Karnataka High Court
Fakeerappa Santhammanavar vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 June, 2013
Author: B.S Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
W.P.No.77580/2013 (LA-KHB)
C/W
W.P.No.77581/2013 (LA-KHB), W.P.No.77582/2013 (LA-KHB)
W.P.No.77583/2013 (LA-KHB), W.P.No.77584/2013 (LA-KHB)
W.P.No.77585/2013 (LA-KHB), W.P.No.77586/2013 (LA-KHB)
W.P.No.77587/2013 (LA-KHB), W.P.No.77588/2013 (LA-KHB)
W.P.No.77589/2013 (LA-KHB), W.P.No.77590/2013 (LA-KHB)
W.P.No.66257/2011 (LA-KHB),
W.P.No.63898-900/2011 (LA-KHB),
W.P.No.63901-902/2011 (LA-KHB),
W.P.No.63903/2011 (LA-KHB),
W.P.No.63904-905/2011 (LA-KHB),
W.P.No.63906/2011 (LA-KHB)
IN W.P.No.77580/2013
BETWEEN:
1. Fakeerappa Santhammanavar
Urf Jakkannanavar,
S/o Yellappa Santhammanavar,
Age: 36.
2. Karibasappa Santhammanavar
Urf Jakkannanavar,
S/o Yellappa Santhammanavar,
Age: 38.
3. Smt. Neelavva Santhammanavar
Urf Jakkannanavar,
W/o Yellappa Santhammanavar,
Age: 55.
2
All are Major,
Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Gamanagatti village,
Hubli Taluk,
Dharwad District. ..PETITIONERS
(By Sri C.S.Patil, Adv. a/w Sri S.P.Shankar, Sr. Counsel)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Revenue Department,
M.S.Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Commissioner,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Cauvery Bhavan,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 009.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Cauvery Bhavan,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 009.
4. The Executive Engineer,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Chanakyapuri, Hubli,
Dharwad District. ..RESPONDENTS
(By Smt. Megha C.Kolekar, HCGP for R-1;
Smt. Sharmila M.Patil, Adv. for R-2 & 4;
Sri H.R.Gundappa, Adv. for R-3)
IN W.P.No.77581/2013
BETWEEN:
1. Fakeerappa Santhammanavar
Urf Jakkannanavar,
3
S/o Yellappa Santhammanavar,
Age: 36.
2. Karibasappa Santhammanavar
Urf Jakkannanavar,
S/o Yellappa Santhammanavar,
Age: 38.
3. Smt. Neelavva Santhammanavar
Urf Jakkannanavar,
W/o Yellappa Santhammanavar,
Age: 55.
All are Major,
Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Gamanagatti village,
Hubli Taluk,
Dharwad District. ..PETITIONERS
(By Sri C.S.Patil, Adv. a/w Sri S.P.Shankar, Sr. Counsel)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Revenue Department,
M.S.Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Commissioner,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Cauvery Bhavan,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 009.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Cauvery Bhavan,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 009.
4. The Executive Engineer,
Karnataka Housing Board,
4
Chanakyapuri, Hubli,
Dharwad District. ..RESPONDENTS
(By Smt. Megha C.Kolekar, HCGP for R-1;
Smt. Sharmila M.Patil, Adv. for R-2 & 4;
Sri H.R.Gundappa, Adv. for R-3)
IN W.P.No.77582/2013
BETWEEN:
1. Ramalingappa Malagi,
S/o Fakeerappa Malagi,
Age: 72.
2. Kariyappa Malagi,
S/o Fakeerappa Malagi,
Age: 60.
All are Major,
Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Gamanagatti village,
Hubli Taluk,
Dharwad District. ..PETITIONERS
(By Sri C.S.Patil, Adv. a/w Sri S.P.Shankar, Sr. Counsel)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Revenue Department,
M.S.Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Commissioner,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Cauvery Bhavan,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 009.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer,
Karnataka Housing Board,
5
Cauvery Bhavan,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 009.
4. The Executive Engineer,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Chanakyapuri, Hubli,
Dharwad District. ..RESPONDENTS
(By Smt. Megha C.Kolekar, HCGP for R-1;
Smt. Sharmila M.Patil, Adv. for R-2 & 4;
Sri H.R.Gundappa, Adv. for R-3)
IN W.P.No.77583/2013
BETWEEN:
1. Gulappa Beesagal,
S/o Basavanthappa Beesagal,
Age: 75.
2. Mahadevappa,
S/o Hanumanthappa Beesagal,
Age: 38.
3. Fakeerappa Beesagal,
S/o Basavanthappa Beesagal,
Age: 60.
4. Shivananda Beesagal,
S/o Basavanthappa Beesagal,
Age: 62.
