//
you're reading...
legal issues

Land Acquisition Act – the Constitution Bench of this Court in Babu Barkya Thakur Vs. State of Bombay and Others, reported in AIR 1960 SC 1203. In paragraph 12 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court has held that the purpose of the notification under Section 4 is to carry on a preliminary investigation with a view to finding out after necessary survey and taking of levels and if necessary digging or boring into the sub-soil whether the land was adapted for the purpose for which it was sought to be acquired. It was further held in that decision that it is only under Section 6 that a firm declaration has to be made by the Government that the land with proper description and area so as to identifiable is needed for a public purpose or for a company. The aforesaid observation was made after holding that what was a mere proposal under Section 4 becomes a subject matter of a definite proceeding for acquisition on issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act.

IMG_5261: Karnataka High Court

Image by ac4lt via Flickr

 REPORTABLE

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s).19510/2011

P. PARTHASARATHY Petitioner(s)

 VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Respondent(s)

 O R D E R

1. This special leave petition is directed against the judgment and 

 order dated 15.6.2011 passed by the Division Bench of the 

 Karnataka High Court affirming the judgment and order passed 

 by the learned Single Judge of the same High Court. 

2. By the aforesaid order, the High Court where the legality and 

 validity of the final notification dated 6.2.09 issued under sub-

 section (4) of Section 28 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas 

 Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') 

 Page 1 of 15

 was challenged upheld the validity and legality of the aforesaid 

 notification issued by the respondent/State exercising the 

 powers vested in it under sub-section (4) of Section 28 of the 

 Act. 

3. The petitioner herein is the owner of survey no. 154/10 

 measuring about 2 acres at Kengeri village, Kengeri Hobli, 

 Bangalore South taluk. The land of the petitioner was the 

 subject matter of the notification issued by the State of 

 Karnataka. The notification was issued under Section 28(1) of 

 the Act. The petitioner, however, did not file any objection 

 whereupon a final notification under Section 28(4) of the Act 

 was issued, which, however, was challenged before the learned 

 Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court by filing a writ 

 petition, which was registered and numbered as W.P. No. 24867 

 of 2005. 

4. The learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated 

 13.01.2009 allowed the said writ petition filed by the petitioner 

 herein and quashed the final notification issued and also the 

 consequential corrigendum. The learned Single Judge also gave 

 a liberty to the respondents to identify the land which they 

 Page 2 of 15

propose to acquire. It was also held therein by the learned 

Single Judge that the petitioner as also the respondent no. 4 

would take the proceeding before the High Court as the notice in 

the matter of identification of the land in question and file their 

objections within a period of four weeks. Subsequent thereto, a 

notice was issued to the petitioner by the Board on 6.2.2009. In 

the said notice, the Board informed the petitioner that the land 

described in the notice is required for the development of the 

Karnataka Industrial Development Board and that the 

Government of Karnataka had issued a notification under sub-

section (1) of Section 28 of the Act by notification dated 

19.12.1998. The petitioner was further informed that he may 

show cause as to why the land should not be acquired and that 

such a notice is being given to the petitioner pursuant to the 

order passed by the High Court in the aforesaid writ petition. A 

description of the land was also given in the said notice. The 

petitioner as against the same submitted a reply contending, 

inter alia, that the land of the petitioner could not and would 

not come within the aforesaid acquisition and, therefore, his 

name shown in the preliminary notification dated 19.12.1998 be 

 Page 3 of 15

 deleted. He further stated in the said reply filed that the plan 

 prepared for road including the peripherial road junction, 

 approved by the competent authority clearly indicate that 

 the land in question is not at all required or proposed to be 

 acquired and that being the state of affairs, acquisition of any 

 portion of the said land bearing survey no. 154 cannot be 

 sustained either in facts or in law and the same is liable to be 

 dropped from acquisition.

5. After the receipt of the aforesaid objection filed by the petitioner, 

 an enquiry was conducted by the Special Land Acquisition 

 Officer. A report was also prepared, which is placed on record. 

 It appears the petitioner was represented by his counsel in the 

 said enquiry proceedings. The concerned officer considered the 

 records and then ordered that notices be issued to all concerned 

 persons including the petitioner notifying them that a survey 

 would be conducted to measure the land and that the petitioner 

 should be present in the aforesaid survey to be made to show 

 their respective lands. 

6. It is also disclosed from the record that as per the date fixed i.e. 

 on 18.4.2009, the concerned officers visited the spot and on 

 Page 4 of 15

 that day, the concerned persons including the petitioner and 

 others were present. In the said survey, the previous phoded 

 numbers were cancelled and thereafter the mahazar was drawn 

 in the presence of the parties and they were also given sketch 

 copies with available records in terms of their requests. The 

 officer, thereafter, heard the arguments and after referring to 

 the order of the Karnataka High Court dated 13.01.2009 it was 

 held that the land measuring 2.33 acres is required for the 

 project. Thereafter the said Land Acquisition Officer passed an 

 order that the land bearing survey no. 154/10 of Kengeri village, 

 Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South taluk is required for the 

 proposed reasons of acquisition and that the same is suitable 

 and required as per the joint measurement and schedule and, 

 therefore, the said land measuring 2.33 acres was ordered to be 

 acquired. Consequent thereupon a notification under Section 

 28(4) was issued whereby the land of the petitioner was 

 acquired by putting the name of the petitioner in the schedule 

 annexed to the said notification. 

