AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy, J.—These petitions are heard and disposed of by this common order having regard to the common grounds of challenge on the basis of which the petitions are filed.
Re WP 11846-848/2010:
The petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 are said to have purchased land bearing Survey No. 322/P2 and 322/P1 measuring 21 guntas each, respectively, from petitioner No. 2. The lands are of Hiremagalur village, Chickmagalur District. They had purchased the same in the year 2003.
It is stated that certain lands in the vicinity of the above lands were proposed to be acquired under a preliminary notification dated 5.5.1995 and a final notification dated 18.12.1996. The lands of the petitioners were not included in the said notifications. It transpires that there was a subsequent notification u/s 4(1) of the LA Act dated 29.1.2007 and a final declaration dated 11.1.2008, in which the lands were included. The petitioners claim to be unaware of such inclusion.
It is contended that the same were not published in daily newspaper having a wide circulation, but were published only in a little known newspaper "Suddi Madyama" and hence was not in accordance with law. It is contended that no personal hearing was afforded and the report said to have been submitted u/s 5A of the LA Act was not communicated to the petitioners.
It is further contended that the area has been declared as an "industrial area" under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (Hereinafter referred to as the ''KIAD Act'', for brevity) and when once it is so declared, the same is not capable of being acquired for residential purposes.
It is contended that the respondents have denotified several parcels of land from the time the notifications were issued and further, the Scheme has not been implemented over other parcels of land.
It is denied that possession of the land is purportedly taken from the petitioners.
Re. WP 11849/2010:
The petitioner is said to be the owner of property bearing Survey No. 321/2 measuring 1 acre and 2 guntas of Hiremagalur village, Chickmagalur Taluk and District, having purchased the same in the year 1994.
It is the petitioner''s case that though the land is subject matter of acquisition proceedings, he continues to be in physical possession of the same as on the date of the petition.
It is contended that the preliminary notification is dated 7.12.1994 and the final notification is dated 27.2.1997. It is the petitioner''s case that he had made a representation dated 3.10.2007 requesting that the petitioner''s land be excluded from the proceedings. This is in the backdrop that the respondent Chickmagalur Urban Development Authority had passed a resolution dated 16.10.1996 itself to delete the petitioner''s land from the acquisition proceedings. The same not having been implemented, a writ petition in WP 14885/2007 had been filed, which is said to have been disposed of by Order dated 4.2.2008, with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner. However, when the respondent authority failed to consider the case of the petitioner, but proceeded to allot sites to several parties, the petitioner is said to have filed yet another writ petition in WP 1537/2010, and even during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner''s representation having been rejected, the present petition is filed.
Re WP 11791/2010:
The petitioner is said to be the owner of land bearing Survey No. 321/9P, measuring 1 acre 4 1/2 guntas of Hiremagalur village. The petitioner is said to have filed an earlier writ petition in WP 14343/2008, which is said to have been disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the acquisition proceedings and the/present petition is filed claiming that he continues to be in physical possession of the land notwithstanding the acquisition proceedings. It is the further case of the petitioner that an even earlier petition in WP 44190/1999 was disposed of with a direction that it was open to the Government to take a decision in terms of Section 48 of the LA Act, to withdraw from the acquisition proceedings.
Re. WP 11787/2010:
The petitioner is said to be owner of the land bearing Survey No. 321/7 and 8 of Hiremagalur. That though the same were subject matter of acquisition proceedings, the petitioner continues in occupation of the same. The petitioner had been granted liberty by this court while disposing of an earlier writ petition in WP 6702/2009 to challenge the acquisition proceedings.
Re. WP 11786/2010:
The petitioner claims as the owner of land bearing Survey No. 321/9P, measuring 1 acre 4 1/2 guntas of land in Hiremagalur village. The petitioner claims to be in continued possession of he land notwithstanding the acquisition proceedings. The petitioner is said to have been granted liberty by this court to challenge the acquisition proceedings while disposing of an earlier writ petition in WP 14344/2008.
Re. WP 11788/2010:
The petitioner is said to be the owner of land bearing Survey No. 321/12, measuring 25 guntas and land in Survey No. 321/1, measuring 36 guntas. That though the lands were the subject matter of acquisition proceedings, the petitioner continues to be in physical possession of the same. The petitioner having been granted liberty to challenge the acquisition proceedings while disposing of an earlier writ petition by the petitioner in W.P. No. 14345/2008, the present petition is filed.
