjeCt4~nia.tte_r of stay orders were all taken into eonside:'atio1'1'j'L'and._._". keeping the over all picture in View, a _e'oni'pl1?ehen'sivev plan and scheme was required, prepared .:"'a&1i1iit_:
submitted for the approval the State by the Board and deeisionwas efteetand if so no fault can be 'acquisition Act and therefore," that the writ petition It isllh,-lslortsuhrnitted by the learned counsel that the ldeiIelopn1e'niis.. laainldicated at Annexure F' dated l3.0§3al.2007 V lforllwit'hdraWing from the scope of lands located in the two Villages was to the Various other factors / * V V dexrlelleoplrnehiitlsl it Mr. Kurnar, has drawn specific attention of the ' to the proceedings of the State Government and the notification dated 13.3.2007 to submit that the dropping of acquisitiori p1*oceedings in respect of 194» 2 1 _ a.cres 23 3%; guntas of the land located in Suranahalli and in Ammanihirekerur Village to an extent of 36 guntas of land respectively and also an .
acres in Dakshinanala Village and.....7_acresV in" -I:%i:irelr.e'ru1=-V Village, was keeping in View the'*rep'resVentatAi'ons by these Villagers to point contained more than 1 cocondt trees and the lands were growing paddy; that acquisition proceedingsretain the lands for agriculztiiralgill léesponding to such representations' in the proceedings of the Board held on 1.3.3.2007'. as per Fl" notification had come to be issued and even 1 had been notified in Dakshinanala and Hireliertin' Villages an area of 9 acres has been excluded ejfroin the "acquisition proceedings and likewise 7 acres "been excluded from the final notification from ~ "acquisition proceedings notified in Hirekerur Village and the Board and the State Cz()V€I'I1iT1('3I1l. have kept the interest. of the farmers in view, in withdrawing from the I acquisition proceedings in respect of an extent of 252 acres 0.30 3/4"'! guntas of land and instead doggedly adhering to the original scheme and proposal, _ extent of 23 acres 4 guntas of land was retained * purpose of constructing houseswandg t'he1flefoi*e,l" it acquisition proceedings has to be
18. It is in this backgroiiiid is required to be examined and
19. l have the original governrnen't anlcilifhgeh proceedings that the Boa_rd__ the Court by Sri V.Y. Kumar, learnedlc'ounse,l"f0r'respondent Nos.2 and 3 and _ besto'§ilredA.iny a'ttention to the submissions made at the .andvhavc-id'examined the factual and legal "position in 'statutory provisions of Section 5A of the ~V Act.
A Though submission is made on behalf of the respondents that acquisition of the lands is for public purpose compulsory take over of the land by the government is part of eminent domain. it can be so only
-23"
if it is dictated by the need to provide shelter to the teeming population which indeed is an essential need and is also the constitutional scheme and in like ours which is a Social Democratic having in its Preamble, the objectsuot social. economic and politic_al, llgiberty expression, belief, faith and status and or opportunity them all Fraternity assuring "thel...lind_iv'idual and the unit)' and vvhich is termed as a the first respondent M the State =Glovernrnent:_ltso:also the Central Government) and :;:;h'e goal under the Constitution is to protect the life .ai;.d liberty citizens; to take welfare measures to :lt'ifieirl~@"living conditions and ultimately to act in thell" larger' public interest and if by its action l:j.Governln1ent has acted for really achieving this goal by '' resorting to exercise of executive power in a bona tide law confirming manner for achieving a public purpose and in the larger interest of the society, then only the principle that any private interest even if it is adverse to -24- the interest of a few private individual, to that extent has to yield to sub--se1've the larger public purpose not otherwise and nothing beyond.