7. The validity of the aforesaid notification was challenged by filing 

 a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court. The learned Single 

 Page 5 of 15

 Judge who heard the writ petition, after hearing the counsel 

 appearing for the parties, dismissed the writ petition by his 

 order dated 11.9.2009 holding that the order of the learned 

 Single Judge in the earlier writ petition no. 24867/2005 

 directing the Land Acquisition Officer to provide opportunity to 

 the petitioner and also to identify the land and thereafter to 

 proceed with the matter having become final and binding and 

 since subsequent to the said order, the land having been 

 identified and his objections having been considered and the 

 actual portion of the land required for formation of the road 

 having been notified, there could be no further grievance of the 

 petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner 

 was dismissed. 

8. Being aggrieved by the said order, a writ appeal was filed before 

 the High Court, which is the impugned judgment and order. By 

 the said judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court 

 dismissed the appeal holding that any defect in the preliminary 

 notification would not prove fatal to the acquisition proceedings. 

 It was also held that though survey number was not challenged, 

 a fresh inquiry was held to identify the land whereupon the land 

 Page 6 of 15

 was identified and thereafter order was passed followed by final 

 declaration that the land of the petitioner is required for the 

 project. Consequently, the appeal was also dismissed and the 

 present petition was filed on which we have heard the learned 

 counsel appearing for the parties. 

9. Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner 

 has submitted that the land was not identifiable as although the 

 extent of land was mentioned in the notification but the 

 boundaries that were given were incorrect and erroneous and, 

 therefore, the notification issued by the respondent State under 

 sub-section (4) of Section 28 of the Act is liable to be quashed. 

10. In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel has 

 relied upon the decisions of this Court titled Narendrajit Singh 

 &
 Anr. 
 Vs. The
 State of U.P. and Anr. reported in (1970) 1 

 SCC 125, Madhya
 Pradesh Housing Board Vs.
 Mohd.
 Shafi 

 and Others reported in (1992) 2 SCC 168 and Om Prakash 

 Sharma
 and Others Vs.
 M.P
 . Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam 

 and Others reported in (2005) 10 SCC 306. 

11.Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for the 

 Page 7 of 15

 respondent no. 5 and Ms. Shenoy, learned counsel appearing 

 for the State have refuted the aforesaid submissions of the 

 counsel appearing for the petitioner and submitted that the land 

 which was sought to be acquired by the respondent was 

 identifiable all along. It is also submitted that the petitioner was 

 given opportunity to file his objections, which were considered, 

 and even the land was re-surveyed in order to identify the exact 

 location and area of the land in terms of the order passed by the 

 learned Single Judge and thereafter upon proper identification 

 and verification of the land, the notification under sub-section 

 (4) of Section 28 of the Act having been validly issued, there 

 could be no interference in the present case. 

12.In the light of the aforesaid submissions of the counsel 

 appearing for the respondents, we propose to dispose of this 

 special leave petition by giving our reasons thereof.

13. The project that we are concerned with was also the subject 

 matter of appeal filed in this Court in the case of State of 

 Karnataka
 and Anr. Vs. All
 India Manufacturers 

 Association and Anr. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 683. In 

 paragraph 77 of the said judgment, it was held by this Court 

 Page 8 of 15

 that the concerned project is an integrated infrastructure 

 development project and is not merely a highway project. It was 

 also held that the project which is styled, conceived and 

 implemented is the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor 

 Project which conceived of the development of roads between 

 Bangalore and Mysore. There are several interchanges in and 

 around the periphery of the city of the Bangalore together with 

 numerous developmental infrastructure activities along with the 

 highway at several points. It is, therefore, needless to reiterate 

 that the project is a very important project and the land which 

 is sought to be acquired is proposed to be a part of the 

 peripheral road being a part of the aforesaid developmental 

 infrastructure.

14.The issue that arises for our consideration is whether there was 

 any inaccuracy with regard to the description of the boundaries 

 of the land which is sought to be acquired by the respondents. 

 In fact, in the earlier round of litigation wherein validity of sub-

 section (1) of Section 28 was not challenged, what was done was 

 to quash the notification issued under sub-section (4) of Section 

 28, which was in fact under challenge. Even thereafter and 

 Page 9 of 15

 pursuant to the orders of the High Court which had become 

 final and binding, a re-survey was done after going through the 

 objection filed by the petitioner. In the said re-survey where the 

 petitioner was also personally present, the land proposed to be 

 taken and acquired was identified, sketch map was prepared 

 and thereafter only the final notification under sub-section (4) of 

 Section 28 was issued. 

