AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Manohar, J—Petitioners, in these writ petitions, have sought for quashing the notification dated 23.07.2011 issued by the 1st respondent under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'', for short). Further, the petitioners have sought for a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 3 to consider the objections dated 30.12.2011 as per Annexures-D and E and pass appropriate orders.
Petitioners are the absolute owners of various items of lands in comprised in Sy. No. 105 situate at Hulikunte village, Sandur Hobli & Taluk, Ballan District. The grievance of the petitioners is that the 2nd respondent issued a notification dated 17.06.2010 under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) of the Act to acquire their lands for the benefit of the 3rd respondent for the establishment of Iron-ore stock yard. The lands sought to be acquired are fertile lands. Except the said lands, the petitioners have no other lands and are entirely dependent upon agriculture for their livelihood. That there is vast extent of government land available in Sy. No. 105/P7 as well as Kumaraswmay Devar land and that when the vast extent of government land was available, the question of acquiring the land of the petitioners for establishment of Iron-ore stockyard does not arise. Without considering the valid objections, the respondents have issued the final notification on 23.07.2011 invoking Section 17(1) read with Section 6 of the Act is contrary to law. Further, though the petitioners have filed their objections to the notices issued under Section 9(3) and 10, without considering same, the award has been passed on 11.09.2012. The action of the respondents is contrary to law.
The Government has filed statement of objections to the writ petitions contending that for the establishment of the Iron-ore stockyard for the benefit of a Government Company, the Land Acquisition Officer issued the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act invoking urgency clause. In the notification though objections have been called for from the affected persons, none of the petitioners filed their objections. The Preliminary Notification was published in the Gazette on 8th July 2010, which was published in the newspaper on 08.07.2010 and chavadi notice. Since none of the petitioners filed objections, the final notification was issued on 23.07.2011. Thereafter, to the notice dated 14.12.2011 issued under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Act, the father of petitioner No. 8 filed objections as per Annexures-D and E, contending that land in question is very fertile consisting of 40 tamarind trees raised by the father of petitioner No. 8, while petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6 and 9 did not object acquisition of land, they claimed higher compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer, after considering the objections passed draft award on 06.07.2012. The same was approved by the Deputy Commissioner on 11.09.2012. There is no vacant government land available in Sy. No. 107/P7 as alleged by the petitioner, but it is the forest land and, in view of the restriction imposed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Godhavarma case, the forest land cannot be used for the stock-yard. Further, Kumara swamy Devaru land is also forest land and that land cannot be acquired for establishment of stockyard. Further, after following the procedure prescribed under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Act, the award has been passed. Further, though time was granted to file objections to the preliminary notification, none of the petitioners filed objections. The land is required for the public purpose i.e. for establishment of iron-ore stockyard for a government company and in view of that emergency clause was invoked. There is no infirmity or irregularity in the said proceedings. Since the award has been passed and notice under Section 16(2) has already been issued, the presumption under the law is that the respondents have taken possession and the said fact of taking possession was notified by the Deputy Commissioner in the Official Gazette on 17.07.2013. Mahazar was also drawn for taking possession of the said property and subsequently, transferred to the beneficiary and the name of beneficiary was entered in respect of those lands. For the public purpose i.e. for establishment of iron-ore stockyard for the Government Company, the land has been acquired. Hence, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the same and sought for dismissal of the same.
The 3rd respondent has filed an application for vacating stay contending that in pursuance of directions issued by Hon''ble Supreme Court, iron-ore stockyard has to be established and to set up conveyor belt, a weigh bridge, chemical analysis laboratory and benefica plant, for transportation of iron-ore without causing any pollution in the said areas. The Hon''ble Supreme Court, as per the guidelines of Central Empowered Committee, has granted permission to the 3rd respondent to mine the iron-ore. Unless they establish the stockyard, they cannot carryout the mining operations since the stockyard is urgently required. On the request made by the beneficiary, the State Government issued notification invoking emergency clause. There is no infirmity or irregularity in the action of the State Government in acquiring the land and sought for vacating the interim order by dismissing the writ petitions.
I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned notifications and other relevant records.
It is not in dispute that the petitioners are the absolute owners of lands bearing Sy. Nos. 105/P3, 105/P17, 105/P12, 105/P11, 105/P7 and 105/P15 of Hulikunte village, Sandur Taluk. That the said lands are sought to be acquired by the respondent for the purpose of establishment of iron-ore stockyard. The main contention of the petitioners, in these writ petitions, is that for the establishment of the stockyard for the 3rd respondent, the government cannot invoke emergency clause and issue notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The urgency clause can be invoked only in exceptional circumstances and not in a matter like the present one. Further, the final notification issued is beyond the period of one year, hence, the land acquisition proceedings itself has lapsed. Apart from that, the petitioners are poor farmers, the agricultural lands in question are the only source of their livelihood. If the said lands are acquired, it will adversely affect their interests. Further, large number of vacant land in Sy. No. 107/P7 and also the land called Kumara swamy devaru land can very well be used for the benefit of the 3rd respondent for establishment of iron-ore stockyard. Though the objections has been filed for notice dated 14.12.2011 for Section 9(3) and 10, that objection has not been properly considered.
