Nagappa and Others vs The Land Acquisition Officer, Karwar and Others

A.N. Venugopal Gowda, J.

Petitioners were the owners of property bearing Sy. No. 53/B1 of Hattikere Village of Ankola Taluk, Uttara Kannada District. A petrol bunk was established in the said property. The said property was acquired for the purpose of Sea Bird Project. W.P. No. 3736/2000 filed questioning the land acquisition was rejected vide order dated 10.03.2000, on the ground that there was delay and laches and that interference in the acquisition would virtually come in the way of implementation of the scheme. However, it was made clear that, if the petitioners make an application for allotment of alternative site for the purpose of establishing petrol bunk, State Government may consider the same, as if, the petitioners were also entitled for the benefit under the rehabilitation scheme formulated by the Government.

An application dated 15.06.2000 having been made by the petitioners, a reply dated 13.06.2000 was issued. The same, when questioned in W.P. No. 22031/2000, in view of the affidavit filed to the effect, that the land bearing Sy. No. 439/2, measuring an extent of 17 guntas of Amadalli village, Karwar Taluk had had been acquired for the purpose of rehabilitation scheme and the Defence Authorities had accorded to offer alternate land measuring 23 guntas, including 17 guntas, for the purpose of rehabilitation of the petitioner for establishing the petrol bunk, placing the said affidavit on record, writ petition was disposed of on 05.12.2006. This writ petition was filed, on 26.12.2006, asking for a mandamus against the State Government, to denotify the said acquired property.

Statement of objections was filed on 13.02.2007 and it was stated that the State Level Co-ordination Committee held a meeting on 28.10.2004 with the Station Commander, Sea-Bird Project and other Officers and considered the claim of the petitioners. It has been stated that the petitioners also attended the meeting held on 06.01.2003 in the chambers of the Deputy Commissioner and agreed that the land near Amadalli was suitable for establishment of petrol bunk, with a rider, that they may loose the existing clientele. Respondents sought dismissal of this writ petition by referring to the orders passed in the earlier writ petitions, noticed supra and also as devoid of merit.

Shri V.P. Kulkarni, learned advocate, contended that by denotifying the petitioner''s property, which is on the edge of the land acquired for Sea Bird Project, there will not be any prejudice caused to the respondents, as the denotification will not affect the implementation of the Project. He submitted that the petitioners are wholly dependent upon the business carried on in the petrol bunk established on the land in question and would suffer hardship. Learned counsel further submitted that the Project having not been implemented in full, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if the State Government is directed to denotify the petitioner''s property from the acquisition.

Learned advocates appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the writ petition itself is not maintainable. They submitted that the challenge to the acquisition having been negated in W.P. No. 3736/2000 on 10.03.2000 and in view of the request made by petitioners on 15.05.2000 vide Annexure-E and the offer made in W.P. No. 22031/2000, the petitioners have no case to put-forth and this petition being devoid of merit be dismissed.

Perused the writ record. The point for consideration is, whether the petitioners have a legally enforceable right to seek deletion/issuance of denotification of the property from acquisition?

Indisputably, the challenge to the acquisition of the property made in W.P. No. 3736/2000 was negated by an order dated 10.03.2000, after finding that any interference with the acquisition intended for Sea Bird Project would virtually come in the way of implementation of the project. The petitioners, thereafter, sought allotment of alternative land for establishment of a petrol bunk, by submitting a representation dated 15.05.2000 vide Annexure-E and they having been assured during the pendency of W.P. No. 22031/2000, that an alternative land would be allotted, the writ petition was disposed of on 05.12.2006.

The petitioner claim for denotification is without any lawful basis. In view of the finality of the order dated 10.03.2000 passed in W.P. No. 3736/2000, Shri V.P. Kulkarni, was unable to point out any right in the petitioners, to seek denotification of the acquired property. The petitioner having sought allotment of alternative land for establishment of petrol bunk and also having no existing legal right, the project for which the acquired property is sought to be used being in execution, has no right to ask for a mandamus to denotify the acquired land.

Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 gives liberty to the State Government to withdraw from the acquisition any land at any stage before acquisition is complete, but does not vest with the erstwhile land owner/s any right to seek deletion/issue of a denotification, more particularly, when the challenge put-forth to the acquisition was not entertained and writ petition challenging the acquisition proceeding was dismissed. Since petitioners have failed to show any existing legal right and a corresponding legal obligation on the respondents, I do not find justification to issue writ of mandamus, to denotify the property. Since the public project is under execution, it is not expedient to give any direction to the Government to delete from the acquisition the property which belonged to the petitioners. By resorting to repeated litigation, the petitioners are stalling the completion of the execution of public project.

There being no merit, the writ petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs.