Karnataka High Court
Dr. Jayalakshmi Venkatesh W/O. ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 June, 2022
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
WP No. 100414 of 2021
C/W WP No.101657/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 100414 OF 2021 (LA-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.101657/2022
IN W.P.NO.100414/2021
BETWEEN:
DR. JAYALAKSHMI VENKATESH W/O. J.VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE,
REPRESENTED AT HARSHA VARSHA BUILDING,
P. B. ROAD, OPP. IB HAVERI, HAVERI, DIST. HAVERI
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.NITIN A.M. & SRI.SHRIHARSH A.NEELOPANT, ADVS)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTATIVE BY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU 01
2. THE COMMISSIONER
REHABILITATION AND RE-SETTLEMENT,
UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT,
Digitally NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOTE
signed by
VINAYAKA
BV
VINAYAKA Location:
BV Dharwad 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
Date:
2022.07.01
11:35:16 UPPER TUNGA PROJECT
+0530
RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI
5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
-2-
WP No. 100414 of 2021
C/W WP No.101657/2022
KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED
UPPER TUNGA PROJECT SUB DIVISION
RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI
6. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED
UPPER TUNGA PROJECT SUB DIVISION
RATTIHALLI, TQ RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHIVAPRABHU S.HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4,
SRI.MADHUSUDAN R.NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.K.S.PATIL,
ADV. FOR R5 & R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION
AND DECLARE THAT THE NOTIFICATION DATED 03.10.2020, COPY
AS PER ANNEXURE-K ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AS HAVING
BEEN RESCINEDED BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 19(7) OF THE RIGHT TO
FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION,
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 AND QUASH THE
SAME. B) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE DIRECTION AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO
CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 30.11.2020 AND
18.01.2021, COPIES AS PER ANEXURES-M AND N.
IN W.P.NO. 101657 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. PUTTAVVA DODDA TALAWAR
AGE-53 YEARS, OCC-AGRICULTURE,
2. NEELAPPA S/O BARAMAPPA DODDA TALAWAR
AGE-47 YEARS, OCC-AGRICULTURE,
WP No. 100414 of 2021
C/W WP No.101657/2022
3. FAKIRAPPA S/O SANNA FAKKIRAPPA DODDA TALAWAR
AGE-67 YEARS, OCC-AGRICULTURE,
ALL ARE R.O KANAKAPURA, TQ AND DIST HAVERI
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIJAY M. MALALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
UPPER TUNGA PROJECT, RANEBENNUR, DIST-HAVERI
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED, UPPER TUNGA
PROJECT, SUB-DIVISION, RANEBENNUR, DIST-HAVERI
5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED, UPPER TUNGA
PROJECT SUB-DIVISION, RANEBENNUR, DIST-HAVERI
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHIVAPRABHU S.HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1) ISSUE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION AND DECLARE THAT THE
NOTIFICATION DATED 03.10.2020 AS PER ANNEXURE-K HAVING
BEEN RESCINDED BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 19A OF THE LAND
ACQUISITION ACT 2013 AND QUASH THE SAME. 2) IN
ALTERNATIVE ISSUE DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS CONSTRUCT
THE CANNEL AS PER THE ALIGNMENT APPROVED BY THE CHIEF
ENGINEER IN THE YEAR 2013.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 27.06.2022 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING.
WP No. 100414 of 2021
C/W WP No.101657/2022
COMMON ORDER
Since the prayer made in these two writ petitions are
common, they were clubbed, heard together and disposed
of by this common order.
2. The petitioners are seeking to challenge the
acquisition of their lands mainly on two grounds. Firstly, it
is contended that since the notification under Section 11 of
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2013' for short) was
issued on 18.04.2017, a declaration and summary of
rehabilitation and resettlement in terms of Section 19(1)
of the Act, 2013 was required to be published within a
period twelve months from the date of preliminary
notification as provided under sub-section (7) of Section
19 of the Act, 2013 and since the same was published on
03.10.2020, beyond the prescribed period, this court
should declare that the impugned notification has
rescinded. Secondly, it is contended that the respondents
WP No. 100414 of 2021
C/W WP No.101657/2022
are deviating from the alignment of the water canal as
approved by the Chief Engineer in the year 2013 and
therefore, the respondents should be directed to construct
the canal as per the approved alignment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
earlier a preliminary notification was issued under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 16.02.2012 notifying the
lands of the petitioners for the very same purpose.
However, since the alignment changed, the final
notification was not issued. Thereafter, after the Act, 2013
came into force, a preliminary notification under Section
11(1) of the Act, 2013 was issued on 16.04.2017. Learned
counsel contends that respondent-authorities were unduly
influenced by vested interests and in order to benefit the
neighbouring property owners, deviated the alignment of
canal and consequently are trying to form water canal on
the properties belonging to the petitioners. In order to
support the said contention, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that a Court Commissioner may be
WP No. 100414 of 2021
C/W WP No.101657/2022
appointed to verify the said contention of the petitioners.
