Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1182 (KAR)

Susheelamma v. Secretary to Government

2010-11-15

D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

body2010
Judgment :- This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the preliminary notification dated 29.8.2006 and the final notification dated 6.3.2008 issued under Section 4(1) and 6(1) of the L.A. Act vide Annexures-C and E respectively by the respondents insofar as it relates to acquisition of lands of petitioners, as the same is illegal and unsustainable in law. Writ petitioners being seven in number claim to be owners of small extends of agricultural lands and that they belong to weaker sections of the society and it is their version that they have no other means of livelihood except the avocation of tilling their lands, growing crops for their sustenance, etc. 2. Petitioners claim that in respect of such lands and other lands the Government of Karnataka, it appears, had caused issue of a preliminary notification bearing No.Ka.Gru.Mum.Bhu.Swa.V.65/2006-07 dated 29.08.2006 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the LA Act’) which was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 14.9.2006 copy produced as Annexure-A to the petition. On a perusal of the records placed before the Court by the 3rd respondent – Smt. Rajamma, Special Land Acquisition Officer, it is found that the very notification has been subsequently published in 2 Kannada local news dailies viz., “Janata Madhyama” and “Kannada Prabha” on 2.11.2006. It is the version of the petitioners that petitioners in terms of representations dated 23.11.2006, copies produced as Annexures D, D1, D2 and D3 to the petition, had given representations objecting to the acquisition proceedings inter alia representing that their lands are very fertile, agricultural lands; that it is their only source of livelihood; that there is no need to acquire such lands; that other lands are available and that acquisition proceedings in respect of their lands should be dropped etc. 3. The complaint of the petitioners is that notwithstanding the representations by them, they have neither been heard nor their objections taken note of by the State Government, but, nevertheless having gone ahead by issue of a declaration No.Kam.E.57 Bhu.Swa.Haa.2007, dated 6.3.2008 under Section 6(1) of the LA Act, 1894, as per Annexure-E to the petition, the respondent No.3 is taking steps for passing an award etc., and proceeding further. Apprehending that they will be dispossessed from their lands, the petitioners have approached this court praying for the following relief:- “Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Prl. Notification bearing No.Ka.GRU.Mum.Bhu.Swa.V.65/2006-07 dated 29.8.2006 and the final notification No.Kam.E.57 Bhu.Swa.Haa.2007 dt.6.3.2008 issued under Section 4(1) and 6(1) of the L.A. Act vide Annexures-C & E respectively by the respondents insofar as it relates to acquisition of lands of petitioners, as the same is illegal and unsustainable in law, in the interest of justice and equity.” 4. Notification bearing No.Ka.GRU.Mum.Bhu.Swa.V.65/2006-07 dated 29.8.2006 and the final notification No.Kam.E.57 Bhu.Swa.Haa.2007 dt.6.3.2008 issued under Section 4(1) and 6(1) of the L.A. Act vide Annexures-C & E respectively by the respondents insofar as it relates to acquisition of lands of petitioners, as the same is illegal and unsustainable in law, in the interest of justice and equity.” 4. Petitioners have inter alia contended that the acquisition proceedings are initiated by the respondents – the State of Karnataka, the Commissioner for Karnataka Housing Board (KHB) and its Special Land Acquisition Officer and they have committed various illegalities; that the proceedings are not only vitiated by deviating from the statutory provisions i.e., Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but also having acted in violation of the principles of natural justice ignoring the objections of the petitioners; that when the petitioners are small land owners belonging to weaker sections, the Government could not have overlooked their interest to sub-serve the interest of some other persons; that the authorities have not conducted any spot verification to satisfy themselves of the suitability of the subject lands for the purpose for which proceedings have gone on without due application of mind and in a mechanical manner; that not taking into consideration their objections filed under Section 5A of the LA Act is nothing short of giving a go-by to the statutory requirement; that a valuable right given to land owners for making representation under Section 5A of the LA Act is denied to the petitioners by the adamant attitude adopted on the part of the respondents to cold-shoulder the representations on behalf of some of the petitioners; that publication of the proceedings in the locality was not done simultaneously along with the gazette publication; that no individual notices were issued to the owners of the lands, which were sought to be acquired, nor any publication made in the chawadi of the villages and all such irregularities and illegalities have vitiated the acquisition proceedings and also that the lands acquired being wet lands