Karnataka High Court
Smt. Zareentaj vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 December, 2014
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S. Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.53827/2013 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. ZAREENTAJ,
W/O.SRI JAMEEL AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT NO.130/5,
JAMIYA MASZID ROAD,
MUSLIM BLOCK,
K.R.NAGAR TOWN,
MYSORE DISTRICT-571 602. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MAHANTESH T.S., ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING,
D.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MYSORE DISTRICT,
MYSORE-570 001.
3. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER
AND SPL.LAO.,
HUNSUR SUB-DIVISION,
HUNSUR,
MYSORE DISTRICT-571 105.
4. KARNATAKA URBAN WATER
SUPPLY & DRAINAGE BOARD,
2
NO.5 & 6, JAL BHAVAN,
1ST PHASE, 1ST STAGE,
BTM LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-560 029,
REP. BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SRI RAJIV CHAWLA. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.V.GIRIKUMAR, AGA FOR R1-R3
SRI H.N.SHASHIDARA, ADV. FOR
M/S.KESVY & CO., FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 5.4.2012 PUBLISHED IN
KARNATAKA GAZETTE DATED 23.8.2012 VIDE ANN-D AND
QUASH THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 18.9.2013
PUBLISHED IN KARNATAKA GAZETTE DATED 3.10.2013 VIDE
ANN-H IN RESPECT OF 10 GUNTAS OF LAND IN SY.NO.53/3
OF KALENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KRISHNARAJA
NAGAR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT BELONG TO THE
PETITIONER.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
a The petitioner is before this Court assailing the notification dated 05.04.2012 published in the Gazette on 23.08.2012 and the notification dated 18.09.2013 published in the Gazette on 03.10.2013 impugned at Annexures-D and H to the petition.
2. The petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.53 of Kalenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, K.R.Nagar 3 Taluk, Mysore District. In the said land measuring 4 acres 23 guntas, the petitioner having secured conversion of the same by the order dated 23.05.2009 has formed a layout consisting of 65 sites. In the preliminary notification dated 05.04.2012, an extent of 10 guntas in the said survey number belonging to the petitioner along with certain other lands were notified for acquisition for the benefit of the fourth respondent to draw the sewage line and also to construct the S.T.P. Wet Well Tanks. Subsequent to the preliminary notification, a notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner had filed objections to the said acquisition on 24.09.2012 as at Annexure-F to the petition. Notwithstanding such objection being filed by the petitioner, the respondents by the final notification dated 18.09.2013 have included the land belonging to the petitioner as well. It is in that view, the petitioner claiming to be aggrieved is before this Court.
3. The contention primarily is that the petitioner had not been provided appropriate opportunity as contemplated under Section 5(A) of the Land Acquisition 4 Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the same is a very valuable right available to the land owner and such proceedings of providing an opportunity to the petitioner cannot be dispensed. It is therefore contended that in the light of the petitioner not being provided with sufficient opportunity, the final notification which has been issued in the instant case would get vitiated. It is therefore contended that the final notification which is impugned herein is not sustainable.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Usha Stud and Agricultural Farm Private Ltd. and Ors -vs- State of Haryana and Ors (2013 AIR SCW 2024) with specific reference to Paragraph No.33 therein.
5. The fourth respondent-beneficiary has filed its objection statement. The need for acquiring the lands therein has been explained in the objection statement with reference to the technical report that had been submitted for the said purpose. It is contended that apart from the land of the petitioner, several other lands have also been 5 notified and none of the land owners have objected to the acquisition and as such, when the acquisition is for a public purpose, the case of the petitioner in any event would not arise for a different conclusion and as such, the case as putforth is liable to be rejected.
6. The learned Government Advocate with reference to the instructions received through the Para wise comments would contend that the Land Acquisition Officer in fact has taken note of the objection that had been filed by the petitioner and on analyzing the same, has sent the report and therefore, in such circumstance, when the acquisition is for a public purpose, no interference is called for.
7. In the light of the rival contentions, with regard to the right of a land owner to be provided with adequate opportunity under Section 5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, there can be no dispute. Apart from the conclusion reached in the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case cited supra, the position is also clear that when right to possess a land is a constitutional right and such 6 right is guaranteed under Article 300 (A) of the Constitution of India, the same can be divested only by due process of law. On the legal aspect, there is no dispute whatsoever.
8. Having taken note of this aspect of the matter, it is also necessary for this Court to take note as to whether the denial of a personal hearing to the petitioner in the instant case would vitiate the entire acquisition process or as to whether it would make a difference to the situation if the petitioner was granted such opportunity. To take note of this aspect, I have at the first instance perused the preliminary notification at Annexure-D to the petition. In that light, I have also perused the final notification at Annexure-H to the petition. A cumulative perusal of the same would indicate that the lands which had been indicated in the preliminary notification are also reflected in the final notification.
9. Insofar as the lands of the petitioner, it is seen that an extent of 10 guntas has been notified. It is no doubt true that as contended by the petitioner, the project 7 proposed by the fourth respondent would get located in a portion of the layout that has been formed by the petitioner and certain sites as formed by the petitioner would be lost in the said acquisition. In that light, it is not in dispute that at the first instance, on notifying the land, a notice dated 27.08.2012 was issued to the petitioner calling for objections if any. In reply to the same, the objection dated 24.09.2012 has been filed. Since, a contention has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was granted, at the outset, it is necessary to take note of the objection to find out the nature of the objection that had been putforth.
10. A perusal of the objection at Annexure-F would disclose that the petitioner has not seriously disputed that the acquisition is for a public purpose. All that the petitioner contends is that if the acquisition is proceeded, the petitioner would loose the land to the extent of 10 guntas, wherein the sites have been formed. If the said objection is kept in view and the purpose for which such acquisition is made is taken into consideration and in that 8 light, if it is noticed that the other land owners have not objected to the said acquisition on the ground that it is for a public purpose, the fact that the acquisition is for a public purpose would remain a foregone conclusion. If that be the position, even if the petitioner was granted an opportunity of hearing in the nature of the objection that had been putforth, the only contention is that the petitioner would loose certain sites in the layout that had been formed by her. Normally in an acquisition process, a land owner is bound to loose land for which the land owner would be compensated cannot be in dispute. Therefore, that in itself cannot be a ground to oppose the acquisition.
11. Hence, in the instant case, if these aspects of the matter are kept in view and in that light, if it is noticed that by the notice dated 31.05.2013 the petitioner was intimated that the objection had been taken into consideration and thereafter, it is decided to continue with the acquisition and presently, when it is brought on record that the entire project was to be implemented based on the technical report and since I have already arrived at a 9 conclusion that the acquisition is for a public purpose, merely for the reason that the petitioner is not granted a personal hearing, if at this stage this Court seeks to quash the final notification, firstly, the opportunity to be provided would be only for the purpose of complying with a requirement and nothing else. In such situation, the re-consideration of that aspect of the matter would delay the project which is in fact detrimental to public interest.
12. Therefore, when this Court is required to weigh the public interest as against the interest of the individual land owner, the position of law is also that this Court should decide keeping in view the public interest. In view of the reasons stated above, I see no reason to interfere with the notifications assailed in this petition.
In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE ST