21. The powers under the various .enact;r1_ent'sl and statutory provisions is not a_ favour of the authorities or 'to:
the rights and lives ozifpiiihe tloindvulge in arbitrary/whimsical when an authority/ to do certain things such'. in a bona fide properlvglrnarinerg good and not in an and at any rate not in a pickgaiid choosenianner to favour a few and Victimize yniany 1'no1'e and act. adverse to the interest of some. from any angleg this Court, while exerci.sing the power of judicial review of administrative A by the State or its agencies, I find that the exercise of statutory powers are hit by arbitrariness, rnalafide and lack of application of mind which are all writ large on the face of the record. The original purpose for which the acquisition proceedings viz., for providing housing to the residents of the Holenarasipura Town due to the Vast expansion and urbanization, been virtually abandoned by deleting from ' acquisition a major extent of a'ooj;1t'"2*2--9 acresllifrtirn 'C):Lltl'»., the initially proposed extent of land and tapering it down 11ow.:t"oiya rneaglrei acres 0.4 guntas of land..aftert'eXcludii=..g the 'lands of the two Villages in terms of dfecllaration issued in the year 2G08';;«p.r,s'uct>c_ rnan:ne«rp'of"--ex:_ercise of statutory power {by _ hostility against the petitioners._ in orderito a few others whose lands too _'§2Vere inclu_ded initially vide notification under thelllact. Whether the retaining of the lacq£.iisitioii,_proceedings in respect of a small area of 23
-- acres guntas of land covering the petitioners and igcysoiine other land owners is a deliberate or a mala fide action or not. the fact remains that the plan and it mslclierne originally envisioned has totally failed and it must be iogically concluded that a scheme that was sought to be iitnplernenied covering an area of 252 acres /"-
' -26- of land, can never be implemented in an area of___23 acres O-4 guntas of land. The manner in acquisition proceedings has gone on is only V' lack. of proper foresight in lack of application of rr_1i11d development keeping in but only an arbitrary and oilpower under the provisions the which is a Very drastic the detriment of the individh.a1*ii_4o$qvnei*s llandlwhen such owners are lands in favour of the State pui'pporting..'tnl.'be:_4injtlile name of a public purpose, thenpgjimlessll such a public purpose is really be«.._achieved and implemented in the manner l1nl"v.vhilchl"_~~3t originally envisaged. exercise of such povvcr "compulsory acquisition of private lands lg.,bec--on1es bad and even may betray an element of rnala ufidiesl on the part of the decision making authority.
23. Many a times. with political rivalry and in our 'present. political up parties in power and governing -27- the affairs of the State changing frequently day in and day out, instances of frequent rnaia fide exercise of power has become a reality in public administrati'on'.va..
Officials of the State Government also exercise 'e>r;ecue-i5i'veV_"'* V' power in a mechanical, whirnsica;1,marb.itrary;.rnanner:'atK7_p the behest of the political "do if necessarily take into considei*ation publicv~.in:teVreslt'; but are guided by private p"ar.tisa.n"int--eji'ests and ac't"'for their own purpose and many a 'ti_Inesl,' act..tovfni,i»s_use the power to victimize pe;r's;:g;,rij';-; be3i_on.ging'tQ.'rii/alcliarties. 24-_. Such' rajanriier'--o.fi"'functioning has becomes the order of -day leyen:..'i'when the State Government ..v_exe_rcise_s its statut.ory powers in an arbitrary, whimsical Lraanneir,f'1"h'ere----.is nothing placed on record in this case to' shoxxrpini-'iwfiat manner the original scheme and plan l*._for acquiring an extent of 252 acres of land as proposed can now be implemented in its drastically % reduced manner, for building houses in a meagre extent of about 23 acres of land, to meet the growing housing dernand in a town that is gettin.g urbanised very fast! No -28- material is piaced before the court to show howgthe original plan and scheme is reworked to original scheme in the changed scenario V' the lan.ds belonging to the petitionerwhich.lisll.clVainiVed.lo'..p be channel water irrigated wet many trees has been consid'elr:e'd to" be":
other similar lands, h_alyeriexcluldVed from the scope of acquisition for?' those lands being fertile having trees in them. The reveal either about the suitab:_lity_lofi' extent of 23 acres of land :_4ay:ail'able under the acquisition proce-e'di.ngs.lorit"is any way different from the lands owners whose lands, though was initially acquired for a public purpose, did not find pla.ic.e=y{Ihen the declaration under section 6 of the Aci'_.,' excluded them from its purview and confined Alaicqifliisition for only about 23 acres.
25. Thoiig?;h, iriitially the impression was that the plan and scheme of acquisition was meant, for providing -99- Ana housing for the weaker section of Holenarasipura Town, but on the other hand. it turns out that the petitioriers themselves belong to weaker sections of the societj,r..