near South Nala, Holenarasipura, Hassan District, it is nothing short of wasting fertile lands without any thought and even without having proper plan or scheme for the purpose for which the lands are sought to be acquired and so also the declaration issued; that the petitioners’ interest has been totally ignored and sidelined in the course of the proceedings; that the authorities/respondents have not even examined the suitability or otherwise of the petitioners’ lands and the purpose for which it is being acquired; that even when the government lands themselves were available in the vicinity of Holenarasipura Town instead of taking up development project in the available government waste lands, embarking on acquisition of petitioners lands is vitiated due to the undue influence yielded by persons, who are politically and financially powerful; that acquisition proceedings for similar purpose had been abdicated earlier because of the influence of politically and financially powerful persons, when ‘their’ lands got affected by the acquisition proceedings; that though the extent of land notified in terms of Section 4 (1) notification was as much as 252 Acres 0.30 3/4 guntas of land, the extent in respect of the declaration is issued under Section 6(1) notification is only 23 acres 4 guntas i.e., less than 1/10th of the area originally proposed for acquisition; that the very purpose of acquisition, if any, has virtually failed and is frustrated, if as much as an extent of 230 acres of land is excluded from the scope of acquisition proceedings, it is no scheme worth its name for the purpose for which it had been mooted and initially notified and therefore, have sought for quashing of the notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the LA Act and all further proceedings etc. 5. Notice had been issued to respondents, Sri Keshava Reddy, learned AGA was directed to take notice for respondent No.1 – State and Sri V.Y. Kumar, learned counsel took notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 6. After hearing learned counsel, this Court on 1.4.2009 has granted interim order to maintain status quo for a period of eight weeks, which has since been extended from time to time. 7. Writ petition was admitted by issue of rule on 18.10.2010 and respondents were given opportunity to file counter, if any, within two weeks therefrom. When the matter had come up on 3.11.2010 after the expiry of two weeks, Sri.Ashok Haranahalli, learned Advocate General appeared before the Court and the following order had come to be passed, order reads as under:- “DVSKJ: W.P.No.9908/2008 3.11.2010 Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Advocate General appears for the state in the matter and submits that it is possible to defend the legality of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short, the Act], in the wake of the state amendment to the central Act, particularly sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act having been amended by section 2 of the Karnataka Act 33 of 1991 with effect from 27-11-1991. However, it is still pointed out by Sri Nikhilesh Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the manner in which the lands are sought to be acquired is not very orderly; that very acquiring authority has come out with a subsequent notification dated 13-3-2007 published in the Karnataka gazette dated 29-3-2007, excluding two villages viz., Sooranahalli and Ammanihirekre villages from the scope of the preliminary notification dated 14-9-2016 and this is only a sample of the uncertain and indefinite way of functioning of the acquiring authority and even without any definite plan or scheme the acquiring authority has embarked on acquisition proceedings etc. Learned counsel for the petitioners also points out that notwithstanding the possibility of Section 4 notification being sustained, on any interpretation of the statutory provision, even then section 6 declaration is nevertheless bad having been published beyond the period of one year from the date of publication of the Section 4 notification. Learned counsel for the petitioners also points out that notwithstanding the possibility of Section 4 notification being sustained, on any interpretation of the statutory provision, even then section 6 declaration is nevertheless bad having been published beyond the period of one year from the date of publication of the Section 4 notification. Sri Y B Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3, submits that details of the purpose for which the acquisition was initiated, the number of beneficiaries who have been identified for allotment of houses constructed by the board and such other particulars will be placed and necessary materials will also be placed before the court to point out that Section 6 declaration has been issued well within time as provided under the second proviso to Section 6 of the Act, and requests a weeks time for such purpose. List on 15-11-2010 for further orders.” It is in this background the matter has come up for furthers orders today before the Court. 8. Sri V.Y. