1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 14 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2013

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL

W.P.Nos. 91-115/2013 (LA-RES)

BETWEEN

1. SRI H BYRE GOWDA S/O LATE HANUMANATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS CHIKKA HULLURU KASABA HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK -562114

2. SRI CHIKAA APPAIAH S/O HANUMANTHE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS DODDA HULLURU KASABA HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562114

3. C NEELANAJANAPPA S/O CHIKKAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS DODDA HULLURU KASABA HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562114

4. SRI M KIRAN KUMAR S/O C MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS DODDA HULLURU KASABA HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562114

2

5. H C HANAUMANTHA REDDY S/O CHIKKPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS DODDA HULLURU KASABA HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562114

6. SMT JALAJAKSHI W/O LATE LAXMANA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS DODDA HULLURU KASABA HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562114

7. SRI SUDESH S/O SONNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS DODDA HULLURU KASABA HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562114

8. SRI R ANJANAAPPA S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS CHIKKA HULLURU KASABA HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562114

9. SRI SYED SALAM S/O SYED HUSSAIN SAB AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS CHIKKA HULLURU KASABA HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562114

3

10. SRI SYED MEHABUB SAB S/O SYED HUSSAIN SAB AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS CHIKKA HULLURU KASABA HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562114

11. SRI SYED AMZAD S/O SYED HUSSIAN SAB AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS CHIKKA HULLURU KASABA HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562114

12. SRI SYED ANWAR S/O LATE AMER SAB AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS CHIKKA HULLURU KASABA HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK-562114 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

13. SRI H T PELLAPPA S/O LATE THAMMANNA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS DODDA HULLURU KASABA HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562114

14. SRI S MUNIYAPPA S/O SONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS DODDA HULLURU KASABA HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562114

4

15. SMT NARAYANAMMA W/O LATE PELLAPPA @ MOTAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS DODDA HULLURU KASABA HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562114

16. SRI ERANNA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS DODDA HULLURU KASABA HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562114

17. SRI S MUNIRAJ S/O SETHE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS CHIKKA HULLURU KASABA HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562114

18. SMT NALENA W/O S MUNIRAJ AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS CHIKKA HULLURU KASABA HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562114

19. SRI MOTAPPA DEAD BY HIS LRS M ANIJINAPPA S/O MOTAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS DOODA HULLURU KASABA HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562114

5

20. MUNIYAPPA S/O MOTAPPA DEAD BY HIS LRS SMT ARUNA @ ARUNA KUMARI D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

21. SMT SARITHA D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

22. SRI HARISH S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

PETITIONERS No. 20 TO 22 ARE COMMONLY RESIDING AT DOODA HULLURU KASABA HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562114

23. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE MOTAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS DOODA HULLURU KASABA HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562114

24. NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE MOTAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS DOODA HULLURU KASABA HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562114

6

25. SRI MUNIKENCHAPPA DEAD BY HIS LRS K RAMANJINAPPA S/O LATE MUNIKENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS DODDA HULLURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562114 ... PETITIONERS

(By Sri. HEMANTH RAJ R, ADV.,)

AND

1. COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER INDIAN NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY N.H.207,(HOSAKOTE-DABASPET SECTION) SITE OFFICE NO.623, NEAR KUNIGAL CIRCLE NELAMANGALA BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123

2. DEPUTY SECRETARY MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS GOVERNMENT OF NO G-5 AND 6, SECTOR -10 DWARAKA NEW DELHI-110075 ... RESPONDENTS

(By Sri. R V NAIK, ADV., FOR M.V.KINI & Co., ADVS., FOR R1 & 2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED ISSUED BY THE 2 ND RESPONDENT ON 30.12.2011 UNDER SUB SECTION 1 OF SECTION 3[A] OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT 1956 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING-B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

7

ORDER

1. In these writ petitions, petitioners are challenging the notification dated 30.12.2011 issued by the 2 nd respondent under Section 3-A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) vide Annexure-A and the notification dated

18.09.2012 issued under Sub-Section (1) of Section 3-D of the

Act produced at Annexure-BB.

