Karnataka High Court
Basawaraj S/O Sangappa Mamadapur vs The Special Deputy Commissioner on 20 February, 2013
Author: N.Kumar
Bench: N.Kumar
- 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT
BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NOS.82145/2010
& 82151-152/2010(LA-Res)
BETWEEN:
1. Basawaraj,
S/o.Sangappa Mamadapur,
Age: 35 years, Occ:Agriculture,
R/o.Kolhar, Tq. B.Bagewadi.
2. Suryakant,
S/o.Veerappa Mamadapur,
Age: 30 years, Occ:Agriculture,
R/o.Kolhar, Tq. B.Bagewadi.
3. Vijayakumar,
S/o.Veerappa Mamadapur,
Age: 28 years, Occ:Agriculture,
R/o.Kolhar, Tq. B.Bagewadi. ...PETITIONERS
(By Sri.P.S.Patil & Sri.S.B.Patil, Advs.)
AND:
1. The Special Deputy Commissioner,
UKP, Bagalkot.
- 2-
2. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Almatti Tq.,
B.Bagewadi Dist. Bijapur. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.Shivakumar Tengli, AGA)
. . . .
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue
a writ of certiorari, quashing the impugned notice
dated 15.04.2010 in No.LAQ/SR-23/2009-10 vide
Annexure-B on the file of the respondent No.2 Land
Acquisition Officer in sof ar as it relates the
petitioners lands to the extent of 8 guntas in
Sy.no.69/1, 69/2/2K, 69/1B and 69/1K situated at
Kolhar village Tq. B.Bagewadi Dist. Bijapur, in the
interest of justice and equity.
These petitions coming on for preliminary
hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
These writ petitions are filed challenging the impugned notice dated 15.04.2010 as per Annexure `B'. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act where under an extent of 8 guntas belonging to the petitioners is proposed to be
- 3- acquired for the formation of a road for the benefit of the public.
2. Petitioner No.1 is the owner in personal cultivation of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.69/1 and 69/2/2k measuring 1 acre and 5 acres 11 guntas respectively situated at Kolhar Village in Basavan Bagewadi Taluk, Bijapur District. The petitioner No.2 is the owner and in personal cultivation of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.69/1B measuring 1 acre 18 guntas situated at Kolhar village and petitioner No.3 is the owner in cultivation of agricultural land bearing No.69/1/K measuring 2 acres 24 guntas situated in the same place. In fact the petitioners are none other than the brothers and prior to partition they owned Sy.No.69, which is now divided and given sub-numbers.
3. Respondent No.1 has issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 06.03.2010 notifying the aforesaid lands belong to
- 4- the petitioners to the extent of 8 acres in total out of the above said lands for the purpose of forming connection road to the lands. In view of the urgency, Section 17(4) of the Act is also invoked. The petitioners have filed their objections to the said acquisition and they have requested them to drop the acquisition proceedings. Without considering the objections, authorities are proceeding to form the road. When enquired, they were told enquiry under Section 5A is dispensed with in view of the invoking of the urgency clause under Section 17. Therefore, the petitioners have preferred these writ petitions seeking quashing of the said preliminary notification.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the acquisition is not bonafide. Along with the writ petition a sketch is produced showing the portion of the land, which is sought to be acquired. His case is that the road intended to be formed in his land, could be formed in
- 5- others' land and that hey have chosen the land of the petitioners with malafide intention. Therefore, he seeks for setting- aside the said acquisition.
5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate submits that already there exists a road, which has come near to the petitioner's land. It is that road, which is to be continued further to reach the main road. Therefore, they cannot extend this connecting road to some other place. The very purpose would be defeated. Therefore, he submits that the acquisition is for a public purpose and therefore, no case for quashing is made out.
6. The sketch of the village map is produced. It discloses that the farmers are growing the sugarcane in all the agricultural lands and the sugar cane factory is situated. For transportation of the sugarcane, it is necessary to have the road, through which the lorry and tractor carrying sugarcane can transport the same. The sketch produced shows
- 6- there is a road North to South, which is the main road. There is also a road from East to West and the said road stops at Sy.No.69. If the road is continued up to the main road, which is located North-South, it would give connection. That connecting road cannot be done in any other place, where it would not have continuation. Under these circumstances, the proposed acquisition of the petitioners' lands for the purpose of formation of a road cannot be faulted. In fact continuance of the existing road is not actuated with any malafides. The road is required to be used by the adjoining owners of the land, who are growing sugarcane and transporting sugarcane grown to the factories. The acquisition is for a public purpose. There is no merit in these petitions.
Petitions accordingly stand dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SPS