Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 517 (KAR)

Y. N. Nagaraj v. State Of Karnataka

2011-05-25

B.V.NAGARATHNA

body2011
Judgment : 1. Though these matters are posted for orders, with the consent of learned Counsel on both sides, they are heard finally. 2. The petitioners in these writ petitions have challenged the acquisition notifications namely, notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) dated 25-4-2001 and the notification issued under Section 6(1) of the Act, dated 29-7-2008, which are marked as Annexures-B and J, W.P. No. 18431 of 2009, insofar as the lands are concerned. 3. The petitioner in W.P. No. 18431 of 2009 has averred that he is the owner of land bearing Sy.No.174/1 measuring 2 acres 2 guntas and Sy.No.174/2 measuring 2 acres 4 guntas, comprised in Yadahalli Village, Bannur Hobli, T. Narasipura Taluk, Mysore District, as the said lands are purchased by the petitioner under various registered sale deeds and thereafter, the petitioner’s name has been entered in the revenue records. It is averred that the petitioner has invested on the lands for the purpose of raising sugarcane. Tomato and other crops and has also set up irrigation facilities for agricultural operations. 4. The petitioners in W.P. No. 1673 of 2009 have stated they are the owners of land in Sy.No.1614 measuring 2 acres of Bannur Village, T. Narasipura Taluk, Mysore District and that the names of the petitioners are mutated in the revenue records. The petitioners in these writ petitions have averred that respondent 2 has issued a preliminary notification dated 25-4-2007 under Section 4(1) of the Act, seeking to acquire the lands mentioned above for the purpose of setting up of a recycling of water unit with regard to drainage water of Bannur Town and for the purpose of laying of pipes. 5. Pursuant to the issuance of the preliminary notifications, both the petitioners filed objections to the proposed acquisition inter alia, contending that these lands were their only source of livelihood and that they have made huge amount of investments for cultivating the various crops on the said lands. 5. Pursuant to the issuance of the preliminary notifications, both the petitioners filed objections to the proposed acquisition inter alia, contending that these lands were their only source of livelihood and that they have made huge amount of investments for cultivating the various crops on the said lands. They also contended that only 6 acres 12 guntas of land in Yadahalli Village, Bannur Hobli, T. Narasipura Taluk, Mysore District, in Sy.Nos.171, 172 and 173 were acquired under various notifications and out of the said extent, only 2 ½ acres of land was utilized and the remaining land was not utilized, and that the respondents intend to acquire the lands of the petitioners, without there being any justifiable reasons and by not utilizing the lands earlier acquired for the said purpose. They have also contended that their lands are situated away from the existing recycling water unit and adjacent to the lands already acquired by the respondent 2. That uncultivated land in Sy.No.183 is available for the said purpose and therefore, respondent 2 could have notified the said land. They have also stated that pursuant to the objections filed by the petitioners, the Tahsildhar, T. Narasipura Taluk had filed a report dated 16-7-2008 to respondent 3 stating that there are other lands near the existing recycling water unit, which could be acquired and a copy of the said letter is marked as Annexure-H, that despite the objections filed by the petitioners without considering the same, the respondents issued final notification dated 24-10-2008 as per Annexure-J and thereafterwards, the proceedings have continued by issuance of Sections 9 and 10 notices under the Act. Being aggrieved by the proposed acquisition, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions challenging the acquisition notifications. 6. In response to the writ petitions, the State has filed the statement of objections in W.P.No.1673 of 2009 contending that the writ petition is not maintainable and that the lands in question are proposed to be acquired for establishing water purification plant and laying of pipes; that after taking into consideration the objections filed by the petitioners, the declaration has been me and that since the lands in question are required for a public purpose and that they are suitable for the said purpose. acquisition proceedings have been initiated and therefore, the State has sought dismissal of the writ petition. 7. acquisition proceedings have been initiated and therefore, the State has sought dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Learned Government Advocate submits that the said objections may be read as objections to W.P.No.18431 of 2009 also. 8. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the Town Municipal Council, Bannur, has impleaded itself as a respondent and has filed an application for vacating the interim order granted in these writ petitions. Along with the application for impleadment, the respondent-Town Municipal Council has filed certain documents which shall be adverted to during the course of this order. 9. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Advocate for respondent-authorities and the learned Counsel for Town Municipal Council, Bannur. 10. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the acquisition of the petitioners lands in Sy. Nos.174/1 and 174/2 are wholly unnecessary in view of the fact that earlier acquisition of lands in Sy.Nos.171, 172 and 173 of the very same village was made but the said lands have not been utilized for the purpose for which it has been acquired and therefore, further acquisition of the petitioners lands is not a proper exercise of power. He also contended that the final notification in the instant case is issued beyond a period of one year from the date of issuance of the preliminary notification and therefore, the acquisition in the instant case is not in accordance with law. Drawing my attention to Annexure-H, which is a letter written by the Assistant Commissioner, Mysore to the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, he has stated that when suitable land is Sy.Nos.183/1, 183/2, 183/3, 183/4 and 183/5 totally measuring 4 acres 27 guntas are available, the said lands which are uncultivated lands could be utilized for the purpose of the project rather than acquiring the petitioners’ land and that the said letter has not been taken into consideration by the State Government before issuing