wili be put to greater hardship of being * livelihood if their lands are to be acquired!--'_'' M d
26. When citizens come' thdisiioiirt that their private rights are upon, What is to be examinevd«--.is the:ex_e1"cise of power and authority the tithse governance of the Vpovvers exercised by such 'bonafide exercise of power, whether ittis exercis'ed'«i.ri a law conforming manner or it is a'~p.r..>.wer exercised in an arbitrary or p_whin:.si'ca1i finpdanner or ever; whether the power is exercised. in'I._a': rna.1afide manner and if it is a situation of "..,co1ot1ra.bie exercise of power! it 27. in the present situation, the powers exercised it Htuuider the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act by the officials of the State Government whether the persons go by the name of a Land Acquisition Officer or the ~30- Deputy Commissioner incharge or the Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board, scrutiny is to examine as to whether such power has been exercised in a bQl'1'3.;:.fl_CVi€x manner and having so examined the preserii~ . the touchstone of the material available on recoifd, ll V that power under the Act is present case as the origirii-:ip:l"*~..scheme' is virtually abandoned butxis im'p'1emented in a very truncated this, Court can take not;e"of provisions of Section A' Urban Development Authority.._Act, under ;-
_;"'27. to execute the scheme " C'w.i£hit1'_five"yéars.- Where within a period of i from the date of publication in the Q[ficialvp's='h}azette of the declaration under sub- (1) of Section 19, the authority faiis to e».:ecute the scheme substant'ially, the scheme shall lapse and the provisions of Section 36 shaii become inoperative. "
28. It leaves an interval of five years for substantially completing the developmental activities -31- imdertaken from the date of publication of the notification that the lands are required for a p1,:-hlic. purpose, to retain the lands and though statutory provision is not per se attracted to * V' proceedings for the Acquisit.ion;v"lolflancls "l'£:l:1€\~.V' provisions of the Karnataica Authorities Act, 1987, it the authorities could oi'igina;'l: object, behind the veil of and as envisioned as 'the. provisiori'sl--lf'of..,_Section 27 of the Karnataka l_AUi%'._Ii.ai3 llllfvjexzjeltiprrieilitll lAutl"iorities Act, 1987, as the laurijosel for the current acquisition of land is intended or-.vvasl'madel, was only for providing housing l:'fa.cil"itie's:' to urbanization of the Holeriarasipura roam' Government and Holenarasipura »e autho1'i._ties-dfinding that there was need to delete from 3;:h.e_i1iiltial proposal major extent of such lands as they tigers" found to be fertile agricultural lands or due to "mother reasons. the purpose for which the petition lands were sought to be acquired cannot. be served or achieved any rnore. 'H W32-
29. Be that as it may, the fact remains that t.he stipulated time period of five years, though expired in the present. case, what is more _ that the implementation of the Sellfipine is respect of 1/ 101" of the extent of proposed. which in itself original plan and scheme.
should be striven to 'if' its original perception when its size is the was originally envisaged __then."etheiacciuisition proceedings would be a total failure for for which it was proposed andgjhlerefore "itV_isl1neVitab1e for this Court to quash the l,tWovl'lriot'it'1eatioVns issued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of and allow the present. petitioners
--V before "Court.
Norbapplication of mind on the part of the respondents is writ large on the face of the record and the object appears to be to grab the lands of a few marginal land owners while giving up vast tracts of land of influential persons and such action is certainly not to achieve the objective putforth as the ground___ for acquisition. Such conduct creates a doubt respondents are acting to the detriment public interest, when the original "plan it not achieved by giving up 9/ 101-.1l'"'areAa A' of proposed land for the developrriehntal. ' retaining only 1/ 10%" extent of"th.e*lands inhitivallylinotified for acquisition.
proceedi_ngs_ but liberty reserved to the respondents: to co:11e'..up...yvith a proper plan and scheme l_vjforv-hacquripririg la1'id"---teimeet the precise need, to examine which the State Government and Board cai1__expl.o.re 1-.jE.'oVr meeting any of the housing requirements V'-»a.nd then to come up with an acquisition proposal. The is a statutory board which goes about with the ._plans and proposals day in and day out and it should have a clear plan for implenieiiting such projects -34- keeping in View the population of the town, available land, financial constraints and all such A4
32. Mis--using of powers by t.he i' become the order of the day and statutory authorities under enactments State and "been initiating acquisition p1*oceedlingl"s_: ' andll rigl1t" yvithout thought or application on issuing de~notifications irnpression to the public of the poor and maiginlal landl for acquisition and of huge t1'acts_Vof by affluent, influential '~ from acquisition proceedings.
public administration the State should not only keep the larger interest of 'Hits in mind in all its endeavors but such all for the larger good should be reflected in every taken by the State in its adrninistration. If an action by the State, on close scrutiny does not satisfy this test and is shown to be a eolourable exercise, done _ 35 _ action ha.s to be interfered with and set at naught. What is not in the interest and the welfare of the people. is definitely not in the interest of the State as people who make up the State.
34. Rule made absolute. Ilhriipugiiveld are quashed. All petitioraevrsparef'=avvarded,'v7?.e§;;e}i1pliaryif costs in their favour ' all at Rs.5.000/-- in favour vvhich is to be paid to each of be deposited before and on such deposit%_ pare"-.....per:nitted to withdraw the amount .,._§.p&3'5;i.'l'he V"co.sttoV:be paid or deposited within four failing which, the registry is directed topissue'éi~..ce:1'tificate in favour of the petitioners for j recoveryV.Aof"the cost as though it is a decree passed by if the civil "court.
if NG* 4' it 36. Petition allowed. 3 £154;
RIDGE