All are Major,
Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Gamanagatti village,
Hubli Taluk,
Dharwad District. ..PETITIONERS
(By Sri C.S.Patil, Adv. a/w Sri S.P.Shankar, Sr. Counsel)
6
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Revenue Department,
M.S.Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Commissioner,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Cauvery Bhavan,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 009.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Cauvery Bhavan,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 009.
4. The Executive Engineer,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Chanakyapuri, Hubli,
Dharwad District. ..RESPONDENTS
(By Smt. Megha C.Kolekar, HCGP for R-1;
Smt. Sharmila M.Patil, Adv. for R-2 & 4;
Sri H.R.Gundappa, Adv. for R-3)
IN W.P.No.77584/2013
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Basalingavva Beesagal,
D/o Gangappa Beesagal,
Age: 45.
2. Smt. Mahadevi Beesagal,
D/o Gangappa Beesagal,
Age: 43.
7
3. Smt. Mallavva Beesagal,
D/o Gangappa Beesagal,
Age: 40.
4. Smt. Shanthavva Beesagal,
D/o Gangappa Beesagal,
Age: 38.
All are Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Gamanagatti village,
Hubli Taluk,
Dharwad District. ..PETITIONERS
(By Sri C.S.Patil, Adv. a/w Sri S.P.Shankar, Sr. Counsel)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Revenue Department,
M.S.Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Commissioner,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Cauvery Bhavan,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 009.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Cauvery Bhavan,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 009.
4. The Executive Engineer,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Chanakyapuri, Hubli,
Dharwad District. ..RESPONDENTS
(By Smt. Megha C.Kolekar, HCGP for R-1;
Smt. Sharmila M.Patil, Adv. for R-2 & 4;
Sri H.R.Gundappa, Adv. for R-3)
8
IN W.P.No.77585/2013
BETWEEN:
1. Himamhussain Savanthanavar,
S/o Abdulsab Savanthanavar,
Age: 58.
2. Khadarsab Savanthanavar,
S/o Abdulsab Savanthanavar,
Age: 56.
All are Major,
Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Gamanagatti village,
Hubli Taluk,
Dharwad District. ..PETITIONERS
(By Sri C.S.Patil, Adv. a/w Sri S.P.Shankar, Sr. Counsel)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Revenue Department,
M.S.Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Commissioner,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Cauvery Bhavan,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 009.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Cauvery Bhavan,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 009.
4. The Executive Engineer,
Karnataka Housing Board,
9
Chanakyapuri, Hubli,
Dharwad District. ..RESPONDENTS
(By Smt. Megha C.Kolekar, HCGP for R-1;
Smt. Sharmila M.Patil, Adv. for R-2 & 4;
Sri H.R.Gundappa, Adv. for R-3)
IN W.P.No.77586/2013
BETWEEN:
Kareppa Malagi,
S/o Fakeerappa Malagi,
Age: 60 years,
Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Gamanagatti village,
Hubli Taluk,
Dharwad District. ..PETITIONER
(By Sri C.S.Patil, Adv. a/w Sri S.P.Shankar, Sr. Counsel)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Revenue Department,
M.S.Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Commissioner,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Cauvery Bhavan,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 009.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Cauvery Bhavan,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 009.
10
4. The Executive Engineer,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Chanakyapuri, Hubli,
Dharwad District. ..RESPONDENTS
(By Smt. Megha C.Kolekar, HCGP for R-1;
Smt. Sharmila M.Patil, Adv. for R-2 & 4;
Sri H.R.Gundappa, Adv. for R-3)
IN W.P.No.77587/2013
BETWEEN:
1. Shivarudrappa Malagi,
S/o Dyamappa Malagi,
Age: 61.
2. Devendrappa Malagi,
S/o Dyamappa Malagi,
Age: 56.
All are Major,
Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Gamanagatti village,
Hubli Taluk,
Dharwad District. ..PETITIONERS
(By Sri C.S.Patil, Adv. a/w Sri S.P.Shankar, Sr. Counsel)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Revenue Department,
M.S.Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Commissioner,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Cauvery Bhavan,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 009.
11
3. The Land Acquisition Officer,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Cauvery Bhavan,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 009.
4. The Executive Engineer,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Chanakyapuri, Hubli,
Dharwad District. ..RESPONDENTS
(By Smt. Megha C.Kolekar, HCGP for R-1;
Smt. Sharmila M.Patil, Adv. for R-2 & 4;
Sri H.R.Gundappa, Adv. for R-3)
IN W.P.No.77588/2013
BETWEEN:
Shivarudrappa Malagi,
S/o Dyavappa Malagi,
Age: 61.
Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Gamanagatti village,
Hubli Taluk,
Dharwad District. ..PETITIONER
(By Sri C.S.Patil, Adv. a/w Sri S.P.Shankar, Sr. Counsel)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Revenue Department,
M.S.Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Commissioner,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Cauvery Bhavan,
12
K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 009.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Cauvery Bhavan,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 009.
4. The Executive Engineer,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Chanakyapuri, Hubli,
Dharwad District. ..RESPONDENTS
(By Smt. Megha C.Kolekar, HCGP for R-1;
Smt. Sharmila M.Patil, Adv. for R-2 & 4;
Sri H.R.Gundappa, Adv. for R-3)
IN W.P.No.77589/2013
BETWEEN:
Kareppa Malagi,
S/o Fakeerappa Malagi,
Age: 60,
Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Gamanagatti village,
Hubli Taluk,
Dharwad District. ..PETITIONER
(By Sri C.S.Patil, Adv. a/w Sri S.P.Shankar, Sr. Counsel)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Revenue Department,
M.S.Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Commissioner,
Karnataka Housing Board,
13
Cauvery Bhavan,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 009.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Cauvery Bhavan,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 009.
4. The Executive Engineer,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Chanakyapuri, Hubli,
Dharwad District. ..RESPONDENTS
(By Smt. Megha C.Kolekar, HCGP for R-1;
Smt. Sharmila M.Patil, Adv. for R-2 & 4;
Sri H.R.Gundappa, Adv. for R-3)
IN W.P.No.77590/2013
BETWEEN:
1. Gulappa Beesagal,
S/o Basavanthappa Beesagal,
Age: 75.
Hanumanthappa Beesagal,
S/o Basavanthappa Beesagal,
Since dead by his LRs.
2. Mahadevappa Beesagal,
S/o late Hanumanthappa Beesagal,
Age: 38.
3. Prabhu Beesagal,
S/o late Hanumanthappa Beesagal,
Age: 30.
4. Karibasavva,
D/o Hanumathappa Beesagal,
Age: 32.
14
All are Major,
Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Gamanagatti village,
Hubli Taluk, Dharwad District. ..PETITIONERS
(By Sri C.S.Patil, Adv. a/w Sri S.P.Shankar, Sr. Counsel)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Revenue Department,
M.S.Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Commissioner,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Cauvery Bhavan,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 009.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Cauvery Bhavan,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 009.
4. The Executive Engineer,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Chanakyapuri, Hubli,
Dharwad District. ..RESPONDENTS
(By Smt. Megha C.Kolekar, HCGP for R-1;
Smt. Sharmila M.Patil, Adv. for R-2 & 4;
Sri H.R.Gundappa, Adv. for R-3)
IN W.P.No.66257/2011
BETWEEN:
Ramalingappa,
S/o Fakkirappa Malagi,
15
Age: 72 years, Occ: Agril,
R/o Gamanagatti,
Hubli, Dist: Dharwad. ..PETITIONER
(By Sri Dinesh M.Kulkarni, Adv.)
AND:
1. The Karnataka Housing
Board, Kaveri Bhavan,
Bangalore, Rep. by its
Commissioner.
2. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Karnataka Housing
Board, Kaveri Bhavan,
Bangalore.
3. The State of Karnataka,
Department of Revenue (LA-2),
M.S.Building, Bangalore,
By its Secretary. ..RESPONDENTS
(By Smt. Sharmila M.Patil, Adv. for R-1 & 2;
Smt. Megha C.Kolekar, HCGP for R-3)
IN W.P.No.63898-900/2011
BETWEEN:
Ramesh,
S/o Yalagurdarao Joshi,
Age: 43 years,
Occ: Agril & Business,
R/o No.27, Sanman Colony,
Gokul Road, Hubli,
Dist: Dharwad. ..PETITIONER
(By Sri Dinesh M.Kulkarni, Adv.)
AND:
16
1. The Karnataka Housing
Board, Kaveri Bhavan,
Bangalore, Rep. by its
Commissioner.
2. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Karnataka Housing
Board, Kaveri Bhavan,
Bangalore.
3. The State of Karnataka,
Department of Revenue (LA-2),
M.S.Building, Bangalore,
Rep. by Addl. Secretary,
Revenue Department. ..RESPONDENTS
(By Smt. Sharmila M.Patil, Adv. for R-1 & 2;
Smt. Megha C.Kolekar, HCGP for R-3)
IN W.P.No.63901-902/2011
BETWEEN:
Sri Shreya Laxmi Associates,
Partnership Firm,
Rep. by its Partner,
Ramesh,
S/o Yalagurdarao Joshi,
Age: 43 years,
Occ: Agril & Business,
R/o No.27, Sanman Colony,
Gokul Road, Hubli,
Dist: Dharwad. ..PETITIONER
(By Sri Dinesh M.Kulkarni, Adv.)
