Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 359 (KAR)

Y. N. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka

2023-03-02

KRISHNA S.DIXIT

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner is knocking at the doors of writ court for assailing the acquisition of the subject lands pursuant to Preliminary Notification dtd. 25/4/2007 (Annexure-B) issued u/s.4(1) followed by the Final Notification dtd. 29/7/2008 (Annexure-D) issued u/s.6(1) of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.A.Nagarajappa in all fairness having notified to the court the earlier rounds of unsuccessful challenge argues that neither the possession having been taken nor the compensation having been paid within the statutory period, his client is entitled to the benefit of lapse of acquisition in terms of Sec.24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. In support of his submission he relied upon certain rulings of the Apex Court. 2. After service of notice, learned AGA appears for respondent nos. 1 to 3; the 4th respondent-TMC is represented by its Sr. Panel Counsel Mr. Gangadharappa and 5th respondent-Board speaks through its Panel Advocate. Both the 4th & 5th respondents have filed their Statement of Objections. The learned Advocates appearing for the State, TMC and the Board make submission in support of the impugned acquisition controverting the petition averments. They contend that the ruling cited on behalf of the petitioner do not have much relevance to the case at hand which is liable to be resjudicated. So contending they seek dismissal of the writ petition. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter for the following reasons: (a) The subject lands are notified for acquisition for the purpose of accomplishing Drainage Water Recycling unit and establishing a Sewage Treatment Plant at Bannur Town. The said project has been approved by the State Government on 1/12/2000. Petitioner had laid a challenge to the acquisition earlier in W.P.No.18431/2009 that came to be dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dtd. 25/5/2011 after considering all contentions. Petitioner had the benefit of interim protection throughout. This judgment came to be affirmed by the Division Bench in petitioner's Writ Appeal No.5338/2011 dismissed on 2/7/2012. Even the further challenge in S.L.P.No.31402/2012 came to be negatived by the Apex Court vide order dtd. 2/11/2012. (b) The relentless petitioner had filed W.P.No.46778/2013 again laying a challenge to the very same acquisition notifications and another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the same vide judgment dtd. Even the further challenge in S.L.P.No.31402/2012 came to be negatived by the Apex Court vide order dtd. 2/11/2012. (b) The relentless petitioner had filed W.P.No.46778/2013 again laying a challenge to the very same acquisition notifications and another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the same vide judgment dtd. 14/7/2014 principally on the ground of resjudicata because of the findings recorded in the earlier round of litigation that was taken up upto Apex Court of the country. At para 6 the said Bench observed "in any event, the contention that has been put forth would also not arise for consideration on merit since the scheme is being implemented by the 4th respondent for whose benefit the land has been acquired by respondent nos. 1 to 5 under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act...". Therefore the contention that the scheme is not implemented by taking possession of the land falls to the ground. Petitioner had filed Writ Appeal No.2874/2014 against the said judgment and that also met the same fate, albeit on the ground of not complying with office objections despite Registrar's order dtd. 19/1/2015. That being the position, the contention as to the invocation of Sec.24(2) of the 2013 Act has to fail. The vehement submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that his client still continues in the land does not yield any fruit in law when he has fought too many legal battles at various stages, unsuccessfully. A person putting the acquisition in successive challenge unsuccessfully and thereby interdicting the acquisition process cannot be permitted to tap the benefit envisaged under the said provision, as rightly contended by learned Advocates appearing for the respondents. (c) It is also worthy of notice as to what a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the earliest challenge vide W.P.No.18431/2009 dismissed on 25/5/2011 had observed at paragraph 17 of its judgment: "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 utilized is concerned, no material has been produced to show that any such acquisition was initiated in respect of these lands. 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 utilized 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 Annexure "L" to "M-6", which are the sale deed and Annexure "M to "M-6", which are the R.T.Cs of the lands in the said survey number which have been purchased by the respondent Town Municipal Council from the land owners 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 utilized the same for the purpose of the project. On the other hand, Annexure "E", are the photographs produced by the petitioners showing that there has been constructions made which have been utilized 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 in so far 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. Infact, the perusal of Annexure "F" would show that the lands in Sy.No.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." (d) The next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the 4th Respondent - TMC itself has stated as to non requirement of so much of the land, if not entire and therefore, the acquisition beyond requirement cannot be sustained, is bit difficult to agree with. A careful perusal of the statement of objections filed by the 4th Respondent on 9/12/2022 unmistakably makes it clear that so much of the land is required for the project in question. A stray sentence in the pleadings cannot be construed divorced from the integral stand emanating from the same. A careful perusal of the statement of objections filed by the 4th Respondent on 9/12/2022 unmistakably makes it clear that so much of the land is required for the project in question. A stray sentence in the pleadings cannot be construed divorced from the integral stand emanating from the same. In fact, learned Coordinate judge in W.P.No.18431/2009, disposed off on 25/5/2011 has already addressed this aspect of the matter agreeing with the submission of the Respondents in variance with that of the Petitioner. Therefore, this submission is liable to be resjudicated. Added, it is for the Executive to decide whether the land is required and what is the extent of such requirement for the project in question keeping in view a host of factors which are almost unintelligible to the Courts. In matters like this, the decision of the Executive needs to be respected on the principle of separation of powers which happens to be a basic feature of the Constitution vide INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI vs. RAJ NARAIN, AIR 1975 SC 865 . (e) Learned counsel for the Petitioner pressed into service the decision of the Apex Court in VASUDEV vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, (2022) 4 SCC 735 in support of his contention that where the land is not required, the owner should be allowed to retain the same. The facts of the said ruling are much different from those of the case at hands and therefore, much reliance cannot be placed on the same. In fact, at paragraph no.18 of the ruling the Apex Court has observed "... the State Government has constricted power to denotify the acquired land...Construction of structures on the acquired land by the erstwhile land owners by itself can be no reason to denotify the land." The inner voice of this ruling spurns the submission of the Petitioner. Petitioner's reliance on MAGNUM PROMOTERS PVT. LTD., vs. UNION OF INDIA, (2015) 3 SCC 327 is misplaced. That was a case where possession of the land was taken inasmuch as, there was an interim order of status quo and therefore, Court did not believe the version of the Authorities as to they having taken the possession merely because some record was generated. That is not the case here nor it is relevant for the adjudication of challenge to the acquisition. This apart, the said ruling has been considered in RAGHUBIR SINGH supra. That is not the case here nor it is relevant for the adjudication of challenge to the acquisition. This apart, the said ruling has been considered in RAGHUBIR SINGH supra. In the above circumstances, the Petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is, costs having been reluctantly made easy.