H S Soma Shekar vs State Of Karnataka on 8 June, 2011

[Cites 2, Cited by 1]
Karnataka High Court

H S Soma Shekar vs State Of Karnataka on 8 June, 2011

Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, B.Manohar

after considering the objections and after'I§::ir€.5§;*;i:€Evi_I1g

persona} hearing of the objectors/oeeupiere'

under Section 28(3) of the Act'  'er_derC0VVe~r~ '

ruling the objections.

4. Insofar as the appev11a.r:i"t..ein  

concerned, he filedhis ebjee'ti:eris.._At0 the rietifieation
issued under Sectioh4h{3{_1'Vj  He
was asked}. hearing or:
14~5~200?7:   contended that 9
aeres3V't"H7'  Sy.No.'71 situated at
 by his father on

215}.--_v199E§." _:VAfte':r Apurehasing the said property, they

  iborewell aridﬂrajsed agricultural and horticultural

  further contended that in the year

I996, V_ti'1~f: same land was sought to be acquired for

 the iaurpose of Karnataka Handicraft Develepment

'gCerp0i*ation§ however the said acquisition was dropped

   since the land in question was wet land. Further in the

re
553' ,



year 2006, the Housing Board proposed to acquire the

said land for the purpose of construction of tlj1evl_h.ou.ses,

the said notification was also dropped s_i-rice'

land is fertile. Manchanabele darn wa:s'lco'nl:_;_:rti~cvted =-for' » 1 

catering the water to the 1'_la~ndé'~_ 

Archakarahalli village antlhother adjacle_nt.:vizillagesi The

land in question ispthe onlgoeource of"th.eir.i§livelihood
and sought for   proceedings.
Since the lancl   of Rajiv
Gandhi  S-.t1perllllSpeeiality Hospital
and  public purpose, overt
ruling'-_' the'  the appellants, notification

under Seic*:io'n  been issued. Similar objections

    filecl'i3y'*the other land owners. After giving

 _ "an"opportti;1itjg of being heard as required under Section

  Act, notification under Section 28(4) has

 been ._i_%;sued. Thereafter, notification under Section

  has been issued and the Governrnent took

  .. ___possession and haneied over to the Board. The award



has also been passed and compensation has §:"iee.1f1'<paic:l.

However, only these appellants filed i;¢§%i*it 

challenging the notification issiiedfor zicqiiiaiiioh. ilflfiu ' S. 

land. 90% of the people had re:€:eiVi'ecl 'ieoh1peii'sation. "am

supported for acquisition"of'--~the land forl..establi.,sliment.S'

of Rajiv Gandhi Medical   Medial
College, Dental Collleigep, Neirlsirigi.:College, Pharmacy
college, Super Speciality  other Allied
lnstitutio1is3._.:v   is sought to be
acquirecl    Only the negligible
pereejhtaglel' peop_le_ cfaiinot stall the acquisition

proceeldings. ' V

  S  'appellahts herein being aggrieved by the

 .l_notificl:ati.<;i_riQlated 2'.7~2~2OO'7 issued under Section 3(1)

arid  the Act acquiring the land for the purpose

 pef establishing Rajiv Gandhi Medical Uriiversity,

 'x'}oii~eri1ment Medical College? Dental, Nursirigi

  V___l3harrriaey Colleges and Super Speciality Hospital and

its



lf?

Allied Institutions, ﬁled writ petitions. The 'learned

Single Judge after considering the eontentioris _

the appellants herein by an order 

dismissed the writ petitions. 7._vBe§ng3aggrieifec:l" by "the

same, the appellants filed*Wtf_it appeals  very)

same eontentionss which were-.taken bterefe the learned
Single Judge.

6.  'V   Senior Counsel
appeari_r1g_   lVi/S4.D'fSriniVasa Murthy and
Associates' fort 0 in W.A.No. 1360/2008 and

Sri.T.N.Raghu,patn$*;l_ le.arned Counsel appearing for the

 apvpéjtllantsv «W..Av.No.137O and 1371/2008 and

 lW.kxzNO_Sl2?}'é:4*224O/2OO8 & W.A.Nos.'773-789/2009,

Sri.":'Jl.Srir:l£'gg*a:#i', learned Counsel appearing for the

I appellalntsv in W.A.No. 1372 /2008 and

A '~:l_""'3l§,?V'.:l;l'§;'l_'.\z'o.2892/2009 interalia contended that the large

  extent of Government land is available in and around

 Arehakarahalli village to an extent of 2352.19 aeresl out

J; §J,/~(»/



is

sf which, 13333.23 acres of land is in unatithlerised

occupation. The Assistant Commissioner,_Rarn.anr.ag*a_:*at_

Sub~DiVisi0n regularised the said'""v--t1:nati't.herised". 