AND:
1. The Karnataka Housing
Board, Kaveri Bhavan,
Bangalore, Rep. by its
Commissioner.
17
2. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Karnataka Housing
Board, Kaveri Bhavan,
Bangalore.
3. The State of Karnataka,
Department of Revenue (LA-2),
M.S.Building, Bangalore,
Rep. by Addl. Secretary. ..RESPONDENTS
(By Smt. Sharmila M.Patil, Adv. for R-1 & 2;
Smt. Megha C.Kolekar, HCGP for R-3)
IN W.P.No.63903/2011
BETWEEN:
1. Sanketh,
S/o Shambhulingappa Sumshi,
Age: 14 years, Occ: Student,
R/o Vidya Nagar, Hubli,
Dist: Dharwad.
Minor, Rep. by his guardian
Natural father Shambulingappa,
S/o Gadigeppa Sumshi.
2. Channabasappa,
S/o Gadigeppa Sumshi,
Age: 48 years,
Occ: Agril.,
R/o Vidya Nagar, Hubli,
Dist: Dharwad.
3. Sachin,
S/o Shambhulingappa Sumshi,
Age: 19 years, Occ: Student,
R/o Vidya Nagar, Hubli,
Dist: Dharwad.
4. Mahalingappa,
S/o Shankrappa Tirlapur,
18
Age: 58 years, Occ: Agril,
R/o Kiresoor, Tq: Hubli,
Dist: Dharwad.
5. Shivappa,
S/o Shankarappa Tirlapur,
Age: 55 years, Occ: Agril,
R/o Kiresoor, Tq: Hubli,
Dist: Dharwad.
6. Mallangouda,
S/o Shankargouda Dyavangoudar,
Age: 60 years, Occ: Agril,
R/o Byahatti, Tq: Hubli,
Dist: Dharwad.
7. Smt. Shilpa,
W/o Manjunath Patil,
Age: 28 years, Occ: Agril.,
R/o Gandhi Nagar, Dharwad,
Dist: Dharwad.
8. Smt. Prema,
W/o Channabasangouda Patil,
Age: 44 years, Occ: Agril.,
R/o Vidya Nagar, Hubli,
Dist: Dharwad.
9. Smt. Shashikala,
W/o Shivangouda Patil,
Age: 49 years, Occ: Agril.,
R/o Vidya Nagar, Hubli,
Dist: Dharwad.
10. Smt. Vanajakshi,
W/o Kumargouda Patil,
Age: 44 years, Occ: Agril.,
R/o Vidya Nagar, Hubli,
Dist: Dharwad.
11. Smt. Sunita,
W/o Jagadish Patil,
Age: 44 years, Occ: Agril.,
19
R/o Vidya Nagar, Hubli,
Dist: Dharwad.
12. Smt. Sujata,
W/o Suresh Patil,
Age: 35 years, Occ: Agril.,
R/o Basaveshwar Nagar,
Bydgi, Tq: Bydgi, Dist: Haveri.
13. Channabasappa,
S/o Chandrashekar Yali
@ Chetan Chandrashekar Yali,
Age: 25 years, Occ: Agril.,
R/o Nehru Nagar, Bydgi,
Dist: Haveri.
14. B.G.Ganesh, Age: 31 years,
Occ: Agril., R/o Kote Mallur,
Tq: Honnalli,
Dist: Davangeri now at Hubli,
Dist: Dharwad.
15. Rutvik,
S/o Chandrashekar Yali,
Age: 31 years, Occ: Agril.,
R/o Nehru Nagar, Bydgi,
Dist: Haveri.
All are rep. by their power of
attorney holder Shri Ramesh Y.Joshi,
Age: 43 years, Occ: Business,
R/o No.27, Sanman Colony,
Gokul Road, Hubli. ..PETITIONERS
(By Sri Dinesh M.Kulkarni, Adv.)
AND:
1. The Karnataka Housing
Board, Kaveri Bhavan,
Bangalore, Rep. by its
Commissioner.
20
2. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Karnataka Housing
Board, Kaveri Bhavan,
Bangalore.
3. The State of Karnataka,
Department of Revenue (LA-2),
M.S.Building, Bangalore,
Rep. by Addl. Secretary. ..RESPONDENTS
(By Smt. Sharmila M.Patil, Adv. for R-1 & 2;
Smt. Megha C.Kolekar, HCGP for R-3)
IN W.P.No.63904-905/2011
BETWEEN:
1. V.Ramlingappa @ V.Ramlingesh,
S/o V.Lakkappa,
Age: 47 years,
Occ: Agril & Business,
R/o Sheelvantar,
Hubli, Dist: Dharwad.
