Malleshappa S/O Irappa Kusugal, vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 September, 2011

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Malleshappa S/O Irappa Kusugal, vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 September, 2011

THESE PETITIONS | REO EPLE DUNT DER ¢ ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE. CONSTITUTT¢ )F INDIA PRAYING TO CALI FOR RECOR Ds. ERGM. NbENTS IN R ESPECT OF THE ACQOUI ION OQ) S PERTAINI NG TO IN SY.NOS.16: ed MAND 16244 SASURING ABOUT 9 ACRES OF LAND OF DODD. Y: KANAKOPPA OF PHAR. D ANE PERUSAL..OF THE SAME BE PLEASED TO RESPONDENT NOS. P.TO 3.TO ALLOT A SIRE OF 60° X 40°. PER CRE OF LAND ACQUIRED BY ISSUI NGA WRIT OF Mz MUS AND ANY OTHER. | PPROPRIATE ORDERS" UNDER, ARTICLE 226 AND OR 227 OF THE CONSTI TU PON OF FNDIA AND ETC, 7 MPBC.W. 61378/2011 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CFC PRAYING TO DIRECT R2 TO R4 TO PURNISH THE LAND DEV ELOPME NT SCHEME PERTAINING TO D.N. KOPPA VELBAGE. DHAR\ WAD, ~, MI ne -W61379/2011 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF "OPC PRAYING TO STAY THE PUBLIC AUCTION OF CORNER SITES" PROPOSED TO BE HELD ON 21/06/2011 AS PUBLISHED IN THE NEWS PAPER SAMYUKTA KARNATAKA "DATED 10/ (06/2011 viDE. BEARING NO.KHB/HUD/GS/AUCTION-NOTICE/HU-2/2011-12. DATED 1/06/2011 PERTAINING TO. oo N-KOPPA VILLAGE DWID FOR THE REASONS STATED THEREIN. Lo THESE PETITIONS ALONG WITH MISC .W.61379/2011 ARE COMING ON DAY. THE COURT | MADE THE FOLLOWING Land losers before _ seeking rig 6 ra diréctio n to respondents 1 to 3 to. allo i 'Sites 'of dimeitsion 607 x 40' per acre of land acquired :

2, There is, no-d ispute that lands measuring 9 acres in _ Sy, N o16 fata . "and 17/3445 of Dodda rayakan akoppa. "Dharwa d. belonging to the petitioners, were acquired by the respondents- Ka mataka: Housing board for a scheme of laying out sites and residential building for the public. It is aiso net in«d<dispute that at the instance of the ~pétitioners; a reference was made under Section 18 of _ the Latrd Acquisition Act to the civil Court, whence compensation was enhanced, and a first appeal i before this Court, resulted in further enhancement of compensation.

3. Therefore, petitioners °. having'. "not questioned the legality and validit' v of the acquisition | of their lands and having secured. market' valure of the lands as compensation, 'the' question. is, would they be entitled to allotment of a Site measuring 60' x 40' for every acre of lamd acquired?

4. Sri. VR. Datars. learned counsel for the petitioners points "ott to. paragraph 9 of the order dated 7h suly. 2903 in Writ Appeal 3931/1997 and connected appeals between Abdul Rehman and others Vs. State.of Karnataka and others to contend that in » identical circumstances following the decision of the Apex Court in State of U.P. vs. Smt. Pista Devi and Others AIR 1986 SC 2025 and that of this Court in . Puttaswamachari and Others vs The Land Acquisition Officer and Others in Writ Petition bt we ~ Jj-

Nos.15648-650/1995 dated 4th March, 1998. directed the respondent-Shimoga Urban Deveropment + Authority to allot one site for each acre of fared -- acquired in the lavout to be formed byvitvat the rate to be fixed by the respondents in. respect of. the» allotment to be made by it to the merbders of the public. Learned counsél further. places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in "Narmada Bachao Andolan ov. State. ef Madhya Pradesh AIR 2011 rye Supreme Court. 1989 whereunder at paragraph 24 following a host of "decisions including Pista Devi's case concluded (hat displaced person are entitled to resettlement and. rehabilitation as per the policy framed for ou stees of concerned project.

5. * Per 7 contra, learned counsel for the

-reSpondent-housing board submits that the "acquisition is of the year 1990 and the petitioners having not questioned the validity of the acquisition

-proceedings followed by the claim for enhancement of compensation which in fact is enhanced: to ¥6,00,00,000/- for 9 acres of land coupled.with. the fact that formation of sites is completed and in the. absence of a scheme. of allottirrg = stich: osites, petitioners are not entitled for the rehef sought for.

6. In| Narmada Bachao., Avd6lan's case, the facts were that a G overnment = pelicy regarding rehabilitation and=sesettlement. cf families affected due to submergense itt Narmada: Project whence the q oustees(land losers). claiming land for land and displaced families. having not withdrawn special rehabilitatian package benefits/compensation lotment voluntarity, but.submitted applications for al of laind™ before, authority concerned, the Apex Court » having regard 'to Article 21 of the Constitution of "India and applying Same to the land acquisition and 'rehabilitation observed that it was desirable to the "authority concerned to ensure that as far as practicable persons who had not been living and "Pease ys carrying on business or other activity on thesland acquired, if they so desire, and are willing to purch wa . by vy of the and comply with ant the local body, be settled with due regard to the price. at. which. land:has:

been acquired from them. Further held- thei ti Government cannot be compelled te, provide alternate accommodation to authority concerned:

fONG COMSIGeFING maenen oN, es the facts and circum: CA Cause. Ir ft was held that-the oustees are ertitled to tation is meant only for those persons who h ch ve been rendered destitute because of : lan d ae cquisition. It is useful to extract the Sbeerbation in the judgment: "24. XXXXXX A blinkered vision of development, complete apathy towards those who are highly adversel y H | Bei | ?

5

~ es -

affected by the development process and a cynical unconcern for the enforcement of laws |! ed d- to. 7a situation where the rights and benefits premised -and guaranteed under the Constitutional frardly ever reach the most marginalised citizens. .Far people whose. lives and livelihoods are intrinsically connect land, the economic a nd cultura I shi ift to a market economy can be traumatic."

7. In Pista Devi's tase, the "Apex Court having regard to Section: 21(2) of.th e Delhi Development Act, 1957 held thats the "provisions in the Delhi Development Act. contains a wholesome. principle Which. should be followed by all Development Authorities "throughout the country when they »_ acquire 'large tracts of land for the purpose o development in urban areas and accordingly, direction was issued to the Meerut Development .-. Authority, for whose benefit the land in question has

-peen acquired to as far as practicable provide a _Q-

house site or shop. site or reasonable size on reasonable terms to each of the expropriated nérsons who have no houses or shop buildings ins thé.urban | area in question.

8. A Division Bench of this vod ri in 'Abd ul Rehman's case, having. regard. to™. th e 'facts and circumstances of that case, relatiig -.the ch allenge to the validity: ofvth e. aicquigition of lands of the appellants th erein, directe a th e 'resp ondent-Shimoga Urban Deévelopment™.Authorit' to allot sites to the appellants at the.price 'to be fixed in respect of the sites to be allotted by the respondents, insofar as the appellants are™concerned, while reserving liberty to the bespondeénts. io allot sites either by waiving sital ~ value oF to allot sites at lower price than the one fixed for allotment to the members of the general public.

i of 9, Having regard to the facts of this -case, more appropriately that the petitioners exprepriated Pprop : I preprire.

from the lands, having not questioned the legality and the validity of the acquisitien preceedings; in the . if i ; se a absence of a scheme to provide .alternative land-to-. petitioners on acquisition of their lands >the tact that compensation of %6,00.090,000/-"for @ acres of land is [7 ROE determined; and in the absence of retevant material 7 8 4 that their livelihded. was 'intrinsically connected to the lands acquired or rendered destitutes because of loss of . residence'. asa > consequence of land acquisition,.are net entitled to, as a matter of right to seek aidirection, to the respondent authorities for allotinent of stte measuring 60' x 40' for each acre ol! lana. | "1@. However, following the decision in Pista

-. Devi's case, the only direction that could be issued to the respondent Housing board is as far as practicable provide a house or shop site of reasonable size on reasonable terms to each of the expropriated persons who have no houses or shop buildings in the urban area in question. It is needless to State that: if tine petitioners provide all relevant materiah for ailotment of sites, to the respondent Housing. board, within an fortnight form today, the said -auithority is directed to consider that request, and" pass orders 'strictly in accordance with law Within .two m ont ing.th ereafter. of accordingly.

Misc.Ws.€1378/201). "and .61379/2011 filed for direction and. stay" respectively are dismissed as unnecessary kamy

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court