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 places before the Court the statement of objections on behalf of respondents, (inclusive of State Government). The State Government has not cared to file any counter so far, though the learned Advocate General had assured this Court on the last date of hearing that the officials of the State Government will suitably respond to the notices issued by this Court and that State Government and its Officials will issue timely instructions to the Government Advocates to file counters and statements on behalf of the State Government in time and to bring to the notice of the Court the precise facts and for placing the records. 9. No such action is forthcoming either on behalf of the State Government or its officials or even by the learned AGA appearing on behalf of the respondents before this Court. 9. No such action is forthcoming either on behalf of the State Government or its officials or even by the learned AGA appearing on behalf of the respondents before this Court. However, submission of Sri Venkatesh Dodderi, learned AGA is that the State Government has only acted at the behest of the Board and that the plan and scheme was conceived by the Board and has incidentally drawn the attention of the Court to the delegation of powers in favour of the Commissioner for KHB, even to exercise the powers of the State Government i.e., powers of the State Government for acquiring lands; that the Commissioner of KHB has been delegated with powers as a Deputy Commissioner, who acts as a statutory functionary under the provisions of the LA Act for acquiring any private lands for public purpose etc. In response to the notice from this Court to Respondents 2 and 3, Sri V.Y. Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 has filed a comprehensive statement of objections in the court today on behalf of KHB, along with Annexures R1 to R4. 10. I have heard Sri Nikilesh Rao, learned counsel for the first petitioner and Sri. D.C. Jagadeesh, learned counsel on behalf of rest of the petitioners and Sri. V.Y. Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 at some length of time. 11. Mr. 10. I have heard Sri Nikilesh Rao, learned counsel for the first petitioner and Sri. D.C. Jagadeesh, learned counsel on behalf of rest of the petitioners and Sri. V.Y. Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 at some length of time. 11. Mr. Nikilesh Rao and Mr.D.C. Jagadeesh, learned counsel have reiterated the grounds urged in the writ petition and they have also pointed out that counter filed on behalf of the respondents today before the Court does not necessarily meet their grounds indicating that there is justification to ignore the representations made by the petitioners; that while the representations were made on behalf of some of the petitioners on 23.11.2006, while even the paper publication of the preliminary notification was only on 2.11.2006, but the respondents have taken the hyper technical plea, that the respondents are beyond the period of 30 days from the date of publication of the preliminary notifications in the gazette issued on 14.9.2006, though the notification itself is dated 29.8.2006 and ignoring or not taking into consideration, the objections is nothing short of a hyper technical ground that even according to the respondents, if either some of the petitioners’ objections were albeit within 30 days from the gazette notification to contend that the petitioners were given an opportunity of hearing as indicated in their counter, respondents could have well within that time issued notices to the petitioners also to extend an opportunity of hearing within 30 days from the date of gazette notification; that it is only to deprive the valuable right, which is made available in favour of the petitioners under Section 5 A of the LA Act, such contentions are canvassed on the ground of technicalities; that the very attitude and conduct of respondents does not show any bona fides and even otherwise the entire proceedings has lapsed by the impracticability of the scheme in the sense the scheme originally mooted for a public purpose viz., for providing housing facilities to the people of Holenarasipura Town and by initially notifying 252 acres 0.30 3/4th guntas of land on the premise that there is fast urbanization of the town and therefore, there is need for a well planned layout and housing facilities to meet the growing demands due to the expansion of the town and if an extent of 252 acres 0.30 3/4th guntas of lands were initially conceived for such developmental activities implementing that scheme not in its original proposal but in truncated manner, that too only in respect of a meagre extent of 23 acres 4 guntas is definitely not scheme sub-serving the purpose and object of the original notification; that it is nothing but a failed scheme and therefore, the acquisition proceedings deserves to be quashed. 12. Countering such submissions Sr. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 has very vehemently urged that when once it is borne out on record that the petitioners had not given their representations to object the acquisition proceedings within the statutory period of 30 days from the date of publication of the gazette notifying the petitioners lands for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Act, their right to object to the acquisition proceedings is lost; that while the authorities did give a hearing to such of those persons who were interested in the subject lands and who had filed their objections well within 30 days by giving an opportunity to such of those persons and therefore, the proceedings having gone on fully in consonance with the provisions of the Act; that no exception can be taken to the acquisition proceedings at the instance of the petitioners and the need for providing housing facilities to the residents of Holenarasipura town being still the current, the scheme has got to be implemented in respect of even an extent of 23 acres 4 guntas of land and more so when the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act has been issued by the State Government for the very purpose, the respondents should be allowed to continue with acquisition proceedings and to take it to its logical conclusion and to implement the scheme to whatever extent that can now be implemented and has urged for dismissal of the writ petition. 13. Mr. Kumar also submits that petitioners can claim compensation in accordance with law and they cannot question the acquisition proceedings, which is part of the eminent domain power of the State Government and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 14. Records relevant to the acquisition proceedings has also been placed before the Court. Specific attention has been drawn to the particular proceedings, which is a record of meeting held on 26.4.2006 at 5.30 p.m., in the office of the Chief Minister in the Committee Room, Vidhana Soudha and under the Chairmanship of the Sri. H.D. Kumara Swamy, the then Chief Minister, and has submitted that the present acquisition proceedings had a back ground as indicated in its recording of meeting. H.D. Kumara Swamy, the then Chief Minister, and has submitted that the present acquisition proceedings had a back ground as indicated in its recording of meeting. A perusal of this proceedings in itself will bear out the bona fides (or to be precise the lack of bona fides) of the present acquisition proceedings for the purpose for which the Land Acquisition Act is pressed into service. 15. A perusal of the proceedings of this meeting also indicates that it bears the signature of the then Chief Minister Sri. H.D. Kumara Swamy; that the project of providing housing facilities to the residents of Holenarasipura Town was earlier i.e., in 1998-1999 mooted by the Town Municipality of Holenarasipura and they had been entrusted with the responsibility but such acquisition proceedings not making headway particularly, as it was found some of the lands proposed for such acquisition located in Holenarasipura Village, an extent of 20 to 25 acres of land had very valuable trees and the land itself was a fertile land; that the decision was taken at the level of the government to drop it from such acquisition proceedings, but thereafter taking note of the vast growth of Holenarasipura Town and urbanization of the Town and keeping in view, the large number of citizens requiring houses for the people living in this town and to provide housing for such people and with the earlier schemes mooted for such purpose having become a failure, a fresh proposal was mooted through KHB and the responsibility for providing housing to the houseless people of Holenarasipura Town was entrusted to the KHB and in this background the earlier proceedings were taken note of and also the availability of land with the Board and the extent of various lands, which were in litigation before the Courts and were subject matter of stay orders were all taken into consideration and keeping the over all picture in view, a comprehensive plan and scheme was required to be prepared and submitted for the approval of the State Government by the Board and decision was taken to this effect and if so no fault can be found with the present acquisition Act and therefore, has very strenuously urged that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed etc. 16. 16. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the developments as indicated at Annexure F dated 13.03.2007 for withdrawing from the scope of acquisition the lands located in the two villages was having regard to the various other factors/developments! 17. Mr. Kumar, has drawn specific attention of the Court to the proceedings of the State Government and the notification dated 13.3.2007 to submit that the dropping of acquisition proceedings in respect of 194 acres 23 3/4 guntas of the land located in Suranahalli and in Ammanihirekerur Village to an extent of 19 acres 36 guntas of land respectively and also an extent of 9 acres in Dakshinanala Village and 7 acres in Hirekerur Village, was keeping in view the representations made by these villagers to point out that the subject lands contained more than 10,000 number of coconut trees and the lands were under wet cultivation growing paddy; that it was fertile and therefore, acquisition proceedings should be dropped to retain the lands for agricultural purposes etc. Responding to such representations and as indicated in the proceedings of the Board in its meeting held on 13.3.2007, as per Annexure F notification had come to be issued and even the lands, which had been notified in Dakshinanala and Hirekerur Villages an area of 9 acres has been excluded from the acquisition proceedings and likewise 7 acres has been excluded from the final notification from acquisition proceedings notified in Hirekerur Village and the Board and the State Government have kept the interest of the farmers in view, in withdrawing from the acquisition proceedings in respect of an extent of 252 acres 0.30 3/4th guntas of land and instead doggedly adhering to the original scheme and proposal, only an extent of 23 acres 4 guntas of land was retained for the purpose of constructing houses and therefore, the acquisition proceedings has to be sustained etc. 18. It is in this background the writ petition is required to be examined and a decision taken. 19. I have perused the petition pleadings, the original government records and the proceedings that the Board has placed before the Court by Sri. V.Y. Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and bestowed my attention to the submissions made at the bar and have examined the factual and legal position in the light of the statutory provisions of Section 5A of the Act. 20. V.Y. Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and bestowed my attention to the submissions made at the bar and have examined the factual and legal position in the light of the statutory provisions of Section 5A of the Act. 20. Though submission is made on behalf of the respondents that acquisition of the lands is for public purpose i.e., compulsory take over of the land by the government is part of eminent domain, it can be so only if it is dictated by the need to provide shelter to the teeming population which indeed is an essential need and is also the constitutional scheme and in a country like ours which is a Social Democratic Republic and having in its Preamble, the objects of providing Justice, social, economic and political, Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship, Equality of status and or opportunity and to promote among them all Fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation, and which is termed as a Welfare State and mandates the first respondent – the State Government (so also the Central Government) and the goal under the Constitution is to protect the life and liberty of citizens; to take welfare measures to improve their living conditions and ultimately to act in the larger public interest and if by its action Government has acted for really achieving this goal by resorting to exercise of executive power in a bona fide law confirming manner for achieving a public purpose and in the larger interest of the society, then only the principle that any private interest even if it is adverse to the interest of a few private individual, to that extent has to yield to sub-serve the larger public purpose but not otherwise and nothing beyond. 21. The powers under the various enactment’s and statutory provisions is not a blanket cheque issued in favour of the authorities or the State to trample upon the rights and lives of the citizens and to indulge in arbitrary/whimsical exercise of power. 21. The powers under the various enactment’s and statutory provisions is not a blanket cheque issued in favour of the authorities or the State to trample upon the rights and lives of the citizens and to indulge in arbitrary/whimsical exercise of power. When an arbitrary/statutory functionary has power to do certain things such power has to be exercised in a bona fide proper manner, for achieving public good and not in an arbitrary, whimsical manner and at any rate not in a pick and choose manner to favour a few and victimize many more and act adverse to the interest of some. 22. Viewed from any angle, this Court, while exercising the power of judicial review of administrative action by the State or its agencies, I find that the exercise of statutory powers are hit by arbitrariness, malafide and lack of application of mind which are all writ large on the face of the record. The original purpose for which the acquisition proceedings viz., for providing housing to the residents of the Holenarasipura Town due to the vast expansion and urbanization, having been virtually abandoned by deleting from the scope of acquisition a major extent of about 229 acres from out the initially proposed extent of 252 0.30 3/4th acres of land and tapering it down now to a meagre extent of 23 acres 0.4 guntas of land after excluding the lands of the two villages in terms of Section 6(1) declaration issued in the year 2008, such manner of exercise of statutory power by the State smacks of hostility against the petitioners in order to favour a few others whose lands too were included initially vide notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Whether the retaining of the acquisition proceedings in respect of a small area of 23 acres 0.4 guntas of land covering the petitioners and some other land owners is a deliberate or a mala fide action or not, the fact remains that the plan and scheme originally envisioned has totally failed and it must be logically concluded that a scheme that was sought to be implemented covering an area of 252 acres of land, can never be implemented in an area of 23 acres o4 guntas of land. The manner in which the acquisition proceedings has gone on is only indicative of lack of proper foresight in planning, lack of thinking, lack of application of mind to the subsequent development keeping in view the original proposal but only an arbitrary and arrogant exercise of power under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act which is a very drastic power/draconian power, to the detriment of the individual owners of lands and when such owners are compelled to part with, their lands in favour of the State purporting to be in the name of a public purpose, then unless and until, such a public purpose is really sought to be achieved and implemented in the manner in which it was originally envisaged, exercise of such power for compulsory acquisition of private lands becomes bad and even may betray an element of mala fides on the part of the decision making authority. 23. Many a times, with political rivalry and in our present political set up parties in power and governing the affairs of the State changing frequently day in and day out, instances of frequent mala fide exercise of power has become a reality in public administration. Officials of the State Government also exercise executive power in a mechanical, whimsical, arbitrary manner at the behest of the political leaders, who do not necessarily take into consideration public interest, but are guided by private partisan interests and act for their own purpose and many a times, act to misuse the power to victimize persons belonging to rival parties. 24. Such manner of functioning has becomes the order of the day even when the State Government exercises its statutory powers in an arbitrary, whimsical manner. There is nothing placed on record in this case to show in what manner the original scheme and plan for acquiring an extent of 252 acres of land as proposed initially can now be implemented in its drastically reduced manner, for building houses in a meagre extent of about 23 acres of land, to meet the growing housing demand in a town that is getting urbanised very fast! No material is placed before the court to show how the original plan and scheme is reworked to implement the original scheme in the changed scenario and as to how the lands belonging to the petitioner which is claimed to be channel water irrigated wet land and also hosting many trees has been considered to be different from other similar lands, which have been excluded from the scope of acquisition for the very reason of those lands being fertile agricultural lands and also having trees in them. The record does not even reveal either about the suitability of only present meagre extent of 23 acres of land now remaining available under the acquisition proceedings or it is in any way different from the lands of other land owners whose lands, though was initially proposed to be acquired for a public purpose, did not find place when the declaration under section 6 of the Act, excluded them from its purview and confined acquisition for only about 23 acres. 25. Though, initially the impression was that the plan and scheme of acquisition was meant for providing housing for the weaker section of Holenarasipura Town, but on the other hand, it turns out that the petitioners themselves belong to weaker sections of the society and will be put to greater hardship of being deprived of their livelihood if their lands are to be acquired! 26. When citizens come to this Court complaining that their private rights are violated, trampled upon, what is to be examined is whether the exercise of power and authority by the administrators in the governance of the State and also the statutory powers exercised by such administrators is a bonafide exercise of power, Whether it is exercised in a law conforming manner or whether it is a power exercised in an arbitrary or whimsical manner or even whether the power is exercised in a malafide manner and if it is a situation of colourable exercise of power! 27. 27. In the present situation, the powers exercised under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act by the officials of the State Government whether the persons go by the name of a Land Acquisition Officer or the Deputy Commissioner incharge or the Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board, scrutiny is to examine as to whether such power has been exercised in a bona fide manner and having so examined the present case on the touchstone of the material available on record, I find that power under the Act is more misused in the present case as the original scheme and plan is virtually abandoned but is sought to be implemented in a very truncated manner. In a situation like this, Court can take note of and be guided by the provisions of Section 27 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act, 1987 reading as under:- “27. Authority to execute the scheme within five years,- Where within a period of five years from the date of publication in the Official Gazette of the declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 19, the authority fails to execute the scheme substantially, the scheme shall lapse and the provisions of Section 36 shall become in-operative.” 