2. Briefly sated, facts leading to these petitions are that

Ministry of Road Transport and Highways having formed an opinion that the lands belonging to the petitioners and several other villagers were required for the purpose of building

(widening/four lining, etc.) maintenance, management and operation of National Highway No.207 in the stretch of lands from 57.740 Km to 138.320 Km situated in between to

Sompura Section in Bangalore Rural District, declared their intention to acquire the lands belonging to several persons including those of the petitioners in these writ petitions. A notification in this regard was published in the official gazette on 30.12.2011. This was followed by publication in the

Kannada daily newspaper ‘Vijaya Karnataka’ dated 13.03.2012.

Petitioners filed objections. They also appeared before the Land

8

Acquisition Officer by engaging the services of an advocate. The

Land Acquisition Officer has passed an order under Section 3-

C(2) of the Act on 30.06.2012 overruling the objections.

Thereafter, a declaration under Section 3-D(2) has been issued and published in the gazette of India dated 18.09.2012. At this stage, the petitioners have approached this Court challenging the acquisition of their lands.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged the following grounds:

i. there was no personal hearing given to the petitioners either individually or through their learned counsel;

ii. that the objections filed by the petitioners have not been considered and no reasons are given for rejecting the objections;

iii. that the notification issued proposing to acquire the lands is bereft of material particulars and is vague and even the map that is exhibited in the office of the competent authorities as stated in the preliminary notification does not give the details inasmuch as the plan that is made available in the office is also vague;

9

iv. that there is total non-application of mind to the nature of the objections raised;

v. that the affidavit filed in support of the statement of objections by the project Director cannot be accepted as he is not the competent person to swear to the veracity of the contents of the statement of objections as it was the land Acquisition Officer who ought to have filed the statement of objections”.

In support of these contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgments in the following cases:

(i ) HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION

LIMITED vs. DARIUS SHAPUR CHENAI AND

OTHERS - (2005) 7 SCC 627;

(ii) COMPETENT AUTHORITY vs. BARANORE JUTE

FACTORY AND OTHERS - (2005) 13 SCC 477;

(iii) M/S. KAMAL TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED vs.

STATE OF WEST BENGAL & OTHERS - 2012 AIR

SCW Page 587.

4. Sri R.V.Naik, learned counsel appearing for the respondents takes me through the statement of objections filed

10

and contends that personal hearing has been indeed given to the land owners. He has made available the records, particularly, the proceeding sheet maintained by the Land

Acquisition Officer to contend that the land owners were absent when the matter was posted for hearing on 29.06.2012. He refers to the provisions contained under Sub-Section (1) of

Section 3-C of the Act to contend that having regard to the nature of the acquisition for the purpose of National Highway, the legislature has conferred a limited right on the objectors to file their objections only with regard to the use of the land for the purpose or purposes mentioned in the enactment and only such objections regarding the purpose or purposes for which the land is sought to be used is required to be heard by affording an opportunity of being heard, either in person or through a legal practitioner, and may, after hearing all such objections and after making such further enquiry, if any, as the competent authority thinks necessary, he may, either allow or disallow the objections. He, therefore, contends that since the objections by the land owners have been considered after affording an opportunity of hearing to the objectors as well as to their learned counsel who had filed vakalath for them, the

11

grievance made regarding absence of personal hearing is unsustainable.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that out of nearly 500 to 600 land owners whose lands have been acquired for the purpose of National Highway, only about 25 persons have approached this Court and therefore at the instance of only 25 persons, such laudable object and public purpose cannot be stalled on technical grounds. In this regard he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in

AIR 1998 SC 2504. He points out that when such paramount public interest is involved, this Court should be slow in quashing the acquisition proceedings. He takes support of the judgment in AIR 1997 SC 1236 in this connection. To substantiate his contention that opportunity of hearing to be provided under the provisions of the Act is limited, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in (2005) 13

SCC 477. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of this

Court in W.P.Nos. 27610-627/2010 and connected cases disposed of on 17.10.2011 to contend that in similar circumstances, this Court has declined to interfere with the acquisition made for the purpose of National Highways. He

