1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 22 ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.VIKRAMAJIT SEN, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA Writ Petition No.30578/2012 (LA-KIADB)PIL

Between:

1. SOMASHEKAR S/O VEERAPPA CHANNALLI AGE: 52 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O HALLIGUDI 582 115 TAL. MUNDARAGI, DIST. GADAG.

2. CHANDRAPPA S/O BASAPPA CHANNALLI AGED: 65 YEARS OCC: CONSULTING ENGINEER HEMARADDI MALLAMMA NAGAR, MUNDARAGI 582 118, DIST. GADAG.

3. SHIVAPUTRAGOUDA S/O BASAPPA PATIL AGED: 68 YEARS OCC: RETD GOVT EMPLOYEE R/O COLLEGE ROAD, MUNDARGI - 582 118 DIST. GADAG.

4. TIRAKAPPA S/O RANGAPPA DASAKANAKAPPANAV AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: CIVIL CONTRACTOR, R/O RAMENAHALLI - 582 118, TAL. MUNDARAGI, DIST. GADAG.

5. AKHALANDAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA ARALI AGE: 62 YEARS 2

OCC: RETD. HEALTH INSPECTOR, R/O MUNDARAGI 58 118. DIST. GADAG.

6. NAVISAB S/O DAVALASAB KELUR AGE : 40 EYARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O BYALAVADAGI, TAL. MUNDARAGI, DISTRICT GADAG.

7. PALAKSHAGOUDA S/O MUDUKANAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: RETD GOVT. EMPLOYEE, R/O KALAKERI 582 118, TAL. MUNDARAGI DISTRICT GADAG.

8. MODINSAB S/O AKBARSAB AGE: 45 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS R/O MUNDARAGI 582 118, DISTRICT GADAG.

9. DR. YOMARADDI S/O SHIVAPPA METU AGE: 64 YEARS OCC: MEDICAL PRACTIONER, R/O MUNDARAGI 582 118 DISTRICT GADAG.

10. SHADAKSHARAPPA S/O RACHOTEPPA KOPPAL AGE: 68 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O MUNDARAGUI 582 118 DISTRICT GADAG.

11. BASAVARAJ S/O CHANNAPPA HEBBAL AGE: 58 YEARS OCC: COMMISSIONER AGENT, R/O MUNDARAGI 582 118, DISTRICT GADAG. 3

12. NARAYANAPPA S/O DUNDAPPA KILIPUTTI AGE: 65 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS R/O MUNDARAGI 582 118 DIST GADAG.

13. SURESH S/O SANNABASAPPA LINGASHETTAR AGE: 50 YEARS OCC: PRIVATE EMPLOYEE R/O MUNADARAGI 582 118 DIST GADAG.

14. CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O BASAPPA MATTI AGE: 53 YEARS OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O MUNDARAGI 582 118 DIST GADAG.

15. VIJAY S/O HALAPPA DAMBAL AGE: 46 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O MUNDARAGI 582 118 DIST GADAG.

16. BASAYYA S/O SHIVARUDRAYYA SHINDOGIMATH AGE: 64 YEARS,OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O MUNDARAGI 582 118 DIST GADAG.

17. NINGAPPA S/O CHANNABASAPPA SHEREWAD AGE: 75 YEARS OCC: RETD HEALTH INSPECTOR AND AGRICULTURIST R/O MUNDARAGI 582 118 DIST GADAG.

18. BASAVARAJ S/O SHANKARAPPA DESAI AGE: 42 YEARS OCC: SOCIAL WORKER R/O MUNDARAGI 582 118 DIST GADAG. 4

19. ANIL AGE: 35 YEARS S/O ISHAPPA MARANABASARI OCC: AGRICULTURIE R/O MUNDARAGI 582 118 DIST GADAG.

20. DR. ANNADANI S/O MARITHAMAPPA METI AGE: 52 YEARS OCC: MEDICAL PREACTITIONER, R/O MUNDARAGI 582 118 DIST GADAG.

21. RAVINDRA S./O KRISHNAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 50 YEARS OCC: CONSULTING ENGINEER R/O MUNDARAGUI 582 118, DIST GADAG.

22. MALLAPPA S/O RAMAPPA SANGATI AGE: 46 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O RAMENAHALLI TAL MUNDARAGI 582 118 DIST GADAG.

23. GOUSUSAB S/O HUSENSAB DHOTIHAL AGE: 48 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE R/O BARADUR TAL MUNDARAGI 582 118 DIST GADAG.

24. SHIVAPPA S/O YAMUNAPPA NADAGOUDAR AGE: 56 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O MUNDARAGI 582 118 DIST GADAG. 5

25. PARAMESWARA S/O ANDANAPPA METI AGE: 46 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O KALAKERI, TAL MUNDARAGI 582 118 DIST GADAG.

26. MARUTHI S/O MARIYAPPA HOSAMANI AGE: 37 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS R/O 582 118 TAL MUNDARAGI DIST GADAG.

27. HANUMARADDI S/O BASAVARADDI MADANNUR AGE: 30 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE AND CONTRACTOR R/O 582 118 TAL MUNDARAGI DIST GADAG.

