The Ugar Sugar Works Limited vs The State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 396 Kant

                                                          R
                               1




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
                   DHARWAD BENCH


     DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                           BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

              W.P.No.108602/2019 (LA-RES)

BETWEEN:

The Ugar Sugar Works Limited
A Public Limited Company
Registered under Companies Act, 1956
Having its Registered Office
At Mahavir Nagar, Vakharbhag
Sangli-416 416
Maharashtra State
at Ugar Khurd-591 316
Tq. Athani, Dist-Belagavi
Represented by its
Managing Director.                                ... Petitioner

(By Sri H.N.Shashidhara, Senior Counsel for
    Sri.Anand C.Desai, Advocate)

AND:

1.     The State of Karnataka
       Dept. of Irrigation
       Vidhana Soudha, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi,
       Bengaluru-560 001
       Rep. by its Secretary

2.     Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd.,
       4th Floor, Coffee Board Building
       Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru-560 001
       Rep. by its Managing Director
                                 2



3.   Executive Engineer
     Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd.,
     Hipparagi Project, R & P
     Division No.3
     Harugeri-591 220
     Tq. Raibag, Dist-Belagavi

4.   The Special Land Acquisition Officer
     Hipparagi Dam Project
     Athani-591 304
     Dist- Belagavi

5.   The Special Deputy Commissioner
     Land Acquisition
     Rehabilitation & Resettlement
     Major Irrigation Projects
     Belagavi-591 101

6.   The Land Tribunal Athani
     Athani-591 304
     Dist. Belagavi
     Rep. by its Chairman

7.   Shri Ganapati Panchayatan
     Samasthan Trust
     Sangli-416 416
     Dist. Sangli
     Maharashtra State
     Rep. by its Managing Trustee
     Sri. Vijaysingh Madhavrao
     Patawardhan
                                            ... Respondents

[By Sri.Umesh C.Ainapura, Advocate for R2 & R3
    Sri.Shreevatsa S.Hegde, Advocate for R7
    Smt.V.Vidyavati, AAG for Vinayak S. Kulkarni
      AGA for R1, R4, R5 & R6]


     This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the award passed by the
Respondent No.4, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hipparagi
                                  3



Dam Project in respect of lands situated at Kusnal Village of
Athani Taluka District Belagavi in award bearing No.LAQ:SR-
70/15-16, Dated: 03.02.2018 proclaimed on 05.02.2018 in
respect of Sy. No.127 (Part) measuring 16 Acres 24 Guntas out
of 30 Acre 14 Guntas produced as per Annexure-A, award
bearing No.LAQ:SR-70/15-16, Dated: 08.02.2018 proclaimed on
09.02.2018 in respect of Sy.No.128 measuring 34 Acres           37
Guntas produced as per Annexure-B, award bearing No.LAQ:SR-
70/15-16, Dated: 14.02.2018 proclaimed on 16.02.2018 in
respect of Sy. No.129 measuring 35 Acres 14 Guntas produced
as per Annexure-C and etc.


        This writ petition, having been heard and reserved for
orders on 24/11/2022, coming on for pronouncement of orders,
this day, the Court made the following:

                               ORDER

1. In this writ petition, acquisition of 86 acres 35 guntas of

land situated at Kusanal Village and Ugar Khurd Village of

Belagavi District is questioned by the petitioner - Company.

2. Petitioner, a public limited company, contends that it is

the tenant of these lands and they were inducted as tenants

under registered Lease Deeds dated 04.09.1951 and

16.02.1972. They also contend that they have made an

application seeking for conferment of occupancy rights as

provided under the Land Reforms Act and the same is

pending adjudication before the Land Tribunal.

3. A notification under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short,

hereinafter referred to as "the 2013 Act") was issued on

31.05.2016 proposing to acquire a total of 86 acres 35 guntas

of land comprised in Sy.No.127/P1 (measuring 16 acres 24

guntas), Sy.No.128 (measuring 34 acres 37 guntas) and

Sy.No.129 (measuring 35 acres 14 guntas) for the purpose of

establishment of a Rehabilitation Centre at Kusanal Village as

a result of execution of Hippargi Dam Project. This notification

was also published in the Gazette on 09.06.2016 vide

Annexure-D.

4. On publication of Section 11(1) notification, the

authorities served notices on the owner Sri Ganapati Maharaj

Sangli, who did not object to the acquisition for the purpose

of establishment of a Rehabilitation Centre at Kusanal Village

as a result of execution of Hippargi Dam Project.

5. It is not in dispute that notices were not served on the

petitioner calling upon it to submit objections, if any, to the

proposed acquisition.

6. It is stated that a report was submitted to the State

Government and the State Government, on consideration of

the said report took a decision to acquire the land on

19.10.2016 and consequentially to issue a declaration.

Consequently, a declaration under Section 19(1) of 2013 Act

was issued in March, 2017 (date not mentioned) and was also

published in the Gazette on 06.04.2017 vide Annexure-E.

7. Thereafter, it appears that notices were issued to the

land owner and three separate awards were passed i.e., in

respect of land bearing Sy.No.127/P1 measuring 16 acres 24

guntas on 03.02.2018 vide Annexure-A, in respect of

Sy.No.128 measuring 34 acres 37 guntas on 08.02.2018 vide

Annexure-B and in respect of Sy.No.129 measuring 35 acres

14 guntas on 14.02.2018 vide Annexure-C.

8. It is also stated that pursuant to the aforesaid awards,

the State has also paid compensation of about Rs.12.83

crores to the land owner.

9. It is the contention of the petitioner that it was

incumbent upon the State to notify it about the acquisition

since it was the person who was actually affected by the

acquisition. It is contended that the Sugar Factory being run

by the petitioner was heavily dependent on the sugar cane

that was grown in 86 acres 35 guntas of land and if these

lands are acquired, they would suffer a huge loss. It is also

contended that the question of petitioner's entitlement to be

conferred with occupancy rights was pending adjudication

before the Land Tribunal and in this view of the matter, it was

completely wrong on the part of the State to have paid

compensation to the owner in respect of subject lands, which

were in possession of the petitioner and in respect of which

its claim for being conferred with occupancy rights was

pending adjudication before the Land Tribunal.

10. It is also specifically contended by the petitioner that in

the RTC, the name of the petitioner is entered in the

cultivator's column and therefore, the State could have no

excuse for not notifying the petitioner.

11. It is stated that since the State was aware about the

proceedings pending before the Land Tribunal, the petitioner

ought to have been notified about the acquisition.

12. It is also contended that the petitioner had in fact filed

a declaration under Section 66 of the Land Reforms Act and

that was also pending consideration.

13. It is submitted that since the entire process of

acquisition including the payment of compensation had been

undertaken behind the back of the petitioner and without

notice to it, the same were liable to be struck down.

14. The State, on the other hand, contends that it was not

necessary for the petitioner to be notified since it was not the

owner of the subject lands. The State also contends that the

land owner was notified and since there were no objections

raised by the land owner, a recommendation was made to

acquire the lands and this recommendation has been

accepted and a declaration has been issued.

15. It is submitted that since the petitioner's claim for

tenancy is yet to be adjudicated upon, the petitioner would

not possess any right to object to the acquisition.

16. It is contended that the owner had filed an affidavit

regarding his title at the time of receiving compensation and

he had also sought for reference to the Civil Court under

Section 64 of the 2013 Act and in the light of these facts, the

prayer of the petitioner was untenable.

17. It is contended that the Land Acquisition Officer was

only required to consider the name that was reflected in the

owner's column for the purpose of notifying and calling for

objections, notice was issued only to the owner about the

proposed acquisition and also regarding payment of

compensation.

18. On behalf of the owner, it is contended that the

petitioner had no locus standi to question acquisition since

the Lease Agreements indicate that the petitioner had no

right to the benefits arising out of the improvements of the

land. It is also contended that the Lease Agreements had

come to an end in March, 1990 itself and therefore, the

petitioner had no right over the subject lands on the basis of

Lease Agreements.

19. It is contended that the petitioner cannot take

advantage of the application that he has filed under the Land

Reforms Act, since the provisions of the said Act are meant

only to protect the interest of individual tenants and not the

interest of a Company such as petitioner.

20. Learned Additional Advocate General and the counsel

appearing for the land owner contended that it is settled law

that notice to the affected parties has been held to be only

directory and not mandatory and there were a long line of

decisions to support the said proposition.

21. Having heard the learned counsel for both parties, the

points that arise for consideration in this petition are :

i) Whether it is mandatory for the State to

notify all the persons interested in the land?

ii) And consequentially, whether the tenant of

the land is also required to be notified for the

purpose of enabling him to file objections to the

acquisition?

22. In order answer the above issues, a brief overview of

the provisions of 2013 Act would be necessary.

23. The 2013 Act replaced the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

(for short, "the 1894 Act") and the objective of this Act is to

ensure that a humane, participative, informed and

transparent process for land acquisition is enacted so as to

ensure there is least possible disturbance to the owners of

the land and other affected families. It also seeks to provide

just and fair compensation to the affected families and make

adequate provisions for their rehabilitation and resettlement.

The ultimate objective is to ensure that cumulative outcome

of a compulsory acquisition should be to ensure that the

affected persons become partners in the development leading

to their improvement post acquisition, both socially and

economically.

24. Unlike, the 1894 Act, the 2013 Act takes into

consideration not merely the acquisition, but also seeks to

ensure that the social impact of the acquisition is considered,

appraised and there is an actual rehabilitation and

resettlement built into the entire process of acquisition. This

is obviously to ensure that minimum damage is caused to the

life of people who are losing their land and a real effort is

made to ensure that persons who lose their land would

actually be benefited from the acquisition and the acquisition

would result in upliftment of their status, both socially and

economically.

25. It is for this purpose that even before the Government

decides to notify the land for acquisition, it is made

mandatory for the State to consult the local self Government

in the affected area and carry out a social impact assessment.

