In the High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench Dated This the 18Th Day of October 2019 Present the Hon'ble Mr.Justice Alok Arad
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.G.M. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO.100470/2014 & WRIT APPEAL NOS.100903-920/2014 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: SMT.NEELAWWA W/O MALAGARA NAIKA (SINCE SHE HAS DIED, SHE IS REP.BY HER LRs i.e. APPELLANT NOS.1 & 2 WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD) 1. SHRI SHIVASHANKAR NAIK MALAGAR AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, C/O MURUGEPPA KALAPPA, KHARACHI GALLI, AINAPUR, ATHANI TALUK, BELGAUM DIST. 2. SRI. SHIVANANDA NAIK MALAGAR AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, C/O MURUGEPPA KALAPPA KHARACHI GALLI, AINAPUR, ATHANI TALUK, BELGAUM DIST 3. SRI KRISHNAMURTHY RAMACHARI MANGASULI, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, C/O MURUGEPPA KALAPPA KHARACHI GALLI, AINAPUR, ATHANI TALUK, BELGAUM DIST. : 2 : 4. SRI NAIKA MARUTI KAGALI AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O INDRANAGAR AINAPUR, ATHANI TALUK, BELGAUM DIST 5. SRI SHIVANAND NAGAPPA AWATI AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O INDRANAGAR AINAPUR, ATHANI TALUK, BELGAUM DIST 6. SRI BASAVARAJ SHANKAR KARALI AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O INDIRANAGAR BURALI GALLI, AINAPUR, ATHANI TALUK, BELGAUM DIST 7. SRI BALASAB JIVANNADHAR HACHIBATTI AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O BHAGAR CHAWAL AINAPUR, ATHANI TALUK, BELGAUM DIST 8. SRI RAJU JIVANNDHAR HACHIBATI AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O BHAGAR CHWAL AINAPUR, ATHANI TALUK, BELGAUM DIST 9. SRI TATYASAB MURUGEPA MALAGOONVE AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, KARACHI GALLI, AINAPUR, ATHANI TALUK, BELGAUM DIST 10. SRI ANNASAB MUREGEPPA MALAGOONVE AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, KARACHI GALLI, AINAPUR, ATHANI TALUK, BELGAUM DIST 11. SRI SHREEDHAR JAIKUMAR SHEDBULKAR AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, REDDY GALLI AINAPUR, ATHANI TALUK, BELGAUM DIST : 3 : 12. SRI ASHOK JAIKUMAR SHEDBULKAR AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, REDDY GALLI, AINAPUR, ATHANI TALUK, BELGAUM DIST 13. SMT VIMALA W/O SHREEKHANT PATIL AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, REDDY GALLI, AINAPUR, ATHANI TALUK, BELGAUM DIST 14. SRI SURENDRAKUMAR HACHIBATI AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, AINAPUR, ATHANI TALUK, BELGAUM DIST 15. SRI APPASAB KUBERA HACHIBATTI AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, AINAPUR, ATHANI TALUK, BELGAUM DIST 16. SRI SHASHIKANT KSHEERASAGAR AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O AINAPUR, ATHANI TALUK, BELGAUM DIST 17. SMT. NEELA GHAJANAN LANDAGE AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O AINAPUR, ATHANI TALUK, BELGAUM DIST (SMT. SUSHILA SADASHIV MISAL SINCE DIED R/BY HER LR I.E. APPELLANT NO.18) 18. SUVARNA SHASHIKANT KSHEERASAGAR AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O AINAPUR, ATHANI TALUK, BELGAUM DIST 19. SMT. GEETHA W/O VIVEK DHAMANE AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O AINAPUR, ATHANI TALUK, BELGAUM DIST. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VIJAY K. NAIK, ADV.) : 4 : AND 1. THE STATE GOVERNMENT REPTESENTED BY SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HIPPARAGI PROJECT, TQ:ATHANI DIST BELGAUM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR REHABILITATION AND LAND ACQUISITION, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT AND EX-OFFICIO ADDITIONAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, BAGALKOT 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, HIPPARAGI PROJECT ATHANI TALUK, BELGAUM DIST. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.RAVI V.HOSAMANI,AGA FOR R1-R2 SHRI. RAMESH N.MISALE, ADV. FOR R3) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S.4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO, I) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.02.2014 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NOS. 64171/2009 & 64755-73/2009 (LA- RES), II) ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE NOTIFICATIONS AT ANNEXURES-A AND B PRODUCED WITH WRIT PETITIONS UNDER APPEAL, ISSUED UNDER SECTION 4(1) AND 6 READ WITH 17 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, III) ALLOW THE WRIT PETITIONS UNDER APPEAL AND WRIT APPEAL HEREIN. THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: : 5 : JUDGMENT The appeals are admitted for hearing. With consent of parties, the same are heard finally. 2. In this intra court appeal, the appellants who are the land owners have assailed the validity of the order dated 11.2.2014 passed By the learned Single Judge By which writ petition preferred By the appellants, in which challenge was made to the validity of the land Acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act) has Been repelled and the writ petition have Been dismissed. 3. Facts giving rise to filing of these appeals Briefly stated are that appellants are the residents of Ainapur village, District Belgaum and are the owners of the land ad-measuring 38.11 guntas situated at the aforesaid village. In all, 5483 acres and 3 guntas of land was : 6 : required for Back water suBmergence and for land ad-measuring 748.36 guntas was required for setting up of rehaBilitation centres for the villagers who were affected on account of completion of Hippargi Barrage Project. The rehaBilitation Committee decided to set up 17 rehaBilitation Centres in different villages situated in Belgaum district. Thereupon, separate notifications for setting up of each of the rehaBilitation centers in different villages were issued. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 12/3/2007 for setting up of rehaBilitation Center to provide sites to the people who have lost their houses in the Back waters of Hippargi Barrage project was issued in respect of Kathrala village, Athani taluk as the lands of the petitioners were required for setting up of rehaBilitation center for the villagers of Kathrala village. : 7 : 4. In view of the recommendation of the RehaBilitation Committee that since Hippargi Barrage Project has Been completed and the villagers who have lost the land on account of completion of the project are required to Be immediately rehaBilitated, the State Government on the proposal made By the committee, granted the permission to invoke the powers under Section 17(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Act and notification under Section 6 r/w Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act issued on 20/2/2008 By which the enquiry has envisaged under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with. Being aggrieved the appellants approached this Court By filing these writ petitions. 5. The challenge to the notifications dated 12.03.2007 and 20.02.2008 has Been made on the ground that the proposed acquisition of the lands in question is tainted with mala fides and in the fact situation of the : 8 : case, there was no need or necessity for dispensing with the enquiry as envisaged under Section 5-A of the Act and the 1 st respondent ought to have conducted enquiry and an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants ought to have Been afforded Before issuing the notification under Section 6 of the Act. Learned single Judge after hearing the suBmissions made By the learned counsel for the parties By impugned order dated 11.02.2014, dismissed the writ petitions. In the aforesaid factual Background these intra-court appeals have Been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants suBmitted that in the year 2009, high tension wires have Been laid over the lands in question. Therefore, the lands in question are no longer fit for acquisition and therefore, the award which has Been passed on 16.04.2010 deserves to Be set aside. It is further suBmitted that another : 9 : piece of Government land measuring 400 acres was availaBle which could have Been used for the purposes of rehaBilitation. It is also urged that the lands of the appellants are fertile lands and therefore the same should not Be acquired for the purposes of rehaBilitation. Lastly, it is contended that the appellants have illegally Been deprived of their valuaBle right of opportunity of hearing as envisaged under Section 5-A of the Act. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 suBmitted that in all 748 acres and 36 guntas of land was required for setting up of rehaBilitation centres in respect of the villagers who were affected on account of Hipparagi Barrage Project. It is further suBmitted that seventeen rehaBilitation centres were required to Be set up, out of which six rehaBilitation centres have already Been set up and process of setting up of nine rehaBilitation : 10 : centres is in progress. However, on account of pendency of these writ appeals, the rehaBilitation centres at Kathrala village could not Be set up. It is further suBmitted that the award was passed on 16.04.2010 and the possession By respondent No.2 was taken on 17.03.2015. Thereafter, a division Bench of this Court granted an order of stay on 13.04.2015. However, in view of the interim order passed By the division Bench of this Court, no further action to set up rehaBilitation centres was taken. It is further suBmitted that the action of respondents in invocation of urgency clause in the fact situation of the case perfectly justified and the same is Based on the suBjective satisfaction of the State Government and the State Government after due application of mind has granted the permission to invoke provisions of Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act. : 11 : 8. In support his suBmission, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied on the decisions of the Hon’Ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. V/s Smt.Pista Devi and others, (1986) 4 SCC 251; Subhashgir Khushalgir Gosavi and others V/s Special Land Acquisition Officer and others, (1996) 8 SCC 282; Chameli Singh and others V/s State of U.P. and another, (1996) 2 SCC 549, and the decision of the Hon’Ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahadevappa Lachappa Kinagi and others V/s State of Karnataka and others, (2008) 12 SCC 418.