12

further points out that the order passed in the above mentioned writ petitions by the learned Single Judge have been confirmed in Writ Appeal Nos.336 to 363/2012 disposed of on 21.02.2013.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for both parties and after careful consideration of the contentions urged by the learned counsel for both sides and in the light of the records made available, it is seen from the statement of objections filed by respondents 1 and 2 that in view of the high volume of traffic on National Highway - 4 between Chennai-Bangalore and

Bangalroe-Pune, it was decided that National Highway-207 shall be a bypass highway connecting Hoskote and Dabaspet, via Devanahalli and Doddaballapur. This, according to them has been intended to divert traffic from entering Bangalore City to avoid congestion. It is further stated in the objections that a new Express way has been proposed between Bangalore and

Chennai starting at Hoskote avoiding the present National

Highway-4 passing through Kolar and Chittoor. The junction of the said new Express Highway is stated to be at a point after

Hoskote Town, near Kolathur Village on the existing National

Highway-4. Therefore, it is urged that necessity to have the connecting point for National Highway-207 at the junction of

13

the Express Highway was felt and hence a new alignment avoiding the existing narrow National Highway-207 has been conceived. It is also further stated in the statement of objections that a narrow road of 20 Mtrs width that is to say 66 ft. was insufficient for widening in to a four lane carriage way and that the existing National Highway-207 with a width of only 20 Mtrs.

(66ft.) was insufficient for widening into four lane carriage way and therefore it was thought necessary to have a new alignment which would also in future provide for increase in traffic density and for conversion into six lane carriage way. It is further stated that the new National Highway-207 would give a major thrust to the Economic development of the region between Hoskote &

Devanahalli, Devanahalli to Doddaballapur and from

Doddaballapur to Dabaspet junction of National Highway-4 in

Bangalore District. Keeping in mind this public purpose the impugned notification has been issued for the aforesaid purpose. Therefore, one cannot doubt the compelling need and the public purpose for the respondents to initiate action for acquiring the lands in question.

7. The main grievance of the petitioners is in the realm of denial of fair hearing and also regarding the vagueness of the

14

acquisition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken me through the facts of the case and different judgments to contend that as personal hearing is denied, the entire acquisition is vitiated.

8. The records made available before the Court by the

Special Land Acquisition Officer particularly the order sheet maintained by him discloses that the matter was taken up on

21.04.2012 and was concluded on 30.06.2012. In the interregnum particularly on 31.05.2012 a spot inspection was decided to be conducted. The matter was adjourned to

15.06.2012. On that day the villagers along with their learned counsel were present. It is noted that for further objections and arguments the matter was adjourned to 29.06.2012. On both these dates (31.05.2012 and 15.06.2012) counsel for the objectors has signed the proceedings sheet. On 29.06.2012, neither the land owners nor their learned counsel was present.

Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer has posted the matter to

30.06.2012 for ‘Orders’ and on 30.06.2012, orders are pronounced. It is therefore clear that the land owners including the petitioners herein have participated in the proceedings and filed their objections and have been represented through an

15

advocate before the Land Acquisition Officer. When the matter was specifically posted to 29.06.2012 for ‘Further objections and arguments’, the land owners and their counsel ought to have appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer to avail the further opportunity in the matter, if at all they so desired. They did not choose to appear on 29.06.2012. The Special Land

Acquisition Officer was therefore, constrained to proceed with the matter and passed the order on the next date over ruling the objections. Therefore, it cannot be said that petitioners were denied opportunity of personal hearing.

9. The next question would be whether the objections have been properly considered. In the objections filed, the land owners have taken up several contentions. Their main contention was that the idea of acquiring the lands for the

National Highway itself was wrong as the survey conducted and recommendation made was not in accordance with the ideas and the basis behind the formation of National Highways.

Instead of recommending the Highway over the fertile lands, the highway authorities ought to have surveyed the road from

Sulibele Cross, Nagarenahalli Road, Hoskote Government

Hospital Junction, Road etc. They have further stated

16

that the road from Sulibele Cross, Sulibele Cross to

Government Hospital junction at Hosakote was very wide, straight and all along there were barren lands belonging to

Government adjacent to road and there was no need to acquire any land for the purpose of widening National Highway. The land owners further contended that their lands being fertile lands, there was no justification for depriving the land owners of their fertile lands.