occupation. At present, £318.96:'aelr-esiarrdhl 

of Kharab land in all lO8?;'O6_.acres bf Ian V'
instead of establishing  flibspital in
the said land, the   garden and
fertile agricultural    the appellants
which is    by the Hon'ble
Suprerné.¢%51i:rt::'11iepei?ted:fin"  4 sec 104 The State
 in the year 2007

informinguthe,Pleq1iiriii§3'Body that the garden land and

 A_ agrieiiltiiral land .s_he'uld not be acquired. In spite of the

 ' same,  fertile land has been acquired. The objections

filedlby the-'j_p.etiti0ners are not considered and no reason

 has been assigned for ever-«ruling the genuine objeetiens

A  by the land owners. Even though the

  Gisvernment Land is available, acquisition of the fertile,

 agricultural hiduvali land is against the spirit of the Act.

gﬂv 
ff /5'

A  V available'.. . L'



l9

have contended that before selecting these  a

thorough search was made for the GOV'€fHI_'§'l€l1lVV'l.Ell"ltl. in

and around the Rarnanagara Town.  «.bioek 

of the Government land was not available 

the Vicinity of Ramanagara' abuttiizgllthe 

It was found that nearl},i;l""«2t},_aeres.:l_%l gtintas of
government land in  <_:'o'ntig'olo'usvvilol'oek is available in
Arohakarahalli,.whieh~' ff¢ery._Clos'e_  Bangalore -

Mysore      present location
is  prodneed the report of the
Tahsildar availability of the land. They
also   in question is a Wet and

gaitdfen land. lReeo__rd.of Rights clearly discloses that the

    land and they had dug a borewell for
 agriculture and drinkingpurpose. Some

 of the..landls:have been left fallow for a long period. The
  ouestion are rain fed land and there is no facility
'    water which is situated about 36 Km from the

it clam. At present, the darn water had flown only up to l8

/g/W,



Government is not to acquire the Wet land and irrigated

land. Admittedly, the land sought to be acquiifed~i_s~not

wet land or come within the project areas, l*§'enee',vj"'the:fe' 

is no impediment for acquisition of the s'ai'd'  v;':'linee°'

the Karnataka Handicraft Devel'opni'e;nt 

not require the said land, dropped ptliei 'ac'qui:§ition"Vi'

proceedings in the 'year   --:the,.i§ land is
required for the  Medical
University?  of the
land for    The land
is  public} purpose and it is the
prerogative_ of  to select the lands,

which aI:e"--«.dniore~._ siiitahle for establishment of the

~'"~.__Me.di'ca3l._siljnivefsity----and medical colleges. Hence, it is

   appellants to contend that these lands

shoiild  acquired and sought for dismissal of the

*._appeais. 



'77

9. 'Ne have carefully considered the 

addressed by the learned counsel for  

perused the orders impugned ir::Athe:Aab.0'i/--e  éappcealis .'

10. it is not in dispute   Of
Health Science has  the year 1994.
In Vl€VV of the n.Qn~av:ailwabillitlyV<V  {tie University is
being run.   situated at 4th
Blocks   Eiince, there is acute
shortage .QAf't1q»le'«V.;i(;j,:o«ze'ri-slment has taken a decision
to shiftlétlaeh  other place and allotted

theiand. beariI'i-L.<glLS'y.l':J'o.'7.3 measuring 50 acres situated

  Kengeri Hobli. Since, there are many

'"cli.s'i3utes'have been filed. In View of that the

'V possessizgny could not be taken for the last 8 years. in

 "..:i'V.VielW«..ccf the dire need of the space for establishment of

'  Medical University, the Cabinet has taken a decision on

uV.W'22~2-200? to establish the Ravji Gandhi Medical

University with Medical, Dental, Pharmacy and Nursing

V/J
/ 1: 1



26

record of rights clearly shows i'.hatlti'1e ian{is._iI1.pq_tiestie=n '

are rain fed lands. Some of thelands l:kept'i':i;alloWcp

and also they are not   "land in
question is not a  la_n.d§_loiI':«._garden lancl, but it is
kushki landp and   facility of
     " "

l2. '1'     appellants that for
    Medical University,

Government Colleges, Pharmacy and

Nursing colleges and" super speciality hospitals, the

  "of  Act cannot be invoked. The

  tliat the Act is meant for the development of

in€lusi:rial'f"larea and establishment of Hospital, Medical

3   Cslleges and Research Centers will not come under the

is also rniseonceived. Reading of Section 2(?)(a) of

'lithe KIADB Act makes it clear ﬁiat industrial

infrastructure facility means facility which contributes

to the development of the industries established in an

 



Y.)
~o

industrial area? such as Research and l}eve.lopir§.e_nti

Communication, Transport Banking". ,  f . 3/i'a.ri§.etin'g; on b   _p

Technology Park and Township  
establishing Trade and Touripsmllloelnteri 
facility as the Government Knoti'fleatioriﬁspecify to
be an industrial   The hospitals
and medical  Hence, the

contention.  appellants ji_rillthi"sl regard cannot be

13. Th'e,__'i"urtheral of the appellants that

before i'acquisition_____of the lands, concurrence of the

»Po»1lu'tionp "Control Board is not obtained is also

friiseoncei\}ie(€=. For the establishment of hospitals and

Q medieai... colleges, permission from Pollution Control

it  Board is not required. Further, the major portion of the

people of Archakarahaiii village have no objections for

acquisition of the said land and only few individuals

cannot challenge the acquisition notification and stall

 



the elevelopnient of areas and establishment of hospitals

and eolieges. The further allegation of the a.pp~ellants

that since the Rarnanagaram is the  

then Chief Minister, with the rnalafide"in'ten'tion,"Rani?'. 

Gandhi University was sought tjo"~be  :lt'o_ll'iis

Constituency is also mise_o'n.eeiVe'<i.V The 'decision to-'

establish the University Al\/lei(1'i<:al.._.pACollege  Super
Speciality Hospital  the.l:i'C.:abinet and not by
the Chief NV"l{l_enee;«._theg.lallegation of the

appellants"cannet:l--_Vb.e  Further, the possession

of let thle"land"'h~as been taken over by the
StatelGoiv*ernInen't:lanlelihanded over to the KIADB. It is

for the (§oi:ernnient~«.to'eiecide the suitability of land and

1

 aLp;pellantsl"haVe no say in the matter. The

  -has been paid to those who have lost the

  acquisition proceedings. The Hon'ble

 Suprerne Court, time and again has said that it is the

ernilnent domain of the State Governnient to acquire the

    ._l;lanc:i and the owners are entitled enly for compensation.

9

"J1
2'



29

For the purpose of few individuals, C'i0Ii}:S}'C'I'Ll9i.l_lf)i."t,;__lGf

University, College and Super 

Cannot be stalled.

14, The contention of thezielarriedlleoiliiieelllfappearing
for the appellants'  thdt   of the judgment

re orted in (2006)   (KARANATAKA

IN USTRIAL'  "D,F§3\Zl13LQl>l.7iEl\lT BOARD V/s
C.KENCl._1Al=lli'Ali::_::'::      without the
permission t'heVl:Pollution Control Board,
   for establishment of an
induehjyl '-ahd  is miseonoeived. The

Ho:1'lole   in the aforesaid judgment in

 V'  . 'p'2dé1g:'aplu.A.31 héiS"'elearly held that:

  are also clearly of the considered
 fiielail it should be made mandatory for
'€}he"Cillo:tee to obtain necessary clearance for
a "tile Project from the Kamataka State Pollution
Control Board and the Department ofEeoZogy

and Environment before execution of the

.3
ll»



30 T .
agreement. Consequently, we direct f the-«   

appellant to incorporate this conditiofzli   
letter of allotment requiring 
obtain etearance before'   _ 
industry. The eonditioﬂ =   l 'V to . «. \ / , ,,  '

mandatory. 

