Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 19 (KAR)

Mallappa Gowda v. State of Karnataka

2016-01-06

K.N.PHANEENDRA, MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J. 1. The appellants in W.A. Nos. 3270/2010, 3971-3973/2010 and 4296-4297/2011 are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 14381/2008. The appellants in W.A. Nos. 3974-3977/2010, W.A. Nos. 3669-3671/2010 are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 2732-2735/2010 and 2779-2781/2010. They are all losers of their respective lands pursuant to the Acquisition Notifications issued under Section 28(1) and 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 ('KIAD Act' for short). The notification under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act was issued as per Annexure-H on 05.05.2007, whereas the final notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act was issued on 25.03.2008. Under both these notifications, the lands bearing Sy. Nos. 26-1B, 26-5, 32-1A, 32-1B, 32-2, 32-3, 32-4, 32-5, 32-6, 32-7, 32-8 and Sy. No. 190-5 totally measuring 15.34 Acres were acquired. The said notifications also reveal that an area of 0.86 acres of Government land is also utilized for the purpose of which the lands were acquired. Thus the total extent of land measuring 16.20 Acres were acquired for the purpose of rehabilitating the land losers, who had earlier lost their lands in establishment of Mangaluru Special Economic Zone Limited, I-Phase (for short, 'MSEZ'). The rehabilitated persons are provided with smaller house sites to live. When the lands were acquired at an earlier point of time for establishment of 'MSEZ' Ltd., number of families were displaced and the private and public temples situated therein, in which such displaced persons had faith, were also demolished and destroyed for the purpose of MSEZ Ltd. The object for which the lands in question were acquired was to rehabilitate the displaced persons. Thus, in order to rehabilitate the displaced persons, who were displaced due to the establishment of MSEZ Ltd., the lands in question owned by the appellants herein (petitioners in W.P. No. 14381/2008 and connected matters) were acquired. 2. Likewise, the lands of the appellants in W.A. 3974-3977/2010 and connected matters, viz., Sy. Nos. 27/2A3, 27/2B, 32/9, 32/10 and 32/11 totally measuring 4.03 acres situated at Permude village, Surathkal Hobli, Mangaluru, were acquired pursuant to Notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act issued on 30.11.2009 for the purpose of rehabilitation of displaced persons, who were displaced in the earlier acquisition made for the purpose of establishing of the 3rd respondent - MSEZ Ltd. 3. From the aforementioned facts, it is clear that the said acquisition notifications were issued under the KIAD Act for acquiring certain lands as mentioned supra, for the purpose of rehabilitating the displaced persons, who were displaced because of acquisition of the their lands for establishment of the 3rd respondent-MSEZ Ltd.,. The rehabilitation of displaced persons included construction of public and private temples in lieu of temples earlier destroyed and for allied purposes such as, formation of roads etc., for betterment of the displaced persons. 4. It is relevant to note here itself that an area of about 1800 acres was acquired at the first instance by KIADB for establishment of MSEZ Ltd., and because of such acquisition, many number of families were displaced and only with a view to rehabilitate the displaced persons and to re-establish the public as well as private temples which were situated earlier therein, lands were sought to be acquired under the present notifications. The acquisition notifications in question were questioned before this court by the land losers in W.P. Nos. 14381/2008 and W.P. Nos. 2732-2735/2010 and connected matters, which came to be dismissed on 21.09.2010. The same is impugned herein. 5. Sri. Amar Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in both these set of appeals submitted that the land losers were neither notified nor heard in the matter; They did not have any opportunity to oppose the acquisition notifications; No opportunity was given to the petitioners to file statement of objections and consequently, acquisition notifications are issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. Secondly, the learned Advocate submits that the lands in question were not acquired for the purpose of establishing the industries, but the same were required for different purposes i.e. for rehabilitation displaced persons and re-construction of temples which were situated therein. Thus, according to him, the purpose for which the KIADB is created and the power given to it for acquisition of lands is misused. He submitted that there were many other suitable lands in the vicinity, but the fertile lands in question belonging to the poor and rustic villagers were acquired without any valid reasons; in other words, the acquisition of the lands in question suffers from mala fides. 