Gulappa vs State of Karnataka

N. Ananda, J.—The appellant has challenged the order made by the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 82794/2009 & 82920/2009 dated 11.02.2013.

The learned Single Judge has stated that appellants were the owners of the land bearing Sy. Nos. 51/1 and 51/2 situated at Mahalbhagayat village, Bijapur. The learned Single Judge has narrated the acquisition proceedings, and notifications issued thereon for acquisition of aforestated lands, needed for certain purposes of 4th respondent-District Central Cooperative Bank Limited. Before the learned Single Judge, the following point: arose for consideration:

"Whether the acquisition is for a public purpose or it is vitiated by malafides?"

The learned Single Judge having regard to the facts held that the land out of 5 acres which was initially acquired 3 acres was denotified and same is reacquired for the purpose of putting up training center, guest house, staff quarters and park place in the 4th respondent''s Bank.

The learned counsel for appellants would submit that construction of aforesaid structures is not for the public purpose and it is not for the benefit of the public at large. The purpose is not bonofide.

The learned counsel for 4th respondent would justify the impugned order. The learned counsel for 4th respondent would submit as per the instructions issued by RBI, the 4th respondent Bank has to establish the staff training institute to train the staff and farmers to provide them better service.

It is needless to state that the training center for the staff of the Bank is essential for proper functioning of the Bank to provide efficient service to the public. Therefore, the contention of appellant that the establishment of training center of the Bank is not for public purpose cannot be accepted. The Bank has planned to construct Training Center, Auditorium, VIP Guest House and parking place which are required for normal activities of the Bank. Therefore, there is no deviation in the purpose for which the land was acquired.

The learned counsel for appellants has relied upon the judgments of Supreme Court reported in R.K. Agarwalla and Others Vs. State of West Bengal and Others, and AIR 1962 SC 764 to contend that the acquisition of land is not for public purpose.

In R.K. Agarwalla and Others Vs. State of West Bengal and Others, , the Supreme Court has held that the expression of ''public purpose'' has been used in a generic sense of including any purpose in which even a fraction of the community may be interested or by which it may be benefited. In our considered opinion, this proposition of law supports the contentions of fourth respondent.

In R.L. Arora Vs. State of U.P., , the Supreme Court has considered, interpreted word ''public purpose'' with reference to the facts obtained therein and the purpose of acquisition. Therefore, what has been held in R.L. Arora Vs. State of U.P., is not applicable to the facts of instant case.

In view of the above, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed.