AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy, J.—These petitions are heard and disposed of together having regard to the common issues that arise for consideration.
Re: WP 8954/2011
The petitioner is said to be the owner of the land bearing Survey No. 100/2A 1P1, measuring about 4 acres and 37 cents in Chelur, Bantwal taluk, Dakshina Kannada. The same is said to be his ancestral property. The same was said to have been notified for acquisition under the. provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966, (Hereinafter referred to as the ''KIAD Act'' for brevity), vide notification u/s 28(1) dated 7.2.2007. The petitioner is said to have filed objections to the same.
According to the petitioner, he had raised particular objection to the vague description of the portion of the land to be acquired, and the fact that the land was in a low lying area and totally unsuitable for any industrial purpose and the further fact that if a portion of the land was to be declared an industrial area, the other portion would become incapable of being conveniently cultivated. The objections are said to have been overlooked. It is also alleged that not only was the petitioner not afforded a hearing but it was falsely recorded, in the order passed by the competent authority, that the petitioner was agreeable to the acquisition on payment of compensation of Rs. 20 lakh per acre, as per order dated 7.5.2007. A notification u/s 28(4) of the KIAD Act was said to have been issued on 7.5.2008. It is pointed out that under the preliminary notification though the entire extent was notified, what was finally acquired was only 70 cents. The reason assigned for withdrawing from the acquisition in respect of the remaining extent was the fact that the same was in a low lying area. It is the case of the petitioner - that the same circumstance applies to the extent acquired as well.
Re: WP 8955/2011
The petitioner is said to be the owner of lands bearing Survey No. 83/2AP2 measuring 18 cents, Survey No. 83/3AP2 measuring 7 cents, Survey No. 83/1BP1, measuring 1 acre 96 guntas, Survey No. 83/4BP1 measuring 7 acres 50 guntas, Survey No. 83/3CP3 measuring 03 guntas and Survey No. 83/5AP1 measuring 58 guntas of Chelur.
The said lands were notified for acquisition under the same notification referred to in the first of these petitions. It is the case of the petitioner that he had raised particular objections to the proposed acquisition, as had the petitioner in the first of these petitions - and under similar circumstances the same were ignored and the authority has proceeded to attribute an alleged acquiescence to the acquisition, on the part of the petitioner. It is pointed out that the extent notified for acquisition, the extent of holding of the petitioner and the actual acquisition of the several items of land is as follows:--
The reasons assigned to withdraw from acquisition in respect of portions of the above lands being applicable to the other remaining lands as well, the petitioner has preferred this petition.
Re. WP 8953/2010
The petitioner is said to be the owner of lands bearing Survey Nos. 95/3AP2, measuring 2 acres and Survey No. 98/1A, measuring 3 acres 15 cents of Chelur.
The said lands were notified for acquisition under the same notification referred to in the first of these petitions. It is the case of the petitioner that he had raised particular objections to the proposed acquisition, as had the petitioner in the first of these petitions - and under similar circumstances, the same were ignored and the authority has proceeded to attribute an alleged acquiescence to the acquisition, on the part of the petitioner. It is pointed out that the extent notified for acquisition, the extent of holding of the petitioner and the actual acquisition of the several items of land is as follows:--
The reason assigned for withdrawing from the acquisition in respect of the remaining extent was the fact that the same was in a low lying area. It is the case of the petitioner - that the same circumstance applies to the extent acquired as well. Hence, the petition.
Re. WP 8952/2011
The petitioner is said to be the owner of land bearing Survey No. 102/1AP2 measuring 09 cents of Chelur village, Bantwal Taluk.
The said lands were notified for acquisition under the same notification referred to in the first of these petitions. It is the case of the petitioner that he had raised particular objections to the proposed acquisition, as had the petitioner in the first of these petitions - and under similar circumstances the same were ignored and the authority has proceeded to attribute an alleged acquiescence to the acquisition, on the part of the petitioner. It is pointed out that the extent notified for acquisition, the extent of holding of the petitioner and the actual acquisition of the several items of land is as follows:--
The reason assigned for withdrawing from the acquisition in respect of the remaining extent was the fact that the same was in a low lying area. It is the case of the petitioner - that the same circumstance applies to the extent acquired as well. Hence, the petition.