6. He submitted that there were many other suitable lands in the vicinity, but the fertile lands in question belonging to the poor and rustic villagers were acquired without any valid reasons; in other words, the acquisition of the lands in question suffers from mala fides. 6. In so far as the 1st question relating to violation of principles of justice is concerned, we have gone through the material on record, which reveals that some of the land losers have received notices and addresses of some of the land losers could not be traced. Wherever the Land Acquisition Officer (for short 'LAO') has not found out the correct addresses of the land losers, he has affixed the notices issued under Section 28(2) of KIAD Act to the land which is sought to be acquired. The records further reveal that all the land losers were given 30 days time for filing statement of objections. The enquiry was conducted as contemplated under Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act, after waiting for more than 30 days as required under law in Billava Samaj Mandir at Permude village on 06.07.2007 and 07.07.2007. The land owners of the lands bearing Sy. Nos. 26-1A, 26-1E, 26-2, 26-3 and 26-4A remained absent during the course of enquiry. However, they filed their statement of objections. The owners of the lands bearing Sy. No. 26-1C, 26-1D and 26-1F were present during the course of enquiry and they have filed their statement of objections. Though the land owner of Sy. No. 26-1B was absent, he filed his written statement, objecting to the land acquisition. The owners of the lands bearing Nos. 26-5 and 36-1A, 32-1B, 32-7, 32-4 and 32-5, 32-1, 32-7, 32-6 and 32-8 were absent and they have also not filed objections. The owners of the land bearing Sy. No. 190/4A and 190/4B were present during the course of enquiry and they were heard in the matter. The owner of the land bearing Sy. No. 190-5 was absent and he has not filed statement of objections. 7. After considering the statement of objections filed by land losers, as mentioned supra, the LAO has proceeded to over-rule the statement of objections on merits and consequently, decided to proceed with the acquisition process. A copy of the order under Section 28(3) of KIAD Act relating to completion of enquiry dated 07.07.2007 is produced at Annexure-J to the writ petitions. After considering the statement of objections filed by land losers, as mentioned supra, the LAO has proceeded to over-rule the statement of objections on merits and consequently, decided to proceed with the acquisition process. A copy of the order under Section 28(3) of KIAD Act relating to completion of enquiry dated 07.07.2007 is produced at Annexure-J to the writ petitions. Subsequently, the final notifications were issued under Section 28(4) of the KIADB Act on 25.03.2008 and on 30.11.2009 respectively, for acquiring the aforementioned lands. 8. On perusal of the records, we are satisfied that the petitioners were notified as per law. Some of the land owners have appeared before the LAO during the course of enquiry and have filed their statement of objections. They were heard in the matter. The LAO has considered the statement of objections and thereafter proceeded to issue final notifications. Therefore, the contention of the appellants that they were not heard in the matter and that the principles of natural justice are violated, cannot be accepted. 9. As already mentioned supra, vast area of 1800 acres was acquired at an earlier point of time for establishment of MSEZ Ltd. Under such acquisition, many families were displaced and their lands are fully acquired for the said purpose. At that time, some of the private and public temples situated therein were also acquired for establishment of MSEZ Ltd. and in order to rehabilitate the displaced persons and to reestablish the said temples including Nagavana, the lands in question are acquired. The land losers in the earlier acquisition could not have been left high and dry and they had to be rehabilitated by the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein at least to the extent of providing them house-sites. In order to rehabilitate such persons, a smaller extent of land measuring about 15.34 acres and 4.03 acres came to be acquired under the impugned notifications. In view of the same, the 2nd contention of the appellants' counsel that the KIADB could not have acquired the lands in question for the purpose for which the lands are sought to be acquired, cannot be accepted. The purpose for which the lands are now acquired is analogous and akin to establishment of industry. Therefore, the purpose for which the lands are acquired by KIADB, is not deviated. 10. The third contention of Mr. The purpose for which the lands are now acquired is analogous and akin to establishment of industry. Therefore, the purpose for which the lands are acquired by KIADB, is not deviated. 10. The third contention of Mr. Amar Kumar that the lands in question are situated far away from the place where the persons were displaced, also cannot be accepted. The Special LAO of KIADB, Mangaluru, has sworn to the affidavit on 01.12.2011 stating that the lands which are acquired under these notifications are abutting to the MSEZ Ltd. Even the sketch of actual location of MSEZ Ltd., and as well as sketch of the acquired lands for rehabilitation of displaced persons, is also appended along with the affidavit. The acquired portions are shown in brown colour and such portions which are acquired are all abutting to the place wherein MSEZ Ltd. is established. Therefore, it is not open for the appellants to contend that their lands which are sought to be acquired are situated at far of places from the place of their earlier habitation. 11. The affidavits filed during the course of hearing of these appeals by the respondents would clearly reveal that the temples are already reestablished and the roads are formed and permanent houses are already built, streets are connected with electricity supply and people are staying in the houses. In other words, full-pledged rehabilitation work has been completed and the displaced people are already relocated and they are residing therein. 12. It would be relevant to note that out of the total extent of 15.34 acres of private lands, which is the subject matter of Writ Appeal Nos. 3970/2010 and connected matters, the land owners have received the compensation in respect of the lands measuring 12.71 acres and only the land owners of 2.63 acres of land have not received the compensation as on this date, though the compensation is deposited before the appropriate authority. It is submitted that, out of 22 land losers, about 20 persons have already received the compensation. 13. Be that as it may. The validity of the acquisition cannot be decided based on the receipt or non-receipt of the compensation, but the fact remains that 95% of the land losers have already received the same. In this regard, the observations made in the case of Omprakash v. State of U.P. reported in 1998(6) SCC Page. 13. Be that as it may. The validity of the acquisition cannot be decided based on the receipt or non-receipt of the compensation, but the fact remains that 95% of the land losers have already received the same. In this regard, the observations made in the case of Omprakash v. State of U.P. reported in 1998(6) SCC Page. 1 are relevant to the facts of the case on hand, which read as under:- "Under these circumstances, we find considerable force in the contention of learned Senior Counsel for the respondent that it is neither advisable nor feasible to interfere with the acquisition of such large tracts of lands when the occupants of 9/10th of the acquired lands have not thought it fit to challenge these acquisition proceedings and the occupants of only 1/10th of lands are agitating their grievance since more than six years, firstly before the High Court and then before this Court." The aforementioned observations are fully attracted to the facts of these appeals also. 14. Sri. T.S. Amar Kumar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants at this stage has drawn the attention of the court to the report dated 04.04.2014 issued by the Karnataka Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act. The Karnataka Lokayukta based on certain allegations relating to irregularities in acquiring 15.34 acres of land of Perumade village enquired into the matter and submitted its report. Such report of Lokayukta cannot be made use of by the appellants for the purpose of getting acquisition opposed. Acquisition notifications can be interfered with only if there are any legal infirmities. 15. The memo filed by the KIADB discloses that the report of the Karnataka Lokayukta dated 04.04.2014 relied upon by the appellants is rejected by the Government insofar as it relates to the LAO is concerned. Be that as it may. The report of Lokayukta, which is rejected by the Government so far as it relates to LAO is concerned, cannot be made use of by the appellants in support of their case in these appeals. 16. Be that as it may. In our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petitions has considered all the aforementioned factors. Even on re-appreciation of the entire material on record, we do not find any ground to interfere in the acquisition process mentioned supra. 16. Be that as it may. In our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petitions has considered all the aforementioned factors. Even on re-appreciation of the entire material on record, we do not find any ground to interfere in the acquisition process mentioned supra. The acquisition process is already completed and after rehabilitation, the people are living happily therein. Hence, no interference is called for. The appeals fail and accordingly the same are dismissed.