10. This objection is over ruled by the Land Acquisition

Officer stating that the Project Director of the National

Highways has in his letter dated 03.05.2012 narrated the requirement of going in for the acquisition and the laudable object behind the same by stating as under:

“Alignment proposed for construction of Hoskote-Dabaspet Section National Highway - 207 is best suited considering its geometry, technical, feasibility, serviceability, connectivity, area of service and economy of the project and thus shifting/dropping/realignment of the proposed alignment is not possible in view of the fact ……………………”

17

11. The Land Acquisition Officer has preferred to overrule the objections holding that public purpose should prevail over the individual requirements of the land owners. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents as per

Sub-Section (1) of Section 3-C of the Act, objections to be filed to the proposed acquisition is confined to the use of land for the purpose or purposes mentioned in the notification. In fact, the

Apex Court in the case of COMPETENT AUTHORITY vs

BARANGORE JUTE FACTORY AND OTHERS – (2005) 1 SCC 477 has held that unlike Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 which confers a general right to object to acquisition of land under Section 4 of the said Act, Section 3-C(1) of the

National Highways Act gives a very limited right to object. The objection can be only to the use of the land under acquisition for purposes other than that mentioned under Section 3-A(1).

The Act confers no right to object to acquisition as such.

Indeed, this view taken by the Apex Court has been referred and relied upon by a learned Single Judge of this court in the judgment rendered in W.P.Nos.27610-627/2010 and connected cases disposed of on 17.10.2011. Therefore, it emerges that the nature of the objections raised by the petitioners travel beyond the scope and permissible limits provided under Section 3-1(C)

18

of the Act. As the objections of the lands owners is not directed against the nature of the use to which the National Highways

Authority intends to put the subject lands but to various other factors highlighting the individual grievance of land owners stating that their lands were very fertile and that there were other alternative methods to widen the National Highway etc., the grievance made is untenable. At any rate, the land acquisition officer, in the instant case, has applied his mind to the objections raised by the petitioners and has overruled them.

Therefore, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the

Land Acquisition Officer contending that it suffers from non application of mind.

12. With regard to the next contention about the vagueness of the preliminary notification published, as can be seen from the publication effected in the Daily Newspaper, the land owners have been notified with the details of the lands proposed to be acquired. The map relating to the lands proposed to be acquired was available in the office of the competent authority and the land owners were at liberty to verify the same. In fact the petitioners themselves have produced such a map which was available in the office of the

19

competent authority vide Annexure-C. The map discloses the details regarding the survey numbers through which the proposed highway passes. It shows the direction on top of the map as North and indicates the adjoining survey numbers.

These details furnished in the map are sufficient for identifying and locating the nature and extent and the exact location of the lands to be acquired. Apart from the same, the notification also discloses the survey numbers and the nature of the land as to whether it is dry, irrigated etc. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the notification suffers from vagueness.

13. Insofar as the contention urged by the petitioners that the affidavit is not filed by the Land Acquisition Officer but by an incompetent authority, namely, the project director, it is seen that the statement of objections has been filed by the counsel for both respondents 1 and 2. The affidavit originally filed was by the Project Director and Deputy General Manager,

National Highway Authority of India, in charge of Development of National Highways-207. Objections are filed by filing another additional statement duly verified by the Land Acquisition

Officer. The statement of objections filed earlier has been

20

adopted. Therefore, the technical objections raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the statement of objections could not have been supported by the affidavit of the

Project Director of National Highways Authority cannot be accepted.

14. In the light of the above, keeping in mind the public purpose for which the lands are acquired and the imminent need felt for widening and diverting the traffic on National

Highway-207, I find that any interference by this Court at this stage at the instance of only 25 land owners will not be in public interest. Hence, the writ petitions being devoid of merits are dismissed.

15. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners who have lost the lands are now made to wait for an indefinite period for the award to be passed and compensation to be paid. It is therefore, necessary to observe that the respondents shall pass an award determining the compensation payable expeditiously and disburse the same as early as possible.

Sd/- JUDGE VP