2. Deepchand,
S/o Kapoorchand Jain,
Age: 50 years,
Occ: Agril & Business,
R/o Sheelvantar,
Hubli, Dist: Dharwad. ..PETITIONERS
(By Sri Dinesh M.Kulkarni, Adv.)
AND:
1. The Karnataka Housing
Board, Kaveri Bhavan,
Bangalore, Rep. by its
Commissioner.
2. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Karnataka Housing
21
Board, Kaveri Bhavan,
Bangalore.
3. The State of Karnataka,
Department of Revenue (LA-2),
M.S.Building, Bangalore,
Rep. by Addl. Secretary. ..RESPONDENTS
(By Smt. Sharmila M.Patil, Adv. for R-1 & 2;
Smt. Megha C.Kolekar, HCGP for R-3)
IN W.P.No.63906/2011
BETWEEN:
Jyoti, W/o Ramesh Joshi,
Age: 35 years, Occ: Agril & Business,
R/o Sanman Colony, Gokul Road,
Hubli, Dist: Dharwad. ..PETITIONER
(By Sri Dinesh M.Kulkarni, Adv.)
AND:
1. The Karnataka Housing
Board, Kaveri Bhavan,
Bangalore, Rep. by its
Commissioner.
2. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Karnataka Housing
Board, Kaveri Bhavan,
Bangalore.
3. The State of Karnataka,
Department of Revenue (LA-2),
M.S.Building, Bangalore,
Rep. by Addl. Secretary,
Revenue Department. ..RESPONDENTS
(By Smt. Sharmila M.Patil, Adv. for R-1 & 2;
Smt. Megha C.Kolekar, HCGP for R-3)
22
W.P.No.77580/2013 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 19.03.2009 i.e., Annexure-B passed by the
2nd respondent and also the final notification dated 28.09.2010
passed by the 1st respondent i.e., Annexure-D.
W.P.No.77581/2013 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 19.03.2009 i.e., Annexure-B passed by the
2nd respondent and also the final notification dated 28.09.2010
passed by the 1st respondent i.e., Annexure-D.
W.P.No.77582/2013 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 19.03.2009 i.e., Annexure-B passed by the
2nd respondent and also the final notification dated 28.09.2010
passed by the 1st respondent i.e., Annexure-D.
W.P.No.77583/2013 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 19.03.2009 i.e., Annexure-B passed by the
2nd respondent and also the final notification dated 28.09.2010
passed by the 1st respondent i.e., Annexure-D.
W.P.No.77584/2013 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 19.03.2009 i.e., Annexure-B passed by the
2nd respondent and also the final notification dated 28.09.2010
passed by the 1st respondent i.e., Annexure-D.
W.P.No.77585/2013 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 19.03.2009 i.e., Annexure-B passed by the
2nd respondent and also the final notification dated 28.09.2010
passed by the 1st respondent i.e., Annexure-D.
W.P.No.77586/2013 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 19.03.2009 i.e., Annexure-B passed by the
2nd respondent and also the final notification dated 28.09.2010
passed by the 1st respondent i.e., Annexure-D.
23
W.P.No.77587/2013 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 19.03.2009 i.e., Annexure-B passed by the
2nd respondent and also the final notification dated 28.09.2010
passed by the 1st respondent i.e., Annexure-D.
W.P.No.77588/2013 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 19.03.2009 i.e., Annexure-B passed by the
2nd respondent and also the final notification dated 28.09.2010
passed by the 1st respondent i.e., Annexure-D.
W.P.No.77589/2013 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 19.03.2009 i.e., Annexure-B passed by the
2nd respondent and also the final notification dated 28.09.2010
passed by the 1st respondent i.e., Annexure-D.
W.P.No.77590/2013 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary
notification dated 19.03.2009 i.e., Annexure-B passed by the
2nd respondent and also the final notification dated 28.09.2010
passed by the 1st respondent i.e., Annexure-D.
W.P.No.66257/2011 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the notifications
vide Annexure-B which is published in "Sumyukta Karnataka"
- Daily Newspaper dated 05.06.2009 and Annexure-C dated
28.09.2010 which is published in "Vijay Karnataka" - Daily
Newspaper dated 11.12.2010 issued by respondent Nos.1 & 3
in so far as Block No.275 of Gamangatti village, Hubli Taluk,
as null and void.
W.P.No.63898-900/2011 is filed under Articles 226 &
227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the
notifications vide Annexure-M dated 19.03.2009 which is
published in "Sumyukta Karnataka" - Daily Newspaper dated
05.06.2009 and Annexure-O dated 28.09.2010 which is
published in "Vijay Karnataka" - Daily Newspaper dated
11.12.2010 issued by respondent Nos.1 & 3 in so far as Block
No.265, 256, 264/1 of Gamangatti village, Hubli Taluk, as null
and void.
