Mohammed Alimulla and Others vs State of Karnataka and Others

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. The petitioners'' claim as absolute owners of land in Survey No. 300 measuring 28 acres and 20 guntas out of 36 acres and 30 guntas, of Pavagada Taluk, Tumkur District. The petitioners are entirely dependant on the said land for their livelihood since the family consists of more than 30 members and they are all engaged only in agriculture. The land in question is said to situate adjacent to a hillock in Pavagada and they have developed the land with great difficulty and brought it under cultivation. The same is about 3 kilometres away from the town and is surrounded by wilderness.

The second and third respondents have issued a notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Hereinafter referred to as ''the LA Act'' for brevity), duly published in the Official Gazette dated 14.1.2001, proposing to acquire the land in question for construction of houses and the petitioners have produced a map, indicating the location of the land and to demonstrate that the same is away from the town and is in a wild area. Though there are other lands available even closer to the town limits, for instance, the lands in Survey Nos. 380, 382, 383 and so on, for reasons best known to the respondents, the petitioners'' lands have been identified for acquisition in the garb of eminent domain, overlooking other lands which are more suitable for the purpose. It is the suspicion of the petitioners that the respondents have acted at the behest of certain interested people who did not want their lands to be acquired.

It is also claimed that the petitioners had agreed to sell a portion of the land in Survey No. 330 to a third-party and have received a large sum of money as advance and in view of the said transaction, the proposed acquisition would cause much hardship to the petitioners.

It is further claimed that the petitioners are illiterate and the inquiry held u/s 5A of the LA Act was, without the petitioners being given an opportunity of hearing and their objections had not been considered. It is in that background that the petitioners had earlier filed a writ petition in WP 30405/2010 questioning the acquisition proceedings. The same was disposed of with a direction that the petitioners objections be considered. Notwithstanding the same, the respondents have passed a cryptic order overruling the objections and not assigning any reasons to negate the same. It is in that background that the present petition is filed.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners would reiterate the above circumstances and would submit that there is no denial of the fact as to the location of the land and there is no explanation forthcoming from the respondents as to how the land of the petitioners is suitable for housing, other than the lands which were closer to town and seeks that appropriate directions be issued to delete the petitioners'' lands from acquisition and identify other suitable lands for the purpose.

The learned Counsel for the respondents I has entered appearance and has filed statement of objections and has also produced the records to demonstrate that the respondents have exercised the power of eminent domain and the suitability of the land has been taken into account, in proceeding to acquire the land in question. The allegation of the petitioner being victimised is untrue and there is no such animosity involved nor are the respondents influenced by any third-parties in acquiring only the petitioners'' land while overlooking other suitable lands. The objections are exaggerated. In any event, the petitioners had earlier challenged the very acquisition proceedings though on other grounds also and this Court has already opined that it is not the function of this Court to address the suitability or otherwise of the land proposed to be acquired under the Scheme. That position of law would still face the petitioners and therefore there is no warrant for interference by this Court. The learned Counsel would make the records available to the Court to indicate that due process has been followed insofar as the acquisition proceedings are concerned.

In this view of the matter, notwithstanding the unfortunate circumstance that the petitioners would be deprived of a large chunk of their land, which it transpires is their sole source of livelihood, there is little scope for interference by this Court in such matters. Therefore, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.