Karnataka High Court
Smt Ratna Nagaraj W/O M.S.Nagaraj Rao vs State Of Karnataka on 15 June, 2011
Author: Manjula Chellur
Bench: Manjula Chellur
PRONOUNCEMEZNT or oRosR:.s7ritis
CI-IELLUR J., MADE ri3ERrgii,§mji_xioi; _ p .
This Writ Petition is vi*i-1veLi.v_see1{'ing'issuaneewofiWrit"
of eertiorari to quash tph.e:"'v.er1t_ire .proeee.eiings of
acquisition dated the Respondent
go} - State oi.£{arnatai;:a:'onv'-Si.' {ride AnneXure--- 2, the owner in 4 acres situated at The fact that the notificatipon on 31.1.2003 under section 28(1) of th-e_'K:»1rnata1{ah Industrial Areas Development (hereiriafter referred to as 'the {(1% Act' for . "Nfm I' -
the name of the petitioner in respect of tiiehabove' esafd land indicates admission of ownership of the petitioner over the above land by the respondents. ;ifiii"'~«_.pubiieation of the notification, there was no 'personal knowledge of the proposal for acquisition of the petitioners land. Therefore there is non»c-o:rnpiicai:c'et.oi Section 28(2) of the KIAD Act bythe.responid'e'n.ts':'
3. According to the pertitionediicas theto»acq:iisitionViis_i";
under the KIAD Act, there the part of the respondent ,mp.ass award as contemplated under the Land Acquisition "absence of final notification'; is the owner of the property..1r1u:qi;ies'tIi;on éiinepossession and enjoyment of the, to deal with her own property the she likes because of the preliinintaryx notification which is nothing but " t.1nf'eas'o'nab1e restriction imposed on her right to use the it file petitioner contends that virtually the de::eh1opVrn.'e"rit'iof the property in question is freezed since 2003"and she cannot keep Waiting for an indefinite «.:if"'peri'o«d. Therefore, she contends that it is nothing but a sheer abuse of process of iaw. The notification suffers wiiirorn vagueness as the purpose for which the lands are c project proponent.
V' * '_ e.o_rr"eq:spondence V' inane.
acquired is mentioned in an omnibus purpose of acquisition of the lan,d~is..indi.c.atvedif u by different authorities. The slcetchi Land Acquisition Officer, ti¥.e"third the extent and boundaries progoosed to be acquired and the landliis' interchange of Bangalore-Mysore project.
However, as jiE;3l§xfilC"'Planning Authority at Anne::lure:~.l:é,_ nowhere near the proposed land is outside the proposed V '~ {Li'According___tov the petitioner, the notified area is » nine}: what is actually required by the fourth As against the reqnirernerit of 4528 acres of land for peripheral road, "acres of land has been notified as per the between the Prl. Secretary of Governmeiit of Karnataka and Chief Executive Officer of Even the Pollution Controi Board has Kfifnk A' A. withdrawn its consent for approval of the the Air Act and the Water Act."
issued on 21.3.2008 and 23.3:'2G(§§ township at Bidadi as BMIC_v'project'-and _atdditi'ona.1«';iand'V.2' at UM. Kaval and i..__Anotherf._notification came to be issued some other land at Talaghattapuraand 1:Theseiinotifications were issued Violatlinigjthetinodeig co'd:e'iof of election, which was how under the guise v'th'e.V>4iV5 iespofident, various laws are flouted ' 2 by the notification dated
29. 1.2Ot)V3.__and the of the proceedings at a belatedii. stage the respondent authorities, the Viiihavs approached this Court with this writ ~5i.";.Aecording to the Respondents 2 and 3 via, and the Speciai Land Acquisition Officer, the State Government while exercising its eminent domain power has issued preliminary notification under Section . 9'" \ , = No: 'K it ise.ned.
28(1) of the Act. Third respondent of the 131 respondent has caused notice "
under section 28(2) of the Act to._appea'r41behfore and file objections. As a niatter'«-of fact, 'objeetioI;ivs.(_Vare} notf» filed. Even on the said (appeared through her advocate. question of opportunity of being to the petitioner does not arise under Section 28(3) by the considering the objections," thejjetitioner. Only after an order (State Government will take a final decieioii " satisfied with the need for the ELCCi1;:llSllil{)I1. These A. two respondents have denied »categorie.al4l.$%"~--. the allegation of vagueness in the section 28(1) of the Act. Not only the petitioner; 'hut all the owners of the lands are aware of the purnose for which the preliminary notification was The acquisition proceedings are also delayed _gv__bleeause vast extent of land has been notified for the project. Contending that the petitioner the Contentions raised here, Weefore.' authority during the Course of :l'9_"'i~'1alLl\Q'*£} sought for dismissal of the'Vi2i'it..petitiontV A A
6. According "the Bangalore» Mysore Infrastructure (BMICP) as envisaged of Karnataka on 20th Novernzblerp li.tigation challenging the said "Somashekara Reddy's case ' judgments and finally the project 'U.l!%p€X Court on 26.3.1999 and therefore, theiprojeet has to be executed forthwith by the ~ii?;'lresp'ondent. In an earlier litigation, this Court had call for the records and consider all the Contentions. 'T which are similar to the present eonteritiions. According to the 4"? respondent, the Very "19.' " ia2rit~«_.petition is premature as admittedly no notification 'under section 28(4) of the Act has been issued. They 99 whave aiso questioned the writ petiton on the ground of bee-binding in the present case as well. 9 delay as the writ petition has been filed after more than six years after the preliminary notification issued. There is no prescribed time Within»;whiclij---filial' notification has to be issued, there__fore_-'thetjuelstion of' acquisition proceedings being lap.se<;idoes'not_.arise0;"---F75.1
7. According to the were several attempts to vae_gu:isitionHllproceedings stalled by several frornAA'l~:[se--lveral quarters including i§étyi5ee;avrl'§A2oo4 and 2008.