24
W.P.No.63901-902/2011 is filed under Articles 226 &
227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the
notifications vide Annexure-H dated 19.03.2009 which is
published in "Sumyukta Karnataka" - Daily Newspaper dated
05.06.2009 and Annexure-O dated 28.09.2010 which is
published in "Vijay Karnataka" - Daily Newspaper dated
11.12.2010 issued by respondent Nos.1 & 3 in so far as Block
No.29/2 & 29/3 of Sutagatti village, Hubli Taluk, as null and
void.
W.P.No.63903/2011 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the notifications
vide Annexure-E dated 19.03.2009 which is published in
"Sumyukta Karnataka" - Daily Newspaper dated 05.06.2009
and Annexure-G dated 28.09.2010 which is published in "Vijay
Karnataka" - Daily Newspaper dated 11.12.2010 issued by
respondent Nos.1 & 3 in so far as Block No.265 of Gamangatti
village, Hubli Taluk, as null and void.
W.P.No.63904-905/2011 is filed under Articles 226 &
227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the
notifications vide Annexure-D dated 19.03.2009 which is
published in "Sumyukta Karnataka" - Daily Newspaper dated
05.06.2009 and Annexure-H dated 28.09.2010 which is
published in "Vijay Karnataka" - Daily Newspaper dated
11.12.2010 issued by respondent Nos.1 & 3 in so far as Block
No.248 of Gamangatti village, Hubli Taluk, as null and void.
W.P.No.63906/2011 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the notifications
vide Annexure-D dated 19.03.2009 which is published in
"Sumyukta Karnataka" - Daily Newspaper dated 05.06.2009
and Annexure-F dated 28.09.2010 which is published in "Vijay
Karnataka" - Daily Newspaper dated 11.12.2010 issued by
respondent Nos.1 & 3 in so far as Block No.264 of Gamangatti
village, Hubli Taluk, as null and void.
These writ petitions having been heard and reserved for
orders on 25.06.2013, are coming on for 'Pronouncement of
Orders', this day the Court made the following:-
25
ORDER
1. In these writ petitions, common questions of law and facts arise for consideration. Hence, learned Counsel for the parties have addressed common arguments. They are, therefore, disposed of by this common order.
2. In these writ petitions, petitioners-land owners are challenging the acquisition of their lands by the State Government for the purpose of respondent-Karnataka Housing Board (for short, 'KHB').
3. Preliminary Notification dated 19.03.2009 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 21.05.2009. Final Notification dated 28.09.2010 issued under Section 6(1) of the Act was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 08.10.2010. These preliminary and final notifications are challenged in these writ petitions.
4. One set of writ petitions have been filed in the year 2011, whereas another batch have been filed during the year 2013. In other words, in the second batch of writ petitions filed in the 26 month of April 2013, there is a delay of two years seven months in challenging the acquisition.
5. The lands have been acquired for public purpose pursuant to the housing scheme of the KHB. As can be seen from the final notification published, a total extent of 63 acres 8 guntas of land has been acquired for the purpose of the housing scheme.
6. The main contention urged by Mr. S.P.Shankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners is, that the declaration made under Section 6(1) of the Act is beyond the period of one year from the date of publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Hence, the final declaration published and the impugned acquisition are illegal as per Section 6(1) of the Act. Elaborating this submission, learned Senior Counsel submits that in terms of Section 4(1) of the Act, the last of the dates of publication and the giving of such public notice is referred to as the date of publication for the purpose of deciding the time gap between the two notifications. According to him, in the instant case, public notice of the substance of the notification required to be given at convenient places in the locality has not been 27 complied with and more over, the said publication in the Chavadi on 29.09.2009 is nearly four months after the publication of the Preliminary Notification in the daily newspapers. Therefore, such unreasonable delay in effecting publication in the village chavadi cannot be regarded as the last of the dates of publication for the purpose of computing the time gap of one year between the last of the dates of publication of preliminary notification and the date of final declaration. He has also contended that there is no valid publication of the substance of such notification at convenient places in the locality, because the substance of the notification was not affixed in the office of the Village Panchayat or Chavadi. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KULSUM R.NADIADWALA VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS - (2012) 6 SCC 348, and in the case of THE COLLECTOR (DISTT. MAGISTRATE), ALLAHABAD & ANOTHER VS RAJA RAM JAISWAL - AIR 1985 SC 1622. It is his further submission that such publication in the Chavadi/Village Panchayat has never taken place and the mahazar in this regard is created with a mala fide intention. He urges that when a statute requires a particular thing to be done in a particular way, the same has 28 to be done in that way only. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KUNWAR PAL SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. VS STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS - (2007) 5 SCC 85.