On the other hand, the Government as well as the beneficiary contended that in view of the ban imposed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court regarding mining of iron-ore in Ballari district, the mining activities was stopped. That in view of the application filed by the 3rd respondent, which is a government company, on the recommendation made by Central Empowered Committee appointed by the Supreme Court, the Hon''ble Supreme Court permitted the 3rd respondent to carryout mining operations subject to certain condition that they would set up weigh bridge, chemical analysis laboratory and benefica plant and conveyor belt for transportation of iron ore in order to avoid environmental pollution. Unless company has iron-ore stockyard, they cannot mine the iron-ore. There is urgent need of the iron ore for running of the government company. On the request made by it, the State Government, after inspecting the spot of the land sought to be acquired, found it suitable for establishment of stockyard. Accordingly permission has been granted to acquire the land invoking the urgency clause. There is no infirmity or irregularity in invoking urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act. Section 17 of the Act contemplates for the same. That apart in the notification issued under Section 4(1), objections was called for from the affected person. None of the petitioners have filed objections to the said preliminary notification. Accordingly, a declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act invoking Section 17 was issued on 23.07.2011. It is the case of the respondents that preliminary notification issued on 17.06.2010 and it was published in two leading newspapers on 08.07.2010 and Chavadi notice issued on 02.08.2010. Further Section 6(1) declaration was issued on 23.07.2011 itself i.e. within a period of one year of issuance of Section 4(1) notification. There is no substance in the contention of the petitioners that notification under Section 6(1) is beyond one year time. Further pursuant to the notice issued under Section 9(3) and 10 Act, on 14.12.2011, none of the petitioners except petitioner No. 8 objected for the same contending that the land in question was the only source of livelihood that there are 40 tamarind trees and other trees and, if the said land is acquired, he would be put to hardship. None of the other petitioners have taken any objection for the notice issued under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Act. After considering the objection, the Assistant Commissioner prepared a draft award on 06.07.2012 and it was approved by the Deputy Commissioner on 11.09.2012 on which date the award came to be passed. Even the award has been passed within a period of two years as contemplated under the Act. Thereafter, Section 16(2) notification issued on 22.11.2012 and drawn mahazar. The fact of taking possession was also notified in the official gazette. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ petition Nos. 72644-51/2012 challenging the draft award passed on 06.07.2012 without challenging the notification issued. This Court, by its order dated 03.01.2013 permitted the petitioners to withdraw writ petitions reserving liberty to challenge the notification issued for acquiring the land. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions. In the present writ petitions, the petitioners have not challenged the preliminary notification issued by the State Government for acquiring the land invoking Section 17(1) of the Act, whereas only the final declaration issued under Section 6 has been challenged. As stated earlier, the land sought to be acquired is for the public purpose i.e. for establishment of iron-ore stockyard for the government company and weigh bridge, chemical analysis laboratory and benefica plant and conveyor belt for transportation of iron ore in order to avoid environmental pollution as per the guidelines of the Central Empowered Committee. I find no infirmity or irregularity in the procedure followed by the respondent. when the land is required for the government for establishment of chemical analysis laboratory as per the guidelines of Central Empowered Committee, there is nothing wrong in invoking emergency clause under Section 17 of the Act for acquisition of the land. It is not the case of the petitioners that no opportunity was given to them to file objections. As could be seen from Section 4(1) notification, it is clear that the petitioners were called upon to filed their objections to the said notification. None of the petitioners filed objections to the said notification. The respondents, before passing the final award, had issued notice under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act to which except father of petitioner No. 8, none of the other petitioners objected acquisition of land and, on the other hand, they sought for more compensation. Further, petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6 and 9 consented for acquisition of land and sought for more compensation. Therefore, after following the procedure prescribed under law award has been passed. I find no infirmity or irregularity in the procedure followed by the respondents.
One of the main contentions of the petitioners is that when there is vast extent of government land available and when the government has issued the guidelines not to acquire the land of poor farmers, the government ought not to have acquired the land of petitioners, who are poor farmers and therefore, acquisition is contrary to law. The learned Additional Government Advocate has filed statement of objections stating that the land in question is not revenue land and the land is a forest land and also the kumaraswamy devaru land is reserved forest area. In view of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Godhavarma case, the forest land cannot be used for any other purpose. The government after inspecting the land in question found it suitable for establishment of iron-ore stock yard and permitted the land acquisition officer to issue the preliminary notification. I find no infirmity or irregularity with the same. Long after passing of the award, these writ petitions have been filed.
Though the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has relied upon various judgments in support of his contention, the same are not applicable to facts of the present case.
No ground is made out by the petitioners to interfere with the impugned notifications. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.