Madhukar vs The State of Karnataka

Anand Byrareddy, J.—The present petitions are considered for final disposal having regard to the circumstances of the case.

The background to the above petitions is as follows:

"It is the case of the petitioners that the lands bearing Sy. Nos. 153/1, 154/2, 154/3, 154/5, 155/1 and 156 all situate at Angol Village, Belgaum, among other lands, were notified for acquisition for the benefit of the 2nd respondent viz., the Belgaum Urban Development Authority (Hereinafter referred to as the ''Authority'', for brevity) in terms of the preliminary notification issued under Section 17 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, (Hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'', for brevity) dated 12.04.2007 which was duly published in the Gazette Notification dated 19.04.2007. However, it transpires that no further steps were taken by the respondent pursuant to the notification and therefore, by efflux of time, the acquisition proceedings had lapsed.

Therefore the notification was subject matter of challenge in several writ petitions filed by the land owners and other purchasers including petitioner No. 2 herein. This Court having rejected the writ petitions, the same having been challenged in W.A. Nos. 30044/2013 and connected appeals, the petitions were allowed insofar as the land owners were concerned and the petitions filed by the purchasers of lands purchased subsequent to issue of notification under Section 17(1) of the Act were dismissed.

However, thereafter it transpires that respondent No. 2 had passed a resolution to the effect that though the notification had lapsed and was quashed by this Court, there was no impediment to take fresh steps for acquisition, by resolution dated 20.08.2013. It is thereafter that the petitioners sought for ''No Objection Certificate'' in order to put up construction on the land in question. However, the same has been rejected by the 2nd respondent on the ground that since steps are being taken to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings in respect of the very lands in question, granting of ''No Objection Certificate'' cannot be considered. It is in that background that the petitioners are before this Court."

It is the privilege of the State to acquire lands invoking the provisions of the Act. If, at present, there are no such further steps taken and if the petitioners intend to put up construction at their risk even if it is brought to their notice that the subject land are subject to acquisition, that it is imminent that the land would be notified for acquisition, the petitioners would do so at their risk and the same would not enable them to plead equity claiming additional value in respect of the land developed or such construction that may be put up pursuant to any ''No Objection Certificate'' that would be issued by the Authority. It is in order to avoid such liability, the respondent is possibly negating the issuance of ''No Objection Certificate''. The delay in the Authority''s taking an appropriate proceedings by itself will not enable the authority to claim that ''No Objection Certificate'' cannot be issued. The petitioners are certainly entitled for ''no objection certificate'' though there are no proceedings initiated. However, it is necessary to note the apprehension of the respondent-Authority that after the ''No Objection Certificate'' is granted, the petitioners are likely to put up construction and if subsequently the land is notified for acquisition, petitioners may claim higher value, which the respondent should avoid. Therefore, it is made clear that in spite of petitioners being informed of the intention of the respondent-Authority to acquire lands for development of residential layout, the petitioners may, at their risk, put up the construction, but they shall not be enabled to claim any equity and seek higher value of lands on the basis of any construction that may be put up. Therefore, with that condition the respondents are directed to grant ''No Objection Certificate'' and permit the petitioners to put up any construction at their risk, if they are so inclined.

The claim of the second respondent-Authority that they are likely to issue notification in the near future to acquire the land would again be unjust to the petitioners who intend to lawfully develop their property. There is no impediment to do so. Further, the respondents, who have expressed the intention, are expected to act with expedition and hence, if the respondents fail to initiate any proceedings for acquisition in the next three months, the condition imposed that the petitioners would not be enabled to claim any higher compensation by virtue of any construction put up will not be applicable, or otherwise, the lawful right of the petitioners to construct on the property is taken away. This order is therefore, tailored to meet the circumstances, though it may not enable the respondent to claim any such vested right in denying issuance of ''No Objection Certificate'' on the basis of the future proceedings to be initiated. In the eye of law, the petitioners are free to develop the land in accordance with law, if there is no notification pending as on date. Therefore, with that condition, the petitioners may be granted ''No Objection Certificate''.

Though the learned counsel appearing for the respondent in support of the statement of objections filed would insist that there is no provision under the Act which contemplates the issuance of any ''No Objection Certificate'', by the Authority since the Deputy Commissioner, who is to be approached by the petitioners seeking conversion of land user would require to seek such ''No Objection Certificate'' from the Authority, there is no justification in the present petitions being filed.

Accordingly, in terms as stated above, the respondent is directed to issue ''No Objection Certificate'' to the petitioners, if they are otherwise, entitled to the same.

Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of.