In the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 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 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-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 INDIA 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 Hoskote 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.