15. In the instant    geing acquired
for the purpose of  Medical
College   The establishment
of  have any adverse effect
on the he*l"t1lrther contention of the

appellarlts is .:lfil,ADB Act cannot be invoked for

the _2_vL<:quliasit;'o1<)._'ofl'the"°land for establishment of Rajiv

  lvledicetlV"U'11iversity and Medical College is also

_ "1n_iseo1'2,eeé\?'e§iL--v The Hor1'b1e Supreme Court in a

 jlzreported in (2005) 7 sec 578

(P.ul'<fARAYANAPPA AND OTHERS V/3 STATE OF

  AND OT HERS} Clearly held that the land

 be acquired under the KEADB Act for orderly

£3 A
ea»-/'

If
f



"I

deveiepinent of industries, industrial ii'.1fi"8S§f'i1-Ct';1F£*d

facilities, making of a teehneiogieaié pa.i'i<,a'1i1,VdV'

development Centers, Townsh'i.p§ 1'_'Ii';:~*é1de'~_9;ned 

Centers or making provisif)n'~..f0r Marketing' A2in'd...I3ain1:ingi'

which would e0ntribute___'_i:'to:_ -the ."de_v9_ei0ﬁment of
industries. In View  ia:_drVi" by the Horfbie
Supreme Court, the   under KIADB
Act for théf'  Gandhi Medical
Unixrersitiriid   jiidgment, the H0n'b1e
Supreine  igiid" 'down a law that the
aequié;i,ti0.n  lands cannot be struck
down   denotification of some lands

ere initiaI.1y__'i11C1uded in the notification. In the

»:i'ns§tant'«.Ae;3Vi'se_, the lands acquired have not been

 __h§)x§}ever, they are not included in the final

notifie--§iti'on for the present, in View of existence of Vast

 niiinbeii ef trees.

;:
xiv»



32

£6. Sri.Ashok Haranahaﬂi, 

appearing for the Responden:t:..Stat.e  the

Industrial Area DexIe1opment--*1iXeti _a speeival enactment
brought to achieve   namely an
orderly and 'planned  promotion of
industrial.  .'2.__(}i')ijA'  Act provides for
fOI'II1a 1;__j(_)_VnV'  industrial estate and

industrial' infta'fsttuetu_1fe'*-taeilities. -gfhis Court in a

judgment' tarepofted:_4""«--..i_n 1997 (7) Kar.L'J. 410
(N.SOMAS.HEKAR ;AN.,t) OTHERS v/s STATE op'

 OTHERS) Clearly upheld the Validity

   Act and also acquisition of lands other

 .than Vi'l,l"£{.mSJ{:i%.i€EJ;"S¢ The said judgment was confirmed by

the Su'p're:tne Court. Further, he has argued that the

 ehoiceuof the land is the discretion of the State

''  Goxiernment. After thorough examination, the

   __ti}0V€rr1inent feels that there is a compact bioek of the

Government land very elese to the nationai highway and

/iii"



the said land is suitable for establishment oIf"R&jiv

Gandhi Health University and Medical Colle.ge.s_'

the needs of rural parts of Karnataka.  

have no right to say that the said 

for the establishment of  Gandhi  

Hon'ble Supreme Court in  drtepfortved in AIR
1996 so 3169  this  SUBHASHGIR
KHUSHALGIR itcoosgwiiiii   V/s SPECIAL
LAND Acgijisrrtoiﬁ.  l"AND omens, has
c1early__hVeldethat;::   l l V
_ «  Government to take a
decision' a.1"Ai(i«..Ai=t  for the Court to decide
V. as to"'whieh'--plaee" more convenient. Since
 the _GoVei*nrn--e11t have taken a decision that
  aequhfiiig the land for extension of the bus
    bus depot is in the public interest,
 cannot be said that the exercise of the

"power is arbitrary."

  Further, the Advocate General also relied upon a

l  jndgrnent reported in AIR 1997 SC l236 in the ease of


£ .



 

":4

RAMNIKLAL N.eHUrrA AND ANOTHER  _

MAHARASHTRA AND QTHERS to eontendV..VVtl§Qa't.¢_ High 

Court should keep larger publie  

exercising such powers and it 'should adopt l'ways<of;

affording appropriate Compensation instead olvriquashing

the acquisition proo.e'edingst'anel':eolntended"'th'at there is
no infirmity in the  acquisition of
the land for'egstabl§i_shment._Aoif"_j_V~Rajiy* I Gandhi Medical

University" l"_'«I;*le::?;__<5, _.for dismissal of the
appeals. , '   

18.  iliiidltheilte'  infirmity or irregularity in the

notification  hyllthe respondent for acquiring the
land tor establisvhmlent of the University, Colleges and Hospitals. The appellants have not Qiitllalilease to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, writ appeals b3' the appellants are liable to be dismissed.
Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

H S Soma Shekar vs State Of Karnataka on 8 June, 2011

Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, B.Manohar
