AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.—The petitioners have challenged the preliminary notification, dated 10.5.2010 (Annexure-H) and the final notification, dated 6.9.2010 (Annexure-J) issued under Sections 28(1) and 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (''KIAD Act'' for short) insofar as they pertain to 20 guntas of lands. Sri Jayanna G.R. the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have purchased 20 guntas of land standing at Survey No. 19 of Korandahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Malur Taluk on 5.10.2006 from one Sri B. Ramesh Murthy. He submits that the lands in question were converted way back in 1999 itself. He submits that the petitioners have been paying the property tax to the Village Panchayat. Despite all these, the petitioners'' names do not figure in the notifications.
Sri Jayanna submits that as there are natural ways leading to the main road and industrial area, the formation of one more feeder road is not required. He submits that the petitioners have purchased the lands in question for setting up an industrial unit. If the land in question is acquired, it will affect the petitioners'' source of livelihood adversely.
Sri Yatish, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that the showing of the names in the acquisition notifications is based on the revenue records.
Sri H.T. Narendra Prasad, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1 submits that the petitioners have not produced any documents to show that the khatha stood in their names as on the date of the issuance of the preliminary notification He submits that the extract of the assessment register produced by the petitioners is only for the purpose of paying the property tax. He submits that the petitioners have not produced the khatha or any supporting documents, which would have entitled them to have their names shown in the notifications.
It is trite that the Special Land Acquisition Officer, at the time of issuing the acquisition notifications, is not obliged to hold a roving enquiry for finding out who are the owners of the lands in question. The requirement of law is that the names of the persons figuring in the revenue records are to be shown in the acquisition notifications.
Whether one more connecting road is required or not is a matter to be better left to the expertise of the city-planners. The Court is not required to substitute its wisdom for the wisdom of the city-planners.
That the petitioners have purchased the land for industrial purpose or that it is going to affect their source or livelihood adversely cannot be the grounds for assailing the land acquisition. However, they are the factors to be taken into account while determining the compensation payable to them. Such grounds do not come in the way of acquiring the land for the formation of a road for providing the better connectivity of industrial area or estate. However, the petitioners'' concerns and problems are also required to be addressed. It is also open to the petitioners to make an application to the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (''KIADB'' for short) and seek the allotment of industrial land. Subject to the petitioners'' project being found viable and the availability of the industrial land, the KIADB shall consider the petitioners'' applications sympathetically appreciating that the petitioners are the land-losers.
On instructions, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the award is not passed. The respondents are directed to pass the award without any loss of time. If the award is not acceptable to the petitioners, it shall also be open to the petitioners to seek the enhancement of compensation by making reference application by invoking Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.