AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In a preliminary notification dated 29.08.2006 issued u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act; (''The LA Act'' for short), the appellants had proposed to acquire an extent of 252 acres of land for the purpose of a housing scheme. Subsequent to the consideration of objections, an extent. of 229 acres have been deleted and only an extent of 23 acres 4 guntas was included in the declaration dated 06.03.2008 issued u/s 6(1) of the LA Act. The said extent of 23 acres 4 guntas included the small extents of land belonging to respondent Nos. 1 to 7 herein as follows:
Sl.
No.
Name
Sy.No.
Extent
A - G
1
Smt Susheelamma
177/1
0 - 34
2
.Suit. Lakkamma
182
2 - 25
3
B.V. Gokuldas
184/5
0 - 31
4
Rajaiah
185/1
1 - 06
185/2 B
0 - 15
185/2 C
0 - 15
5
Puttaswamaiah
321
1 - 22
6
Smt. Gavathri
118/3
0 - 20
7
H.J. Venkatesh
118/4
0 - 20
TOTAL:
8 - 22
acres
Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 herein therefore claiming to be aggrieved by the notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the LA Act assailed the same in W.P.No. 9908/2008. The learned Single Judge after considering the rival contentions has allowed the writ petition and quashed the acquisition proceedings, however reserving liberty to the appellant herein to come up with a proper plan and scheme for acquiring land to meet the precise need by examining the possibilities in this regard. The appellants therefore claiming to be aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge are before us in this intra-Court appeal.
Heard Sri Basavaraj V.Sabarad, learned counsel for the appellants and perused the appeal papers.
The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Single Judge was not justified in quashing the entire scheme. If at all the case of the respondent/petitioners were to be accepted, the acquisition relating to the lands belonging to the respondent/petitioners alone would have called for interference and not the scheme itself. It is his submission that even though an extent of 252 acres was proposed to be acquired, on receiving the objection statement and holding the Section 5A proceedings, it was found that: the other extent of the lands were fertile lands and had well grown trees and therefore, the same were to be deleted. Despite the same, a Housing layout in the remaining extent of 23 acres 4 guntas is feasible since the nearby extent to the said land, are all developed. Therefore, the available land could have been formed into a Housing layout. It. is contended that as per the sketch produced by way of additional document along with an affidavit during the pendency of the appeal, it is clear that the remaining land i.e., 23 acres 4 guntas along with about 10 acres belonging to the Municipality which is also available in the said area, the layout could be formed. It is therefore contended that the learned Single Judge was not justified.
In the light of the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the. appellants, a perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge would indicate that the learned Single Judge has kept in view the manner in which the original project in the said area was envisaged and the actual position at. the time of consideration of the writ petition. The order would also disclose that the learned Single Judge has referred to the records relevant to the acquisition proceedings as indicated in para 14 of the order. While taking note of these aspects, we find that as indicated therein, the project which was originally envisaged and the purpose for which the preliminary notification dated 29.08.2006 u/s 4(1) of the LA Act was issued included an extent of 252 acres. Thereafter, before issuing the final notification dated 06.03.2008 u/s 6(1) of the LA Act. an extent measuring 229 acres was deleted and the remaining 23 acres 4 guntas alone was notified. In this regard, large extent of lands situate in Suranahalli, Ammanihirikerur, Dakshinanala and Hirekerur villages were deleted on the ground that the said lands are fertile lands wherein coconut trees were existing in certain lands and the other lands were being used for paddy cultivation and other agricultural purposes.
The decision to delete the said lands is stated to have been taken by the Board on 13.03.2007. On noticing this aspect, what cannot be lost sight is that the lands belonging to the respondents herein are also situate in Dakshinanala village and as such there can be no denial of the fact that the lands belonging to the respondents are also fertile agricultural lands which is similar to the lands which have been deleted and the respondents herein in fact hold very small extents ranging between 20 guntas to 2 acres 25 guntas each which is their source of livelihood. Though the learned counsel for the appellants sought to contend that in the vicinity of the extent of 23 acres 4 guntas of land which has been retained, there is some development and certain other buildings exist, it cannot be accepted as a justification inasmuch as the said position would have applied to certain other extents of the lands in same place which have been chosen to be deleted. This in itself would indicate the lack of bona fides as observed by the learned Single Judge.
A perusal of the file which is made available to us in fact would fortify this position further. All of the 229 acres which has been deleted is not pursuant to the Section 5A enquiry by bestowing the attention of the Land Acquisition Officer to the objection filed by the land owners in individual cases in the nature of such enquiry which is contemplated. Hence, it would not be open for the appellants to contend that the respondent-land owners herein had not filed the objections within the prescribed time. The file would indicate that from out of the total extent notified u/s 4(1) of LA Act, a large extent of 194 acres 20% guntas and also another extent of 19 acres 36 guntas were deleted based on representation made by the Appellant Board itself pursuant to its resolution dated 22.02.2007 in its 404th Meeting. Thus after deleting 214 acres 16 % guntas in one stroke from the. proposed 252 acres, further the different smaller extents have been deleted to ultimately retain only an extent of 23 acres 04 guntas. Thus, it would indicate that it is not a properly conceived project as contemplated under Chapter III of the Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962 (''the KHB Act'' for short). On the other hand, it was conceived in a meeting chaired by the then Chief Minister on 26.04.2006 which lead to the improperly planned acquisition proceedings.
Keeping the above aspects in view, it would indicate that the project as proposed is not in existence and as such the learned Single Judge was justified in concluding that the present scheme cannot be executed and it would have to be taken up after proper planning. Though the learned counsel for the appellant contends that when there is deletion of certain lands from the scheme, the remaining part of the scheme cannot be set aside, but it would be open for the Court to direct that the deleted position be included and the scheme be completed, we are unable to accept the contention in the present facts. Though no authority is cited, we are conscious of that position in a different set of facts. In fact, such view was expressed when certain small bits of lands were denotified from large tracts of contiguous lands which were acquired for the scheme since that would render the scheme ineffective, though the larger extent was still available. In the instant case the position is otherwise in as much as only a small extent has been retained and the major portion has been deleted. Hence, that question would not arise herein.
The argument that even if opportunity was not granted to the respondent land owners, at best, the final notification ought to have been quashed and opportunity should have been provided to the respondent/land owners alone also does not appeal to us in the present facts and circumstances of the case. As noticed earlier, certain adjacent lands in Dakshinanala village have been deleted since they are considered to be fertile lands and the said lauds are the only source of livelihood of the owners concerned. Therefore, even if the objections of the respondent/land owners herein is considered by the Land Acquisition Officer, as contended, a different yardstick cannot be applied to the case of the respondent/landowners and in such event, if the instant lands are also deleted, the extent would further get reduced by 8 acres 22 guntas. If that extent is also excluded from the already existing small extent of 23 acres 4 guntas, there would remain only an extent of 14 acres 22 guntas and as such the scheme would not be feasible as against what was envisaged.
Further as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, no record is placed to indicate the manner in which the scheme was conceived when a decision to acquire 252 acres of land was taken. In that regard, as pointed out, the decision to acquire the lands in the area was taken at a Meeting dated 26.04.2006 chaired by the then Chief Minister, and participated by Housing Minister, the MLA and others. When the Project is undertaken by the appellant/Board, the scheme is to be formulated as contemplated under the KHB Act and thereafter the proceedings for acquisition is to be initiated. In the instant case, such scheme has not been placed before the Court and when there is requirement to provide for certain facilities and if that was envisaged under a larger scheme, it is difficult to understand as to how the appellants can still contend that what was envisaged in that manner could still be implemented in such a small area. Hence, in the instant facts, the scheme itself had become redundant and was therefore rightly interfered by the learned Single Judge.
It is on keeping all these aspects in view, the learned Single Judge in his conclusion in para 31 of the order has reserved the liberty to the appellants herein to come up with a proper plan and scheme for acquiring the land to meet the precise need, to examine the possibilities which the State Government and the Board can explore for meeting any of the Housing requirement and then propose for acquisition which in. our opinion is very appropriate in the instant case. Hence, we see no reason to interfere with the order impugned in these appeals.
The above appeals being devoid of merit are accordingly dismissed.