Re. WP 17975/2011
The petitioner is said to be the owner of lands bearing Survey No. 98/1P1 measuring 2 acres 45 cents and Survey No. 95/3P1 measuring 1 acre 44 cents, of Chelur Village, Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada. The said lands were notified for acquisition under the same notification referred to in the first of these petitions. It is the case of the petitioner that he had raised particular objections to the proposed acquisition, as had the petitioner in the first of these petitions - and under similar circumstances, the same were ignored and the authority has proceeded to attribute an alleged acquiescence to the acquisition, on the part of the petitioner. It is pointed out that the extent notified for acquisition, the extent of holding of the petitioner and the actual acquisition of the several items of land is as follows:--
The reason assigned for withdrawing from the acquisition in respect of the remaining extent was the fact that the same was in a low lying area. It is the case of the petitioner - that the same circumstance applies to the extent acquired as well. Hence, the petition.
The respondents have resisted the petition and have sought to justify the acquisition.
At the stage of hearing, it was brought to the attention of this court that the Special Land Acquisition Officer of the KIADB, Mangalore had recommended dropping of proceedings in respect of certain lands adjacent to the lands belonging to the petitioners on the ground that those lands are situated in a low- lying area and are not suitable for the purposes for which it was sought to be acquired. It was the case of the petitioners that if that recommendation is applicable to the lands so sought to be dropped from the proceedings it would equally apply to the petitioners'' lands as well since those lands are situated either adjacent to, or in lands in the same survey numbers. By the same token of reasoning, if the lands which are lying in the low-lying areas had to be deleted from the acquisition proceedings, the petitioners'' lands also had to be deleted. This being the primary contention put forward by the petitioners, though such a contention was not raised by them at the time of hearing their objections to the acquisition proceedings. The explanation offered by the petitioners was that they were unaware that the lands in low-lying areas would be deleted from the acquisition proceedings.
The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had submitted that the very objection has been subsequently considered and a Surveyor having been appointed to inspect the lands in question, vis-�-vis, the lands which are said to be in the low-lying area and according to the report, though the lands belonging to the petitioners and others are situated in adjacent areas, they are totally unsuitable for industrial development and has accordingly, submitted the report. In any event, it was submitted that this objection ought to have been taken at the earliest point of time and that it could not be raised for the first time in these proceedings and submitted that the scope of enquiry could not be extended under the writ jurisdiction and had raised serious objection to any further consideration of the objection, as the acquisition proceedings were complete in all respects and therefore, had sought dismissal of the writ petitions, in limine. While the learned counsel for the petitioners had insisted that the lands of the petitioners were in a low-lying area and by the same yardstick applied to other lands on which the same had been dropped from the proceedings, should also apply to the petitioner''s lands. In this regard, he had submitted that the report referred to by the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 cannot be accepted as being unbiased and that the petitioners had no confidence in the said report. He had further submitted that since such a report is generated in the absence of the petitioners, who did not have notice of any such survey being conducted and hence, had submitted that this Court take that aspect into consideration.
In order to give a quietus to the controversy, it was found appropriate that a fresh survey be conducted to ascertain whether the lands in question in the present writ petitions were indeed lying in such a low-lying area that it would render the lands unsuitable for industrial development and whether the lands which were dropped from the proceedings were any different from the lands of the petitioners. And hence it was directed that a survey be conducted.
A report was filed as on 16.11.2012 pursuant to the order of this court dated 3.9.2012. This was however, found to be unsatisfactory and a further report was called for, which in turn was filed on 7.3.2013.
With reference to the said report the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to assert that the objections raised by the petitioners as to the arbitrary identification and acquisition of lands of the petitioners - were justified in the light of the findings in the survey report and has sought to elucidate the same in a tabular form vide memo dated 4.12.2013, thus:
In the above facts and circumstances, the moot question whether the acquiring authority was justified in proceeding to acquire lands of the petitioners, some of which are found to be in low lying areas, when similar lands were exempted from acquisition on that ground. It is no doubt true that there may be pockets of lands now acquired which are found, in the latest report, to be in "Low lying areas". But, if in the opinion of the acquiring authority it was prudent to delete some of the low lying areas from the acquisition proceedings as not at all being suitable for industrial purposes and some other lands, such as that of the petitioners, being capable of utilization for the said purpose, notwithstanding that the same were also in low lying areas, it is hardly a decision that can be re- examined by this court, as if in appeal, against such a decision. It cannot be ruled out that the authorities or even the project proponent or the ultimate beneficiary may be in a position to take appropriate steps to make such land suitable for use, which may be the factor that would have weighed in favour of such acquisition. Therefore, in the opinion of this court, the above circumstance cannot be a ground for interference by this court.
The petitions are accordingly dismissed as being without merit.