28. It leaves an interval of five years for substantially completing the developmental activities undertaken from the date of publication of the notification that the lands are required for a public purpose, to retain the lands and though such a statutory provision is not per se attracted to acquisition proceedings for the Acquisition of lands under the provisions of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, it cannot mean that the authorities could veer away from the original object, behind the veil of exercise of authority and as envisioned as per the provisions of Section 27 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 as the purpose for which the current acquisition of land is intended or was made, was only for providing housing facilities due to urbanization of the Holenarasipura Town and the Government and Holenarasipura authorities finding that there was need to delete from the initial proposal major extent of such lands as they were found to be fertile agricultural lands or due to other reasons, the purpose for which the petition lands were sought to be acquired cannot be served or achieved any more. 29. 29. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the stipulated time period of five years, though has not expired in the present case, what is more important is that the implementation of the scheme is less than in respect of 1/10th of the extent of land that was originally proposed, which in itself indicates the failure of the original plan and scheme. Any plan and scheme should be striven to be implemented in its original perception and extent if it is so practical and when its size is reduced by 9/10th of the extent as was originally envisaged then the acquisition proceedings would be a total failure for the purpose for which it was proposed and therefore it is inevitable for this Court to quash the two notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act in its entirety and allow the present petitioners before the Court. 30. Non-application of mind on the part of the respondents is writ large on the face of the record and the object appears to be to grab the lands of a few marginal land owners while giving up vast tracts of land of influential persons and such action is certainly not to achieve the objective putforth as the ground for acquisition. Such conduct creates a doubt that the respondents are acting to the determent of the larger public interest, when the original plan and scheme is not achieved by giving up 9/10th area of the originally proposed land for the developmental activities but retaining only 1/10th extent of the lands initially notified for acquisition. 31. It is, therefore, the entire acquisition proceedings are quashed but liberty reserved to the respondents to come up with a proper plan and scheme for acquiring land to meet the precise need, to examine the possibilities which the State Government and Board can explore for meeting any of the housing requirements and then to come up with an acquisition proposal. The KHB is a statutory board which goes about with the plans and proposals day in and day out and it should have a clear plan for implementing such projects keeping in view the population of the town, available land, financial constraints and all such consideration. 32. The KHB is a statutory board which goes about with the plans and proposals day in and day out and it should have a clear plan for implementing such projects keeping in view the population of the town, available land, financial constraints and all such consideration. 32. Mis-using of powers by the authorities has become the order of the day and public authorities, statutory authorities under the various acquisition enactments State and public authorities have been initiating acquisition proceedings left and right without thought or application of mind and then go on issuing de-notifications which ultimately gives an impression to the public at large that only the lands of the poor and marginal land owners is retained for acquisition and of huge tracts of lands owned by affluent, influential persons are eschewed from acquisition proceedings. 33. In any public administration the State Government should not only keep the larger interest of its citizenry in mind in all its endeavors but such concern for the larger good should be reflected in every action taken by the State in its administration. If an action by the State, on close scrutiny does not satisfy this test and is shown to be a colourable exercise, done action has to be interfered with and set at naught. What is not in the interest and the welfare of the people, is definitely not in the interest of the State as it is the people who make up the State. 34. Rule made absolute. Impugned notifications are quashed. All petitioners are awarded exemplary costs in their favour against all respondents at Rs.5,000/-in favour of each of the petitioners, which is to be paid to each of the petitioners or to be deposited before this court by the respondents and on such deposit, petitioners are permitted to withdraw the amount through their counsel. 35. The cost to be paid or deposited within four weeks from today, failing which, the registry is directed to issue a certificate in favour of the petitioners for recovery of the cost as though it is a decree passed by the civil court. 36. Petition allowed.