7. It is next contended by him that Section 5A inquiry is not properly conducted, in as much as, there is non- application of mind to the objections raised by the petitioners to the proposed acquisition. According to him, the inquiry contemplated under Section 5A of the Act is not an empty formality and therefore, the report submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer overruling the objections raised by the claimants-land owners is not preceeded by a fair and reasonable inquiry. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD. VS DARIUS SHAPUR CHENAI & OTHERS - (2005) 7 SCC 627, and KAMAL TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL & OTHERS - (2012) 2 SCC 25.
8. He has also contended that the lands in question are farm lands consisting of fruit bearing trees which could not have been acquired. Even though objections had been raised in 29 this regard, there is no proper consideration of the objections. He places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RAGHBIR SINGH SEHRAWAT VS STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS - (2012) 1 SCC 792 in this connection. It is also urged by him, that there is violation of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Rules, 1965, in the matter of publication in the locality, more particularly in the village chavadi.
9. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-KHB Smt. Sharmila M.Patil and the learned Government Pleader representing the State Smt. Megha C.Kolekar have strongly defended the notifications. Detailed statement of objections are filed by the Counsel for the KHB. Documents are enclosed to the statement of objections showing the participation of the petitioners in the inquiry held under Section 5A of the Act.
10. Referring to the nature of objections raised by the petitioners to the proposed acquisition, it is contended by Smt. Sharmila M.Patil that most of the claimants had pleaded individual hardships resulting from the proposed acquisition and the respondents have applied their mind to the said objections while overruling them, keeping in mind, the larger public interest involved in the acquisition. The assertions made 30 by the petitioners that there is no proper inquiry and that there is no application of mind to the objections raised are strongly denied. It is further asserted in the statement of objections that the respondent has published the notice in the office of the Village Accountant on 29.09.2009 and a Mahazar has been drawn that has been also reported to the Government. A copy of the mahazar dated 29.09.2009 is produced at Annexure-R2. On perusal of the said mahazar, it is seen that the mahazar is also sent to the Commissioner, KHB, Bangalore. It further discloses that on 29.09.2009, the substance of the notification which was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 21.05.2009 at pages 1945 to 1951 proposed to be acquired for KHB for its housing scheme had been affixed on the office of the Village Accountant for the purpose of information to the public. The mahazar bears the signature of three witnesses, apart from the signature of the Village Accountant, Gamanagatti.
11. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire materials on record in the wake of the provisions contained in the Act, it can be seen that Section 4(1) of the Act as amended by the Karnataka Amendment requires 31 that proposal to acquire the land shall be published in the official gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality and the Deputy Commissioner shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality (the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of the public notice, being herein after referred to as the date of the publication of the notification).
12. Proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act, makes it clear that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under Section 4(1) shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the notification. Thus, a conjoint reading of Section 4(1) and Section 6(1) of the Act, particularly with reference to the proviso prescribing time limit of one year from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) till the date of notification under Section 6(1), it becomes very clear that the computation of the period of one year has to be from the last of the dates of publication and giving of such public notice.
13. In the instant case, the public notice of the substance of Section 4(1) notification was affixed on the office of the Village 32 Accountant on 29.09.2009 as is evident from Annexure-R2. Merely because there is a gap of about four months from the date of publication of Section 4(1) notification in the daily newspaper effected on 21.05.2009 and the publication of notice in the village chavadi on 29.09.2009, it cannot be said that such gap would render the acquisition proceedings invalid. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA VS RAGHUBIR DAYAL - (1995) 1 SCC 133. It is also useful to refer to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of MENAKA VS STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT & OTHERS - 2003 (1) LACC 249, wherein a similar contention urged was rejected. In the said case, the notification under Section 4(1) was published on 17.08.1990. As the mode of notification by issuing public notice was on 23.01.1992 nearly after a lapse of 1½ year and declaration under Section 6(1) was made on 22.01.1993, the contention of the land owner stating that the acquisition stood lapsed as the declaration made was beyond one year, came to be rejected holding that the period of one year if computed from the last date of publication from Section 4(1) notification on 23.01.1992, the final declaration would be well within one 33 year. In the light of the above, reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners on other judgments of this Court stating that due to delay in the last of the modes of publication compared to the publication in the newspaper, the entire acquisition proceedings gets vitiated, is untenable. It is therefore unnecessary to refer to the other decisions of this Court relied upon by the petitioners.