28. NARAYANA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA ELLUR AGE: 60 YEARS PRESIDENT, TALUKA KRISHIK SAMAJ, R/O MUNDARAJI 582 118 DIST GADAG.

29. SHANKARAGOUDA S/O VEERANAGOUDA PATIL AGED 75 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O JANTHLI 582 113 TAL MUNDARAGI DIST GADAG.

30. MARIYAPPA S/O SHIVAPPA PATIL AGE: 64 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O JANTHLI 582 113 TAL MUNDARAGI DIST GADAG. 6

31. NINGANAGOUDA S/O BHIMANAGOUDA MULIMANI AGE: 52 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O JANTHLI - 582 113 TAL MUNDARAJI DIST GADAG.

32. SHIVAPUTRAPPA S/O BHOJAPPA POOJAR AGE: 48 YEAS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O JANTHLI 582 113 TAL MUNDARAGI DIST GADAG.

33. GANGAYYA S/O PATADAYYA HIREMATH AGE: 63 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O JANTHLI 582 113, TAL MUNDARAGI DIST GADAG.

34. AMARAGOUDA S/O VEERANAGOUDA KALLANAGOUDRA AGED 65 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O JANTHLI 582 113 TAL MUNDARAJI DIST GADAG.

35. CHANNAVEERAPPA S/O THIPPANNA PARIMAL AGE: 57 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O JANTHLI 582 113 TAL MUNDARAGI DIST GADAG.

36. YALLAPPA S/O BASAPPA SHELAVADI AGE: 63 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O JANTHLI 582 113 TAL MUNDARAGI DIST GADAG. 7

37. VEERANAGOUDA S/O VIRUPAKSHAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 48 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O JANTHLI 582 113 TAL MUNDARAGI DIST GADAG.

38. NANDAPPA S/O NAGAPPA BYALI AGE: 38 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O 582 115 TAL MUNDARAGI DISTRICT GADAG.

39. SHAMBUGOUDA S/O ANDANAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 40 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O HALLIKERI 582 115 TAL MUNDARAGI DISTRICT GADAG.

40. BASAPPA S/O BOODAPPA AGE: 55 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O HALLIKERI 582 115 TAL MUNDARAGI DISTRICT GADAG.

41. NINGAMMA W/O BASAPPA LAKKUNDI AGE: 55 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O HALLIKERI 582 115 TAL MUNDARAGI DISTRICT GADAG.

42. HIREGOUDA S/O GURUPADAGOUDA HIREGOUDRA AGE: 45 YEARS,OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O HALLIKERI 582 115 TAL MUNDARAGI, DISTRICT GADAG. 8

43. MALLANAGOUDA S/O KASHYAPPAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 50 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O HALLIKERI 582 115 TAL MUNDARAGI DISTRICT GADAG.

44. HEGGAPPA S/O GUDADAPPA JALANNAVAR AGE: 58 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O HALLIKERI 582 115 TAL MUNDARAGI DISTRICT GADAG.

45. SHEKAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA SAJJANAR AGE: 49 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O HALLIKERI 582 115 TAL MUNDARAGI DISTRICT GADAG.

46. MUTTAPPA S/O SHIVABASAPPA TURKANI AGE: 60 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O HALLIKERI 582 115 TAL MUNDARAGI DISTRICT GADAG.

47. MAHESH S/O VEERAPPA BISANALLI AGE: 38 YEARS,OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O VENKATAPURA 582 115, TAL MUNDARAGI, DISTRICT GADAG.

48. BASAVARAJ S/O VEERANNA KUSUGAL AGE: 24 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O VENKATAPURA 582 115 TAL MUNDARAGI, DISTRICT GADAG. 9

49. CHANNAPPA S/O GAVISIDDAPPA HALLI AGE: 38 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O VENKATAPURA 582 115 TAL MUNDARAGI DISTRICT GADAG.

50. VIRUPAKSHAGOUDA S/O NEELAPPAGOUDA MARIGOUDR AGE: 50 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O VENKATAPURA 582 115 TAL MUNDARAGI DISTRICT GADAG.

51. KALAKAPPA S/O KARIVEERAPPA TUPPAD AGE: 65 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O VENKATAPURA 582 115 TAL MUNDARAGI DISTRICT GADAG.

52. GURUPUTRAPPA S/O MUDUKAPPA SAMSHI AGE: 42 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O VENKATAPURA 582 115 TAL MUNDARAGI DISTRICT GADAG.

53. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O MUDUKAPPA SAMSHI AGE: 60 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O VENKATAPURA 582 115 TAL MUNDARAGI,DISTRICT GADAG.

54. SHANKARAGOUDA S/O KALLANAGOUDA AGE: 48 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O VENKATAPURA 582 115 TAL MUNDARAGI DISTRICT GADAG. 10

55. SHARANAPPA S/O HANUMAPPA SANNADYAVANNAVAR AGE: 45 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O VENKATAPURA 582 115 TAL MUNDARAGI DISTRICT GADAG.

56. SHASHIDHAR S/O VEERANNA KUSUGAL AGE: 42 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O VENKATAPURA 582 115 TAL MUNDARAGI DISTRICT GADAG. ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI S P KULKARNI, ADV.) AND

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA VIDHANA VEEDHI BANGALORE 560 001, REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.

2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB), BANGALORE 560 009 REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ROOM NO 27 DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, GADAG 582 101.

4. M/S. POSCO PRIVATE LTD., NO 55, 2 ND FLOOR MMR LAYOUT, BEHIND MANJUNATH STORE, UDAYANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 016 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI R DEVDAS AGA FOR R1 & 2) 11

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROPOSED ORDER AND PROPOSED INTIMATION OF THE R2 GOVT WITHDRAWING THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS IN ORDER DATED 15.7.11 AND 22.7.11 REJECTING THE PROPOSAL FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF STEEL PROJECT, GRANTED AND APPROVED TO M/S POSCO INIDA (P) LTD., PASSED BY THE R3 HEREIN BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND OPPOSED TO LAW VIDE ANNX-D & E & ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, C.J. (Oral) :

On the last date of hearing, we passed the following

order:

“Very reluctantly, we grant yet another adjournment to Mr.Kulkarni to satisfy us of the appropriateness of entertaining Public Interest Litigation which in effect seek directions to the Government either to acquire lands or to set up Industries in a particular area.

To cite only one precedent, we refer the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bombay vs. Godrej Boyce (AIR 1987 SC 2421) which recognize the power of the Government to withdraw lands from acquisition proceedings if it considers it expedient to do so. Renotify on 22.09.2012.” 12

2. Today, we are faced with an application seeking leave to amend the writ petition by inclusion of averments as well as an additional prayer.

3. As will be evident from the order passed on the last date of hearing, the question that is essentially to be answered is whether a decision of the Government to go through with a proposal for acquiring lands, or to give it up, is justiciable.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners draws our attention to the recent decision in Brij Mohan Lal vs. Union of

India (2012 AIR SCW 3906) which essentially concerned with the right of a person to a post, and whether it was a fundamental right or a civil or statutory right. Nevertheless, in paras 72 and 73 of the Judgment, their Lordships have distilled six cannons of law on the issue of judicial interference in policy matters. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on State Government Houseless Harijan Employees

Association vs. State (ILR 2001 KAR 1086), the Head Note of which makes it clear that petition should not be entertained.

Their Lordships have observed that, there will be no violation of principles of natural justice if any proposed acquisition is withdrawn without hearing the owner of the land but the case of the beneficiary stands on an altogether different footing. 13

5. In D.A.Basavaiah vs. Bangalore Development

Authority (2000) 9 SCC 375, it has also been clarified on the question of locus standi that, a stranger cannot challenge a

Government decision in regard to de-acquisition. We have already mentioned the dictum in Godrej & Boyce, though it arises under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is nevertheless apposite and we need not deal with it any further except quoting the following relevant extracts:

“5.We are of opinion that the High Court erred in striking down the order under Section 48 and compelling the State Government to acquire the lands of the respondent. Under the scheme of the Act, neither the notification under Section 4 nor the declaration under Section 6 nor the notice under Section 9 is sufficient to divest the original owner of, or other person interested in, the land of his rights therein. Section 16 makes it clear beyond doubt that the title to the land vests in the Government only when possession is taken by the Government. Till that point of time, the land continues to be with the original owner and he is also free (except where there is specific legislation to the contrary) to deal with the land just as he likes, although it may be that on account of the pendency of proceedings for acquisition intending purchasers may be chary of coming near the land. So long as possession is not taken over, the mere fact of a notification under Section 4 nor declaration under Section 6 having been made does not divest the owner of his rights in respect of the land or relieve him of the duty to take care of the land and protect it against encroachments. Again, such a notification does not either confer on the State Government any right to interfere with the ownership or other rights in the land or impose on it any duty to remove encroachments therefrom or in any 14

other way safe-guard the interests of the original owner of the land. It is in view of this position, that the owner's interests remain unaffected until possession is taken, that Section 48 gives a liberty to the State Government to withdraw from the acquisition at any stage before possession is taken. By such withdrawal no irreparable prejudice is caused to the owner of the land, and if at all he has suffered any damage in consequence of the acquisition proceedings or incurred costs in relation thereto, he will be compensated therefor under Section 48(2). In this view of the matter, it does not matter even if there is lapse of considerable time between the original notification and the withdrawal under section 48 as held in Trustees of Bai Smarth Jain Shvetambar Murtipujak Gyanodhyaya Trust and others v. State of Gujarat and another., AIR 1981 Gujarat 107. It also follows that the State can be permitted to exercise its power of withdrawal unilaterally and no requirement that the owner of the land should be given an opportunity of being heard before doing so should be read into the provision.

6. In essence, the petitioners are calling upon the Court to issue directions to Government to acquire their lands or other lands in their village to set up the Industry thereon. This is beyond the expectation in a public interest litigation.

7. Dismissed. All pending applications are also dismissed.

Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- JUDGE Sk/-