the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. He has also stated that the petitioners lands are agricultural lands and various crops are being grown by the petitioners by making huge investments on the said lands and therefore, the said lands could be excluded from acquisition and instead Sy.No. 183 which are barren lands could be utilized for the said purpose. He has also stated that the petitioners lands are agricultural lands and various crops are being grown by the petitioners by making huge investments on the said lands and therefore, the said lands could be excluded from acquisition and instead Sy.No. 183 which are barren lands could be utilized for the said purpose. he has also drawn my attention to the location of the petitioners lands as per the sketch produced at Annexure-F to show that Sy.No.183 is adjacent to Sy.No. 173 and the said lands could be utilized rather than the petitioners lands which are at Sy.Nos.174 and 174/1. Under the circumstances, he submitted that the acquisition of the petitioners lands be quashed and relief he granted to the petitioners. 11. Per contra, learned Government Advocate by referring to the records, has stated that the contentions raised by the petitioners in these writ petitions are without any merit. As far as the issuance of the declaration is concerned, he has stated that the preliminary notification in the instant case was issued on 25-4-2007 and the chavdi notification was issued on 30-7-2007 and that the final declaration has been made on 29-7-2008 which is within one year from the date of issuance of the chavdi notice and therefore, the contentions of the petitioners’ Counsel that thee is delay in issuance of the declaration is not correct. He has also drawn my attention to Annexure3-H, which has been received by the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, which has been taken into consideration and having regard to the topography of the land and for the purpose of which the land is being acquired, the petitioners lands being most suitable have been acquired and there can be no grievance with regard to non-consideration of Annexure-H. He has also stated that Town Municipal Council is the beneficiary of the acquisition and the technical report has been obtained from the Town Municipal Council and on that basis, the acquisition has been commenced and thee is no merit in the submission of the Counsel for the petitioners. 12. 12. Counsel for Town Municipal Council has also drawn my attention to Annexures-R1 and R2, which are produced to the application for impleadment to contend that the project of providing underground drainage system to Bannur Town is a huge project which was approved by the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Development Board, Bangalore, in the year 2000 and thereafter, the project has commenced and major portion of the project has already been concluded, that the lands referred to Sy.Nos.171, 172 and 173 were in fact not acquired by way of the issuance of acquisition notification but they were bought by the Town Municipal Counsel by entering into an agreement with the various landowners and the said lands have been utilized for the purpose of the project and so far as the remaining portion of the project is concerned, having regard to the location of the petitioners’ lands their lands have to be acquired, that the petitioners’ cannot have any grievance with regard to the acquisition of their lands having regard to the fact that the location of the petitioners lands are most suitable for the purpose of completion of the proposed underground drainage project and referring to Annexure-R2 as well as the sketch, he has contended that the entire project has been divided into three zones and that the land belonging to the petitioner in W.P.No.1673 of 2009 is located in Zone B; that the drainage water of Zone A, which is the Town of Bannur, would flow towards the lands of the petitioners in W.P.No.18431 of 2009 i.e., Sy.Nos.174/1, 174/2 and at that point the sewage treatment plant is to be located having regard to the topography of the land in question. He therefore, contended that the lands of the petitioners are acquired having regard to the suitability and also keeping in mind the nature of the project. He also submitted that on account of the pendency of these writ petitions and the interim order granted by this Court, the project has been stalled and therefore, the interim order would have to be vacated in these cases. 13. Having heard the Counsel on both sides and on perusal of the material on record, the only question that arises for my consideration is as to whether the acquisition in the instant case is in accordance with law or not. 14. 13. Having heard the Counsel on both sides and on perusal of the material on record, the only question that arises for my consideration is as to whether the acquisition in the instant case is in accordance with law or not. 14. From the material on record, it is noted that the lands belonging to the petitioners in Sy.Nos.174/1, 174/2 and 1614, have been proposed to be acquired for the purpose of completion of recycling of water unit of drainage water of Bannur Town and for the purpose of establishing a sewage treatment plant. The said project has been undertaken by the respondent-Town Municipal Council pursuant to the approval granted by the State Government in the year 2001. Perusal of nnexure-R1 reveal that by order dated 6-2-1001, the Karnataka Water Supply and Drainage Board, Bangalore, has granted technical sanction for providing the underground drainage water to Bannur pursuant to taking into consideration of approval given by the State Government on 1-12-2000. Therefore, acquisition notification dated 25-4-2007 was issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and thereafter the objections filed by the petitioners have been considered and subsequently, the final declaration has been made on 29-7-2008 proposing to acquire the petitioners’ lands for the purposes of completion of the said project. 15. Annexure-R2 is a letter dated 3-12-2010 written by the Executive Engineer, Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board, Mysore Division to the Project Director, office of the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore, stating that the entire project has been divided into three Zones namely Zone Q, Zone B and Zone C and for the purpose of Zone A, 10 acres of land is required and out of that 5 acres 6 guntas have already been purchased from the landowners by the Town Municipal Council and balance 4 acres 6 guntas of land is sought to acquire in Sy. Nos. 174/1 and 174/2; that as far as Zone B is concerned, 1 acre of land in Sy.No.1614 is sought to acquired and that in Zone C, 21 guntas are required. The said letter also states that major portion of the project has been implemented and it is only pursuant to the proposed acquisition that the balance work can be completed. In support of the said letter, Counsel for the Town Municipal Council has also produced a map showing the balance work of the underground drainage scheme to be implemented for Bannur Town. In support of the said letter, Counsel for the Town Municipal Council has also produced a map showing the balance work of the underground drainage scheme to be implemented for Bannur Town. On a perusal of the said sketch, it is noticed that sewage water from the town of Bannur which is shown as Zone. A would flow towards the petitioners’ lands where the sewage treatment plant is to be located in Sy.Nos.174/1 and 174/2 i.e., petitioners lands having regard to the topography of the town and also the location. Petitioners have also annexed a sketch at Annexure-F showing the location of Sy.Nos.171, 172, 173, 184 and the petitioners lands at Sy.Nos.174/1 and 174/2. It is on the basis of these facts which are not in dispute that the contentions of the Counsel for the petitioners have to be considered. 16. The first contention is with regard to final declaration being issued beyond the period of one year from the date of issuance of the preliminary notification is concerned, having regard to the records which have been produced, it is noticed that the publication in the village chavdi is dated 30-7-2007, prior of that preliminary notification has been issued as well as published in the two newspapers and the final declaration is made on 29-7-2008 which is just prior to the completion of one year from the final notice dated 30-7-2007, which is the chavdi notice. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the final declaration is belated and therefore, the acquisition is vitiated on that ground. 17. As far as the other contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is concerned, that earlier, land bearing Sy.Nos.171, 172 and 173 were acquired but they have not been utilised is concerned, no material has been produced to show that any such acquisition was initiated in respect of these lands. On the other hand, petitioners have produced additional documents along with an application namely Annexures-L to M6, which are the sale deeds and Annexures-M to M6, which are the RTCs of the lands in the said survey numbers which have been purchased by the respondent-Town Municipal Council from the landowners for the purpose of the project. There is also no material to show that after the said purchase of the lands, the respondent-authorities have not utilised the same for the purpose of the project. There is also no material to show that after the said purchase of the lands, the respondent-authorities have not utilised the same for the purpose of the project. On the other hand, Annexure-E, are the photographs produced by the petitioners showing that thee has been constructions made which have been utilised for the purpose of the project. It is nobody’s case that the proposed project has been abandoned but on the other hand, the contention of the respondents that on account of the interim order passed by this Court insofar as the petitioners lands are concerned, has virtually stalled completion of the project is well-founded. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that there has been no utilization of the lands acquired in Sy.Nos.171, 172 and 173 is not correct. In fact, the perusal of Annexure-F would show that the lands in Sy.Nos.171, 172 and 173 are adjacent to the petitioners lands which are at Sy.Nos.174 and 174/1 and therefore, there is contiguity which is absolutely necessary having regard to the nature of the project which has been undertaken by the respondent-authorities. Therefore, the said contention is also rejected. 18. The other contention which has been taken by the Counsel for the petitioners ins that adjacent land which is Sy.No.183 has not been utilised for, cultivations and therefore, the said land could have been acquired by the respondent-authorities rather than the petitioners’ lands. The same can be answered by having regard to the nature of the project undertaken in the instant case and keeping in mind the fact that the sewage treatment plant is to be located in the North-Eastern side of the town of Bannur and having regard to the gradient and topography, the sewage water from Zone A as seen in the ketch which is pertaining to the town of Bannur is to be drained towards the sewage treatment plaint to be located in the land belonging to the petitioners and having regard to the fact that the sewage lines have already been constructed-in Sy.Nos.171, 172, 174 and 174/2 being adjacent to the Sy.No.172, keeping in mind the contiguity and construction of sewage water plant, the suitability of the petitioners lands insofar as the proposed project is concerned, cannot be doubted. A perusal of Annexure-F could reveal that Sy.No.183 is located towards western parties, whereas, the direction of the flow of sewage water is towards North-Eastern portion and under the circumstances, the acquisition of Sy.No.183 in the instant case would have been wholly erroneous. Merely because the said land is not cultivable, the same cannot be considered for acquisition without having regard to the nature of the project and the topography of the land and the direction of the flow of sewage water. Hence, the contention of the Counsel for the petitioner that the State had to consider the letter at Annexure-H recommending Sy.No.183 could be acquired is not well-founded and therefore, the said contention is also rejected. Moreover, the landowner cannot dictate to the State Government as to which land has to be acquired and merely because a neighbouring land is available, the question regarding the suitability of the land for acquisition for a particular project cannot be raised as a ground for seeking quashing of the acquisition proceedings. There is no specific contention raised with regard to acquisition of the land in Sy.No.1614 in W.P.No.1673 of 2009 is concerned. There being no other legal point raised in these writ petitions and having answered the contentions raised by the petitioners supra, I find that these writ petitions are without any merit and accordingly, they are dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.