AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy, J.—The facts of the case are as follows: The petitioners, along with other children of the second petitioner are said to be the joint owners of property bearing Survey Nos. 256/2B and 256/9P1P1, measuring 13 cents and 61 cents, respectively, of Beejadi village, Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District. The property comprised of a building constructed by late Venkatachala Chathra and therefore, he had leased out the building on the land in the year 1956 to enable the State Government to establish a Government School, which was on a nominal rent. A Government Higher Primary School was accordingly established and the building was used for the purpose. It is stated that as it was the only school in the area, it had a large student strength, in the early days. However, over the decades as other Government Schools and Private Schools were established in the vicinity, the number of students studying in the school on the subject premises dwindled.
It is stated that the School Development and Management Committee, with the assistance of the general public of the locality, had raised funds and acquired the land adjacent to the subject property and have constructed a pucca building with ground and first floor and are running a school in the name of Udupi Zilla Panchayat Higher Primary School, Beejady. The School is now run in the said premises.
As the purpose for which the land was leased by the petitioners'' predecessor was fulfilled and since the premises was no longer required for the said purpose, the second petitioner is said to have issued a legal notice terminating the tenancy with effect from 31.7.2005 and sought delivery of vacant possession. When the Government did not comply, that a suit for ejectment was instituted before the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Kundapur in O.S. No. 154/2005. The suit was decreed as prayed for after contest. An appeal having been preferred against the said judgment before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), the same was dismissed for non-prosecution on 18.1.2011. During the pendency of the proceedings, immediately after the institution of the suit, it transpires that the respondents stopped payment of rent and there was a huge outstanding amount, by way of arrears of rent.
However, during the pendency of the appeal, it transpires that a preliminary notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Hereinafter referred to as the ''LA Act'', for brevity) was issued notifying the acquisition of the subject land dated 2.9.2010. The second petitioner had filed objections to the preliminary notification. A notice u/s 5A of the LA Act was issued on 19.8.2011 and even though the petitioners were heard on the objections filed, the third respondent had issued a final declaration u/s 6(1) of the LA Act on 12.12.2011. It is thereafter that notice under Sections 9(1) and 10 of the LA Act was issued on 25.7.2012. It is further stated that the petitioners, on 13.8.2012, having filed objections to the said notice, the respondent, according to the petitioner, had failed to proceed further and therefore, the proceedings would lapse as an award was not passed within two years from the date of the preliminary notification.
It is contended that the process of acquisition was initiated mala fide and with an ulterior motive of defeating the judgment passed against the respondents for ejectment from the suit property and therefore, the exercise of power by recourse to the provisions of the LA Act is unfair and was done only with a view to scuttle a valid decree passed by the Civil Court. It is on this primary ground that the writ petitions are filed.
The respondents have contested the petitions and have filed the statement of objections. It is contended that the fact of the school having been established over the subject property as early as in the year 1956 is not in dispute. It is also not denied that the adjacent land has been acquired and has been developed along with the subject property in establishing a new building to accommodate a school. However, the subject property is very essential to continue to run the school and it was for that reason that the suit for ejectment was contested. The State having initiated the acquisition proceedings, notwithstanding the pendency of the ejectment proceedings, cannot be characterized as illegal or prompted by fraudulent motives. The exercise of such power was to acquire the land for a public purpose, namely to continue the running of the school on the said premises. There is no illegality in the same.
The further contention that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed on account of the award not having been passed within two years from the date of the publication of the preliminary notification is an incorrect statement. That in terms of Section 11A of the LA Act, the award is to be passed within two years from the date of publication of the declaration u/s 6(1) of the LA Act. In the present case on hand, the declaration u/s 6(1) of the LA Act was issued on 12.12.2011 and was published in the Gazette on 12.1.2012. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings have not lapsed as claimed. Even insofar as the construction of the new building adjacent to the subject property is concerned, the Deputy Director of Public Instructions had made an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Udupi with a request to acquire the land measuring 0.13 acres in Survey No. 256/2B and 0.25 acres in Survey No. 256/9P1P1 of Beejadi village, which is the subject property for the purpose of building and play area, which was existent on the said property. It was on the basis of the said application that proceedings under the LA Act were initiated and that the proceedings'' are in order, except that the preparation of the award was pending as on the date of filing of the statement of objections, which according to the learned Government Pleader, has been subsequently completed and therefore, there was no illegality.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following authorities, in support of the case that the respondents were precluded from initiating the acquisition proceedings, as it was apparently done only to overcome the judgment of the civil court in a suit for ejectment that was decreed in favour of the petitioners.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Darius Shapur Chenai and Others, ,
Mrs. Behroze Ramyar Batha Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, ,
Collector (District Magistrate) Allahabad and Another Vs. Raja Ram Jaiswal, .
The said decisions however would not advance the case of the petitioners as they are rendered in a totally different context and in other facts and circumstances.
In the instant case on hand, there was no impediment for the State Government to have initiated the acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject land even prior to the institution of the suit for ejectment. Therefore, the suit for ejectment having been decreed in favour of the petitioners, certainly was not a bar for the State to exercise its power of eminent domain and to initiate acquisition proceedings as long as the object of acquisition was for a public purpose. There is no doubt that in the present case on hand, the land and building has been acquired to continue the functioning of the school, for which it was initially obtained on lease by the State Government and which has been developed further including the adjacent land. The further controversy as to whether the school has requisite strength or that there are other schools established in the vicinity can hardly be a ground to set aside the acquisition proceedings, if otherwise the procedure followed is in accordance with law. Therefore, the object of acquisition is not questionable and the manner in which the acquisition proceedings have been initiated and the manner in which it had culminated subject to the State having indeed completed the proceedings in accordance with law, as claimed. There cannot be any ground for interference by this court.
Accordingly, the present petition, in the circumstances of the case, does not merit consideration and is dismissed.