15.That the petitioner could file his objection and he was fully 

 heard and was also given an opportunity regarding 

 identification of the land indicates that the petitioner had ample 

 opportunity to place his case, which was considered but 

 decided against him. In our considered opinion full opportunity 

 having been given to the petitioner to place his case and to 

 oppose the acquisition process, there could be no further 

 grievance of the petitioner in that regard. 

16.We are also of the opinion that no prejudice is caused to the 

 petitioner in any manner for the land was re-surveyed and 

 thereafter the land sought to be acquired was identified, which 

 included the land of the petitioner and, therefore, the entire pre-

 conditions and formalities as laid down under Section 28 of the 

 Page 10 of 15

 Act were duly complied with and were adhered to and followed 

 and, therefore, there cannot be any further cause of grievance 

 for the petitioner. 

17. In this connection, we may appropriately refer to a decision of 

 the Constitution Bench of this Court in Babu Barkya Thakur 

 Vs. State of Bombay and Others, reported in AIR 1960 SC 

 1203. In paragraph 12 of the said judgment, the Supreme 

 Court has held that the purpose of the notification under 

 Section 4 is to carry on a preliminary investigation with a view 

 to finding out after necessary survey and taking of levels and if 

 necessary digging or boring into the sub-soil whether the land 

 was adapted for the purpose for which it was sought to be 

 acquired. It was further held in that decision that it is only 

 under Section 6 that a firm declaration has to be made by the 

 Government that the land with proper description and area so 

 as to identifiable is needed for a public purpose or for a 

 company. The aforesaid observation was made after holding 

 that what was a mere proposal under Section 4 becomes a 

 subject matter of a definite proceeding for acquisition on 

 issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act.

 Page 11 of 15

18.We feel that the law laid down in the said decision applies in 

 full force to this case also. In the present case also there were 

 some errors and mistakes in the notification issued under sub-

 section (1) of Section 28 of the Act but the same did not, in any 

 manner, prevent the petitioner from submitting an effective 

 objection and also from getting an opportunity of effective 

 hearing for him. A re-survey was done in his presence and, 

 therefore, the purpose for which the provision of sub-section 

 (1), (2) and (3) have been enacted, have been fully carried out in 

 the present case. 

19.We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that although there 

 was some discrepancy in the description of the property 

 proposed to be acquired and the description given although 

 might not have been exactly accurate, but the same did not in 

 any manner misled the petitioner regarding the identity of the 

 land which is corroborated by the fact of the detailed enquiry 

 which was conducted in his presence. The petitioner was also 

 able to file a detailed and effective reply to the show cause 

 notice issued to him.

20. The decisions which are relied upon by the learned counsel 

 Page 12 of 15

 appearing for the petitioner are clearly distinguishable on facts. 

 So far the decision in case of Narendrajit
 Singh & Anr. 
 Vs. 

 The
 State of U.P. and Anr. reported in (1970) 1 SCC 125 

 (supra) is concerned, in the said case we find that this Court 

 interfered with the declaration because there was no particulars 

 given in the notification. In the said case, there was no mention 

 of any locality at all and in that context, this Court interfered 

 with the proposed acquisition. 

21. So far the next case, namely, Madhya Pradesh Housing Board 

 Vs.
 Mohd.
 Shafi and Others reported in (1992) 2 SCC 168 

 (supra) is concerned, in that case also details and particulars of 

 the land were not given and a wrong public purpose was 

 mentioned and in that view of the matter, this Court interfered 

 with the acquisition proceeding. 

22. As regards the case of Om
 Prakash Sharma and Others Vs. 

 M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam and Others reported in 

 (2005) 10 SCC 306 (supra) which was relied upon by the 

 counsel for the petitioner is concerned, in that case neither any 

 survey number was given nor any khasra number was given. 

 Even the name of the persons were not mentioned and in that 

 Page 13 of 15

 context the declaration was quashed with a liberty by way of 

 giving a fresh opportunity for initiation of a fresh acquisition 

 proceeding. 

23.The aforesaid cases are clearly distinguishable on facts and, 

 therefore, they have no application in the facts and 

 circumstances of the present case.

24.Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we 

 are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge as 

 also the learned Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court 

 did not commit any mistake or error in dismissing the writ 

 petition. 

25.We find no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order 

 passed by the Division Bench. The petition has no merit and is 

 dismissed, but leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 

26.Since we have dismissed this petition, any interim order passed 

 by the High Court shall also stand vacated by this order. 

 .............................................

 J

 (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

 Page 14 of 15

 ............................................J

 (ANIL R. DAVE)

NEW DELHI,

AUGUST 24, 2011.

 Page 15 of 15

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,884,449 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: