Karnataka High Court
Muniramaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 March, 2023
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S Dixit
-1-
WP No. 57816 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 57816 OF 2013 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
MUNIRAMAIAH,
S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs
1a) SHARADHAMMA,
D/O LATE MUNIRAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
1b) SRI MUNIRAJU,
S/O LATE MUNIRAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
Digitally signed 1c) SRI GOVINDARAJU,
by CHETAN B
C S/O LATE MUNIRAMAIAH,
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
ALL ARE RESIDING AT:-
VERNAGAL VILLAGE AND HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S. PRAKASH SHETTY.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
-2-
WP No. 57816 of 2013
(INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT),
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY,
MULTISTORIED BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. EXECUTIVE MEMBER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT
BOARD, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
(HARDWARE PARK),
KIADB, NO.3, IST CROSS,
KHENI BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR,
GHANDINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. SRINIVASA GOWDA.,AGA FOR R1,
SRI. B.B. PATIL.,ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3.)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTIFICATIONS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 28(1) OF THE KIADB
ACT DATED 6.7.2010 VIDE ANN-C AND FINAL DECLARATION
UNDER SECTION 28[4] OF THE KIADB ACT DATED 9.9.2011
VIDE ANN-D AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner since dead by his L.Rs, is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the acquisition of his small piece of land, in all admeasuring 36.12 guntas as -3- WP No. 57816 of 2013 described in the schedule hereto. The acquisition process began with the issuance of Preliminary Notification dated 6.7.2010 at Annexure-C followed the Final Notification dated 9.9.2011 at Annexure-D respectfully issued u/s 28(1) & 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966.
2. After service of notice, the State has entered appearance through its learned AGA and the respondent- KIADB & its SLAO has entered appearance through their Senior Panel Counsel. The KIADB has filed the Statement of Objections on 22.1.2016 opposing the Writ Petition. The Panel Counsel makes submission in justification of the acquisition adding that now the award also has been passed in the year 2020.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
-4-WP No. 57816 of 2013
(a) Deceased petitioner was the absolute owner of the subject property in possession and after his death, his children have succeeded to the estate of the deceased.
The subject land which is apparently less than an acre, has been the lifeline of the family of the petitioner and they have specifically stated about the same being the only source of livelihood through cultivation of the same. This averment in the petition has not been denied. The contention that the land is being notified for acquisition for a public purpose and that the land owners would be paid the compensation, cannot invariably be a justification for the acquisition more particularly when what is sought to be acquired is a small piece of an agricultural land which is the lifeline of the family.
(b) The subject land has been notified for acquisition by way of Preliminary Notification dated
6.7.2010 followed by the Final Notification dated 9.9.2011. The award has been passed only in the year 2020 with absolutely no explanation for the delay brooked. True it is -5- WP No. 57816 of 2013 that the issuance of Final Notification coupled with Possession Delivery Notice accomplishes the process of acquisition under the 1966 Act. However, a subsequent act of passing the award after brooking enormous delay of one decade would rob away the legality elements that otherwise animated the acquisition process, more particularly when the property rights are constitutionally guaranteed u/a 300A, although the same are no longer a Fundamental Right u/a 19(1)(f) post 44th Amendment.
(c) The vehement contention of learned Panel Counsel for the respondents that once the acquisition process is accomplished by issuance of section 28(4) Notification coupled with Possession Delivery Notice, delayed passing of the award being a subsequent event should not affect the validity of accomplished acquisition, cannot be countenanced and reasons for this are not far to seek; true it is, the provisions of section 28 do not prescribe any limitation period for passing of the award or accomplishing the acquisition otherwise. It is also true that -6- WP No. 57816 of 2013 the lapsing provision enacted in section 11A of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 stands away from the scheme of acquisition envisaged under 1966 Act. However, this does not mean that the authorities can sleep over the matter and pass the award after waking up from deep slumber decades after the acquisition Notifications were issued. It hardly needs to be stated that ours is not a Government of East India Company but a Welfare State constitutionally ushered in and therefore, the authorities have to act with reason & justice. Where no limitation is prescribed, they should act within a reasonable period. A decade that separates issuance of the acquisition Notifications and passing of the award would as of necessity vitiate the very acquisition process itself, more particularly when what was stayed was possession being taken over and not the ongoing process of acquisition.
(d) There is also force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that no personal notice was issued to his clients and no reasonable enquiry for -7- WP No. 57816 of 2013 ascertaining their whereabouts was ever made. No material is placed on record to satisfy the court that notice was sent to the proper address of the land owner and he was served with the same. In the absence of such a notice, the valuable right of the land owner to oppose the proposal for acquisition would be rendered nugatory.
(e) The last contention of the Panel Counsel appearing for the KIADB that even if court finds some lacunae at the stage of issuing the Final Notification u/s 28(4) of the 1966 Act, and also the award belatedly passed, the Preliminary Notification issued u/s 28(1) has to be sustained, is bit difficult to agree with. Retaining the Preliminary Notification after quashing all subsequent acts would not augur well to the petitioners inasmuch as that itself constitutes the reckoning point for determination of compensation. In the run of a decade, the land prices have shooted up like anything and this reality of the escalating prices of the realty cannot be lost sight of by the Constitutional Courts when what is at stake is nothing less -8- WP No. 57816 of 2013 than the constitutional right to property. It is always open to the respondent-State to freshly notify acquisition once the one at hands is set at naught.
(f) This Court has been observing that in umpteen number of cases of acquisition, awards are not passed and that has been imperiling the interest of the land owners and more particularly, those who hold small agricultural lands on which their lifeboat sails. In a Welfare State, this would not augur well for the public interest, as well and it does not need a research to learn that there has been an undercurrent amongst the masses against governments proposal for acquisition of the agricultural lands. The Apex Court in M.C.MEHTA vs. UNION OF INDIA, (2020) 7 SCC 530 observed: "...Agriculture is the backbone of the economy of this country. Its interest cannot be overlooked...when the State has the obligation towards the agriculture...". This profound observation of the Apex Court of the country cannot be treated as only "a much ado signifying nothing' to borrow the words of -9- WP No. 57816 of 2013 Shakespeare. It cannot go as an empty echo signifying nothing. That view should factor in adjudging the validity of acquisition of agricultural lands if not other allied properties. Where fairness lacks in the action of the State authorities, they cannot go unscathed. The least that can be done in matters like this is to deter them by levying them exemplary costs so that their laxity in action at least in due course would disappear. This is a fit case for levying such costs.
In the above circumstances, this petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned Notifications and also all actions including the award that followed the said Notifications. The subject land is made free of acquisition process.
The respondent-KIADB shall pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two lakh fifty thousand only) by way of exemplary costs to the petitioners within six weeks failing which, it has to shell out a sum of Rs.2,500/- per
- 10 -
WP No. 57816 of 2013day as penalty for the delay. The same may be recovered from the erring officials in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE DS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29