Learned counsel would further submit that, as per the joint
measurement conducted by the respondents, the
petitioners were informed that only 20 guntas of land
would be acquired. However, in the final notification
published on 03.10.2020 what is acquired is 22 guntas in
Sy.No.19/1+2/A1, 17 guntas in Sy.No.19/1+2/A/A2/A,
and 20 guntas in Sy.No.19/1+2/A/2B. Learned counsel
submits that it is clear from the actions of the respondents
that they have acted under colourable exercise of power
and have been deviating from the alignment of the canal
which was approved by the Chief Engineer in the year
2013.
4. Per contra, learned senior counsel
Sri.Madhusudan R.Naik appearing for the respondents-
Karnataka Neeravari Ningam Limited, submits that the
respondents are on record in the statement of
objections/additional statement of objections stating that
they would undertake not to deviate from the alignment of
WP No. 100414 of 2021
C/W WP No.101657/2022
the canal as approved by the Chief Engineer in the year
2013. Learned senior counsel would therefore, submit that
it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioners to contend
without any basis the respondents are deviating from the
approved alignment. Learned senior counsel would further
submit that this court has upheld the validity of the
impugned acquisition notifications in W.P.No.100395/2016
and connected matters which were disposed of on
28.04.2016.
5. Learned senior counsel would further submit
that in terms of second proviso to sub-section (7) of
Section 19 of the Act, 2013, the State Government is
empowered to extend the period of twelve months for
publication of declaration and summary of rehabilitation
and resettlement. Accordingly, three separate notifications
were issued by the State Government exercising the
power conferred under second proviso to sub-section (7)
of Section 19 of the Act, 2013 and therefore, the
WP No. 100414 of 2021
C/W WP No.101657/2022
contention of the petitioners that impugned notifications
stand rescinded, should not be accepted.
6. Learned senior counsel would draw the
attention of this court to a judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Ramniklal N.Bhutta and
Another vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported
in (1997) 1 SCC 134 to contend that the Apex Court has
declared that the courts have to keep in mind the larger
public interest and while exercising power under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, the courts should ensure
that such extraordinary power is exercised only in
furtherance of interests of justice and not merely on the
making out of a legal point.
7. Learned Additional Government Advocate,
appearing for the respondent-State would support the
submissions of the learned senior counsel. Learned AGA
would also add that the total length of the water canal is
about 270 kms and as per his information, the major part
WP No. 100414 of 2021
C/W WP No.101657/2022
of the construction of the canal has been completed except
350 meters which forms the subject matter of these writ
petitions. It is submitted that, by virtue of an interim order
dated 09.02.2021, the works could not be taken up by the
respondent-authorities in respect of the lands in question.
Otherwise, the construction of the canal work has been
completed by and large.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents-
Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited, learned AGA for the
respondent-State and on perusing the petition papers, this
court finds that the contention of the petitioners that there
is non-compliance of the statutory requirements of
publication of declaration and summary of rehabilitation
and resettlement, inasmuch as, the same not having been
published within a period of twelve months from the date
of preliminary notification, cannot be accepted. Material
are placed on record to show that the State Government
issued notifications extending the period of twelve months,
- 10 -
WP No. 100414 of 2021
C/W WP No.101657/2022
as in its opinion circumstances existed justifying the same.
Moreover, as held in Ramniklal N.Bhutta (supra), the
power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
discretionary. It is required to be exercised only in
furtherance of interests of justice and not merely on the
making out of a legal point. In the matter of land
acquisition for public purposes, the interests of justice and
the public interest coalesce.
9. Insofar as the contention of the petitioners that
respondents are deviating from the approved alignment,
the respondent-authorities have very clearly stated in
paragraphs 5 and 6 of the additional statement of
objections that they would not deviate from the approved
alignment. In fact, learned senior counsel appearing for
the respondents-KNNL has submitted that an undertaking
may be recorded in this regard.
10. As rightly contended by the respondents, the
project of such a magnitude running to about 270 kms
- 11 -
WP No. 100414 of 2021
C/W WP No.101657/2022
cannot be halted or obstructed at the instance of a few
persons who allege that respondents are deviating from
the approved alignment. The contentions of the petitioners
cannot readily be accepted in this regard. Moreover, since
the respondent-authorities have undertaken in the
statement of objections that they would not deviate from
the approved alignment, the respondents shall be held to
their words. At any rate, this court does not find any
palpable reason to restrain the respondent-authorities
from proceeding to complete the works undertaken for the
proposed project.
11. Consequently, the writ petitions stand
dismissed.
Ordered accordingly,
In view of dismissal of the writ petitions all pending
I.A's do not survive for consideration and the same are
dismissed.
SD
JUDGE
MBS/-