14. It is also necessary to deal with the other contentions urged by the Counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, regarding the defective publication of the substance of the notification in the locality. An endeavour is made by the learned Senior Counsel to submit that the mahazar drawn by the Village Accountant is an after thought and has been created only to save the acquisition. He has sought to point out that the original file does not contain any check memo in the records, wherein in Col. No.2 - date of publication of Section 4(1) notification in the village chavadi is required to be mentioned. This contention cannot be accepted. First of all, these allegations have been denied. Secondly, there is a presumption under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act. The Village Accountant in his official capacity has done the official 34 act. In the judgment in the case of AJAY KRISHAN SHINGHAL VS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS - AIR 1996 SC 2677, the Apex Court has held that proof of publication of the substance of the notification in the locality could not be beyond shadow of doubt. In the instant case, there is no room for any doubt, as the copy of the mahazar duly signed by the witnesses placed before the Court makes it clear that such publication was indeed made affixing the same at the office of the Village Accountant.
15. In so far as the alleged defective publication of the notification and the reliance placed by the Counsel for the petitioners on the ruling of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY VS SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & OTHERS - ILR 1999 KAR 4597, it has to be stated that in the wake of Annexure-R2
- mahazar, which evidences the affixture of substance of the notification, petitioner cannot place reliance on the above ruling. Moreover, as in the said case, there was nothing on record to show that the substance of the notification was published in the village chavadi. There is no specific ground 35 taken in the writ petition stating that though public notice was affixed at the office of the Village Panchayat, the substance of the preliminary notification was not affixed. On the other hand, the contention urged in the instant case is that nothing was published in the Village Panchayat and that the mahazar and other documents were created in this regard. Therefore, petitioners are not entitled to take the benefit of the observations made in the aforementioned judgment.
16. As regards the contention urged stating that inquiry held under Section 5A of the Act is vitiated and there is non- application of mind to the objections raised by the petitioners, it is necessary to observe that the petitioners have appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and have reiterated the objections raised which has been considered and rejected observing that as the lands were required for public purpose for implementing the housing scheme for the benefit of the public, I do not find any defect in the procedure adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer in considering the objections. It is true, the requirement of filing objections and providing personal hearing to the land owners is not an empty formality and that the properties of the citizens cannot be acquired by 36 the State without complying with the mandatory requirement provided under Section 5A as held by the Apex Court in the case of KAMAL TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL & OTHERS - (2012) 2 SCC 25. In the instant case, there is strict compliance of such requirement as the petitioners-land owners have availed the opportunity of personal hearing and their objections have been considered. A perusal of the report submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer discloses that the objections have been considered.
17. In the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KULSUM R.NADIADWALA VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS - (2012) 6 SCC 348, on which reliance has been placed by the Counsel for the petitioners, it has been held that the twin requirements for issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act by publication in the official gazette and by affixing the public notice of such notification in convenient places in the locality were mandatory. But the respondent in that case had only published the notification in the official gazette, but public notice of the substance of such notification was not published in the locality. In that background, the entire acquisition proceedings were declared as null and void. 37 In the instant case, the specific stand taken by the respondents is, that public notice in the locality was affixed by strictly complying with the requirement of law. Therefore, reliance placed on the said judgment by the Counsel for the petitioners is not apposite.
18. Similarly, though several other judgments are referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, none of those judgments come to the aid of the petitioners, as the respondent-authorities have complied with the requirement of issuing public notice and affixing the same on conspicuous place including at the office of the Village Accountant and as there is ample material produced to show that a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard is given in the inquiry contemplated under Section 5A of the Act.
19. It is necessary to state here that the petitioners in the batch of writ petitions filed in the year 2011, have approached this Court in the month of June 2011 challenging the final notification which was published in the gazette on 28.09.2010. Though it cannot be said that the petitioners are guilty of long and inordinate delay in approaching this Court, the fact remains that they have kept quiet for a period of nine months, 38 I do not propose to non-suit the petitioners on that ground. It is also unnecessary to do so, because I have already held on merits that the contentions urged by the petitioners are untenable.
20. However, it is necessary to observe in so far as the other batch of writ petitions which are filed in the year 2013, that these petitioners are guilty of delay and latches as they have approached this Court after a lapse of more than 2½ years from the date of publication of the final declaration. In land acquisition matters, where the land is acquired for public purpose, particularly for implementation of a housing scheme by the Government Undertaking like KHB by acquiring large extent of lands, some land owners by belatedly approaching this Court cannot frustrate the scheme, particularly because it is contended by the respondents that these lands of the petitioners fall in the middle of the layout and are necessary for utilization for the purpose of formation of roads and for other common facilities apart from for forming sites for constructing houses. Any interference at this stage at the instance of the petitioners who are guilty of delay and latches will affect the public interest very badly.
39
21. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the petitions filed in the year 2013 are liable to be dismissed also on the ground of delay and latches, apart from the reasons already assigned herein above.
22. Hence, for all the reasons stated, all these writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KK