AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy, J.—These petitions are disposed of by the common order, having regard to the facts and circumstances. The petitioners in these petitions are said to be owners of various items of lands in differing extents, situated in three villages namely Yadavanahalli, Jigala and Adigondanahalli of Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk. The said lands were proposed to be acquired for purposes of forming a Housing Layout by the Karnataka Housing Board. Therefore, a preliminary notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ''the LA Act'', for brevity) dated 14.06.2006 was issued.
Though the petitioners had filed their objections, it is claimed that the same were over-ruled and a final declaration u/s 6 of the LA Act was issued on 15.03.2008, which was duly published in the Gazette on 24.04.2008. It is the said proceedings which are sought to be questioned in these petitions. There is a primary ground raised in these petitions namely, whether the acquisition proceedings are vitiated on account of there being no ''Scheme'' formulated and approved by the State Government, preceding the initiation of the acquisition proceedings. The very question having arisen for consideration in a batch of writ petitions in W.P. 24113/2012 and connected cases in the case of Pachappa v. State of Karnataka and others decided on 6.12.2013, a view has been taken that provision of land for carrying out a Housing Scheme by such a body as the Karnataka Housing Board, is a public purpose and in defining the expression ''public purpose'' u/s 3(f) of the LA Act, clause (vi) provides thus:--
(vi) the provision of land for carrying out any educational, housing, health or slum clearance scheme sponsored by Government, or by any authority established by Government for carrying out any such scheme, or, with the prior approval of the appropriate Government by a local authority, or a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860), or under any corresponding law for the time being in force in a State or a co-operative society within the meaning of any law relating to co-operative societies for the time being in force in any State;
And sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Karnataka Housing Board Act, lays down thus:
(4) For the purpose of this Act and the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Board shall be deemed to be a Local Authority.
Therefore, the provision of land for a local authority can only be in respect of a Scheme duly approved by the Government. There is no escaping the requirement of existence of a Scheme duly approved by the Government, prior to the initiation of acquisition proceedings. In this regard, Section 32 of the KHB Act is relevant and the tenor of the said Section is as follows:
Schemes entrusted to Board by Government etc.--(1) The provisions of Sections 18 to 24 (both inclusive) shall not be applicable to any [housing scheme, land development scheme or a labour housing scheme] entrusted to the Board by the State Government except to such extent and subject to such modifications as may be specified in any general or special order made by the State Government, and every such order shall be published in the Official Gazette.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Board shall not be competent to carry on any trading or financing activity for profit, whether in the execution of any scheme undertaken by, or entrusted to it, or otherwise.
Since it is not claimed that the scheme which was ultimately framed and approved by the State Government was not one entrusted to the Housing Board by the State Government, therefore, sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the KHB Act would be applicable, which is reproduced hereunder:
S. 33. ....
(2) The Board may also take steps for the compulsory acquisition of any land or any interest therein required for the execution of a housing scheme [or land development scheme] in the manner provided in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as modified by this Act and the acquisition of any land or any interest therein for the purposes of this Act shall be deemed to be acquisition for a public purpose within the meaning of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Therefore, without the scheme having been framed and approved by the State Government prior to the stage of execution of the project by the KHB, the compulsory acquisition of land for the execution of the Scheme is only in the manner provided under the Land Acquisition Act and the Karnataka Housing Board, as a local authority, can only acquire land pursuant to a Scheme duly approved by the State Government, as contemplated under Sections 3(f)(vi) of the LA Act.
Hence, the Karnataka Housing Board intended to execute a Housing scheme of its own and not one sponsored by the Government and proceeded to acquire land for the execution of the project only in terms of the provisions of the LA Act and as a local authority, is capable of acquiring land only in accordance with a scheme duly approved by the State Government. As there was no scheme or anything akin to a scheme duly approved by the State Government, there was non-compliance with the compulsory requirement and hence, the petitions deserve to be allowed.
However, the learned counsel Shri Basavaraj V. Sabarad, in a last minute effort, seeks to produce a document which is sought to be styled as a ''scheme''. However, it is noticed that the said document is only a letter, whereby a proposal is made for acquisition or purchase of land in furtherance of the formation of a layout. That by itself cannot be considered as a ''scheme'', for it is on record and it is candidly admitted that a ''scheme'' formally framed and approved by the State Government is available and that is much subsequent to the acquisition proceedings having been initiated. Therefore, there is no doubt of the fact that there was no scheme formulated, preceding the acquisition of land.
However, it is to be kept in view that several petitions were filed at a stage which cannot be considered as belated and it is in that circumstance that this court had thought it fit to grant interim orders, restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioners It would naturally follow that the respondents have not taken possession of the lands of several of these petitioners and there was no possibility of any development having taken place over the said lands as on date. However, it is the case of the respondents that there has been substantial implementation of the scheme in forming sites and other common areas such as roads and civic amenities. The present petitions being allowed and the acquisition proceedings being set at naught, would result in a. miscarriage of justice and therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that notwithstanding there were interim orders of stay granted in these petitions, in view of the fact that there has been substantial implementation of the project, there is no warrant for interference by this Court.
It is the settled legal position that any delay in challenging the acquisition proceedings would be fatal to the case, when the acquisition proceedings have been taken to their logical conclusion and there has been substantial implementation of the scheme. The acquisition proceedings being set at naught at the instance of some of the land owners, may result in gross injustice and therefore, seeks that there be a reconsideration, notwithstanding the legal position which has been laid down and which is sought to be followed.
Given the circumstances and in order to balance equities between the parties and also at the same time to ensure that there is a fair decision, it was directed that the respondents and the petitioners have a dialogue to address the sanctioned plan, in the formation of the layout, that has been implemented and which is proposed over the remaining area, especially the roads that would overlap the petitioners'' lands. After having had such a meeting, the petitioners have unanimously declared before this Court that they would have no objection to the roads being formed over their lands, to the extent that is now indicated on a reconciliation of the sanctioned plan of the layout, vis-�-vis the lands of the several petitioners, the details of which lands are annexed to this order, with reference to each of the petitioners and their respective lands. The said statement however includes other land owners, whose petitions are not disposed of by this order. The benefit of the same however, shall extend to those petitioners as well. It is also made clear that the question of delay and laches looms large. It shall be a condition laid down by this Court as self-imposed, that no further petitions of any other land owners shall be entertained henceforth, apart from the petitions which are already lodged as on date before this Court on the very same ground that is urged, to prevent failure of the acquisition proceedings in its entirety, which is the foreseeable result, if the other land owners are allowed to approach this Court on the strength of the present order. Therefore, the order of this court is restricted to those petitioners who have already approached this Court and who are found to be eligible to claim relief with the condition that the petitioners herein shall permit the formation of roads in the area that is agreed to be given up and such other common areas that can be accommodated within the area that is agreed to be given up by the respective petitioners, shall be taken over by the respondents. The petitioners however, shall develop or alienate the lands, subject to the law of the land, in that, they shall deal with the lands and shall comply with all procedures in further dealing with the land and to ensure that there is consonance and contiguity with the layout that shall be formed by the respondents. This can best be ensured, if the petitioners comply with the legal formalities in obtaining necessary sanctions and approvals of any development that may take place over the land. With these observations, the petitions are allowed and the acquisition proceedings, subject to the exceptions noted above, are set-aside only to the extent of the petitioners'' lands are concerned. Insofar as the areas that are given up by the petitioners for the purposes of formation of road, the petitioners shall be entitled to lawful compensation which is payable, and to avail of such other scheme that is available and applicable to the petitioners.
The list comprising the ''Details of land area required for connectivity of Essential Service in Litigated Land'', which is furnished by the Karnataka Housing Board on 17.01.2014, shall be made part of this order.