It is contended on behalf of the Chickmagalur Urban Development Authority, that a housing scheme was formulated by it in the various lands which are subject matter of these petitions, apart from other lands. The Scheme was formulated for a total extent of 19 acres. Out of the same, an extent of over 8 acres 27 1/2 guntas had been purchased from several land owners by the Authority and the remaining was acquired by recourse to the LA Act.
The notification u/s 4(1) of the LA Act dated 5.5.1995 was sought to be rectified by a further notification dated 10 8.1995, to correct the identity of one of the items of land. A final declaration u/s 6(1) was issued on 27.2.1997. A notification u/s 16(2) of the LA Act is said to have been issued on 21.9.2000.
It is stated that the State Government had denotified an extent of 10 guntas of land in Survey No. 318/4 vide notification dated 7.9.1993. The fourth respondent is said to have passed resolutions proposing that several lands by excluding from the acquisition proceedings, but the same had been rejected by the State government as per order dated 5.2.2010.
It is stated that the Authority has received sanction to carry out the development of the Scheme as early as on 5.1.2009. The Authority contends that over 100 acres of land has been acquired for development. The particular Scheme in respect of the above extent of lands is being carried out in a phased manner. That except for lands which are the subject matter of pending petitions, where the petitioners have the benefit of an interim order in respect of their alleged possession, the implementation of the project is said to be near complete.
It is stated that the Authority has received technical clearance, approval and sanction of plan from the Director of Town Planning, Bangalore, a copy of which is produced. plan for water supply distribution to the residential layout is also laid out. It is claimed that roads have been formed and water lines are in place. A copy of a sanctioned working plan is produced. It is hence contended that the Scheme has been substantially implemented and sites have been allotted to the general public.
More particularly, in so far as the case of each of the petitioners are concerned - it is pointed out that the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 11846-848/2010 are concerned, it is pointed out that possession their land has been taken and an notification u/s 16(2) has been issued as on 18.8.2009, which is duly gazette on 3.9.2009. (Annexure- R-11)
It is further pointed out that the petitioners have written to the Special Land Acquisition Officer by letters dated 15.6.2007 that they are willing to hand over possession of the land on the compensation amount being disbursed. They are hence precluded from challenging the acquisition. Copies of such communications are produced as Annexures R-16 and 7.
In WP 11788 and WP 11789/2010, the petitioners seeking that their representation for de-notifying their lands be considered is incapable of being granted as the lands in question stand vested in the State by virtue of possession having been taken and a notification u/s 16(2) of the LA Act having been issued on 21.9.2000. It is further pointed out that this court by its order dated 22.3.2010, produced at Annexure-H to the petition, had taken note of the order dated 5.2.2010 and disposed of the earlier petition by these very petitioners, as it did not survive for consideration in view of the said Order. Except the liberty granted to them to challenge Annexure A-1 to the petition they had not other right. The present writ petition was thus not maintainable.
In WP 11786/2010, the petitioners would also have to be denied any relief for the same reason as in the case of the petitioners in WP 11788/2010.
In WP 11787/2010, possession of the land of the petitioners having been taken, a notification u/s 16(2) of the LA Act dated 21.9.2000 - and the land having vested in the State, no relief can be granted.
In WP 11849/2010, it is pointed out that the land was notified in the name of one Neelamma. The petitioner is said to have purchased the same on 22.9.1994, and the same is reflected in the order of mutation dated 13.5.1996. The compensation amount had also been deposited before the Land Acquisition Officer. The physical possession was taken and a notification u/s 16(2) having been issued, the question of denotifying the land does not arise.
In the above circumstances, the thrust of the arguments of the leaned counsel Shri V. Laksminarayan, was the total denial of physical possession of the lands having been taken by the Authorities not withstanding the issuance of notifications as required in law. This was sought to be buttressed with reference to the infirmities in the documents sought to be relied upon to assert the factual position. However, having regard to the earlier challenge to the very acquisition proceedings before this court, and the scope of consideration of the petitioners'' grievance having been considerably whittled down, restricting it to considering their case for the issuance of a notification u/s 48 of the LA Act, and the same having been rejected with reference to material on record, which cannot be faulted, there is no merit in these petitions and the same are rejected.