Even a appointed to inquire into regarding acquisition for the projected he had occasion to consider thegsaine itsujludgment dated 20.4.2006. The 4"] rcisl0pon'den.t"was not responsible for any delay. Question of"y.aguen'e.ss~:;oi; notification has already been considered byiihe Court in the earlier litigation which would It is further lllcolntended that JMC conducted in pursuance of initiation of acquisition proceedings in respect of the 10 land in question erroneously shows thatv_"'the--.A_1Ia:_1dh»ie._ required for interchange, in fact? ithéi-er 1*equired.Vf§)r'Vthe purpose of township. _HoWev_er',,_.
invalidate the acquisition.u_;."AThe the' alignment of the rQ:«1'd_e0rrtpoe.ertf<.gf B4'1\}'i1'C';P*"V:is under progress, which eomphriees ef "link road and 12 kilenieters firpto Bidadi and proper PWD as early as 2002._.---- eomponent stands fixed in the Plan approved by the G0vern1ne11.t 1 2';~?,__.'25004. The correspondence between the _VGeV.errime'r1t and its officials with Various fé)rr..n.s.«'the subject matter of contempt ' petit<_)r:_:ir2 No.96/2007 filed by the 431 respondent
-for the delay in eempletien of the prejeet. H behferehy vp'r:=.H0n'b1e Supreme Court wherein this reep0n;:ier1t: has indicated various acts of the State éfieigerrrment, omissiens and Commissions of the officials However an " .,,__1§r1eenditiena1 undertaking was tendered. by the State 11 Governnient before the Supreme Court on implement its judgment dated 20.4.2008. contend that the Pollution Cont3folVB'oerd._is obstructions by withdrawing the leonsents then, which is also COII1plaifi%:;V€[~.e{9€fOlt'e:--. 1;_his sWithlVV these submissions, they hat/"e" for "distnissal of the Writ petiton.
8. We _"learr1led"'eounsel appearing for the 1'}_a_n--d are nothing but reiterating X 'already raised in their respectiyg far as the present petitioner is coneerned., she has raised several contentions to suhs*tan.tiate her"ei*aim and has ultimately sought for pl qnaehinlgl _of._lthe preliminary notification issued under of the Act. As per the pleadings of the partiesllgwe notice that objections are not filed by the "id petlitiloner though advocate appeared several times before the eoneerned authority. There has to be a Vwtieeision under section 28(3) of the KIAD Act. 12 Thereafter, if the Government is satisfied "
of the lands proposed for acqt1is»ition--'_; unldelré it 28(1); a final notification under :"sec:It_io1i has to he issued. Therefore",-.__we are at st.ageVHw'here--.Vd' there is no certainty whetherllthe-land.'of petitioner is really required for " as iraéueness of notification is ooneern.ed:l;_ it VA 2i;lr<§alV;.1'3}.j'p/eonsidered in the earlier roundflgol went upto the Supreme R_eddy's ease, Madh::Lilsi£%ar;§;:3;vi_vs AIMO's case right from 1998 lonlwards.".VlA:_i'~._:"l7he...:lprojeot is approved by the Government of Karnataka and the challenge to the project i.hasle'ornelto an end by approving the project as project". llll H in that View of the matter, we need A not g"ov.ti'i.to t,he.:~question of vagueness of notification. l ..9.}_ If the respondent authorities or any other » aijthorities have violated the provisions of law, it is open 'tolthe petitioner to bring to the notice of the eoneerned 13 authority in her objections before the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
10. The petitioner is in possession of the..'l:and.:: V' the acquisition becomes final andmlherfi away, she will be in possession of to deal with the land. As vasfarea of ._land'; acquired, there is bourid~~..to jybecausel"oflyseveral restrictiosns and litigationscp has to be decided in tiiis';;iy.c}Nrit;3--_ pietiton .c_hfal1enge to the notification itindeii e are of the opinion that the: this Court only after final notifie_ati.on "The petitioner is permitted to file gherobjections befote the Special Land Acquisition Qfficer. not filed so far. She is entitled to ,'w ' :7 all the contentions now raised. The
-- concuerneydl aiithority shall consider the objections and appfopriate orders in accordance with iaw. 14 II. We dispose of the writ pettton with an ebservatton that the writ petition is premature,V.a}1%ie._Vthe petitioner is entitled to Challenge the final final notfleatton is issued.