The manner and the date from which the assessment is to be

done is required to be stated by issuance of a notification and

the same is also required to be made known to all concerned

by publishing them in the local offices and also in the affected

areas. In fact, the entire community is required to be put on

notice of the impact that the acquisition would have on the

local populace, thereby indicating that the process of

acquisition is not confined only to the land losers, but also

contemplates taking the views of the entire local populace.

26. The Social Impact Assessment study is, in fact, required

to assess whether the proposed acquisition serves a public

purpose, estimate the total number of families which are

likely to be displaced, the extent of lands both public and

private and common properties likely to be affected by the

proposed acquisition. In fact, the study is required to

specifically consider whether the extent of land proposed is

the bare minimum required for the project and more

importantly whether the feasibility of land acquisition of an

alternate place has been considered. The State is, in fact,

obliged to consider the effect that the proposed acquisition is

likely to have on the entire eco system of the community and

also require the authority conducting the study to also

prepare a Social Impact Management plan listing out the

ameliorative measures that would have to be taken to

mitigate the effects of the acquisition.

27. The law also mandates that a public hearing about the

social impact is also conducted and thereafter, the Social

Impact Assessment study is also published. The Social Impact

Assessment report, which is published, is thereafter required

to be appraised by a body of nine people comprising of non

official social scientists, representative of the local bodies,

experts on rehabilitation and a technical expert in the subject

relating to the project.

28. This expert group is required to submit its

recommendation within two months to the State and if the

expert group makes a recommendation in writing that the

project did not serve any public purpose and the potential

benefits outweigh the social costs and adverse social impacts,

the project is required to be abandoned forthwith. The State

is, however, empowered to proceed with the acquisition, but

only after it has recorded its reasons in writing.

29. The expert group is also entitled to form an opinion that

the project sub-serves a public purpose and its benefits

outweigh the social costs, in which event, it is required to

make a recommendation in writing the absolute bare

minimum extent that would be needed for acquisition and

that there are no other less displacing options available. This

recommendation of the expert group, whether it is for

abandoning the project or for going ahead with the project, is

also required to be published and made known to all

concerned.

30. In essence, the fundamental question as to whether the

land acquisition serves a public purpose is sought to be

ascertained from the very public of the affected area by their

involvement and the requirement is actually analyzed by an

expert group and who are thereafter required to make a

recommendation either for or against the acquisition. In

short, the public purpose is to be examined through the eyes

of the public themselves rather than by the appropriate

Government.

31. It is to be noticed here that the objective of the Social

Impact Assessment is to ensure that entire community is

informed of the consequences of the acquisition and to get

them involved in the entire process. This is obviously keeping

in mind the objective of the law, which is to ensure that the

affected people are active participants even before the

process of acquisition process is to commence.

32. The appropriate Government is thereafter required to

examine the proposals for land acquisition and consider the

recommendation of the experts and ensure the acquisition of

only such areas which would cause minimum displacement of

people and minimum disturbance to infrastructure and

ecology and then take a decision.

33. It is also to be noticed that Chapter III of the Act

creates a special provision to safeguard food security, which

mandates that no irrigated multi-cropped land should be

acquired under the Act, except where such land is required

under exceptional circumstances and it is demonstrable that

the lands are required as a last resort. Even in such cases,

the maximum land that can be acquired should not exceed

the limits which are notified by the State. Thus, there is a

general bar for acquiring irrigated multi-cropped land and it

can be acquired only under exceptional circumstances.

34. In fact, even if irrigated multi-cropped lands are

acquired, an equivalent area of cultivable waste land is

required to be developed for agricultural purposes or the

amount equivalent to the value of the land acquired is

required to be deposited with the appropriate Government for

investment in agriculture for enhancing food security.

35. Thus, on a conjoint reading of the provisions of Chapter

II and III of the Act, the State is required to take a decision

for acquiring lands only after an elaborate study involving all

the consequences of acquisition are taken into consideration

and only then, a preliminary notification under Section 11 of

2013 Act can be published.

36. The State of Karnataka has amended the 2013 Act and

inserted Chapter III-A providing for exemption of the

application of Chapter II and III of the Act in respect of five

categories of projects. Even in respect of these projects, the

State is mandated to ensure that the extent of land proposed

for acquisition is kept to a minimum.

37. It is only after these elaborate measures are adhered

to, the 2013 Act enables the issuance of a preliminary

notification detailing the lands that are required to be

acquired for a public purpose. In fact, on the publication of

the preliminary notification, it is a necessity that the local self

Government be informed of the notification by calling for a

meeting specially convened for that purpose. It is also a

requirement that the notification should also contain a

statement on the nature of the public purpose and also state

the reasons necessitating the displacement of affected

persons and also contain a summary of the Social Impact

Assessment report.

38. Thus, the scheme of the 2013 Act is that an elaborate

study is required to be conducted about the Social Impact of

the proposed acquisition by involving all the persons and

entities in the affected areas and thereafter, ensure that the

Social Impact Assessment report prepared is appraised by an

expert group and thereafter, the proposal for acquisition is

examined by the Government before a decision is taken to

initiate proceedings for acquisition. This statutory framework

indicates that not only the persons affected, but also the local

self Government is required to be actively involved in the

consultative process before the actual proceedings for

acquiring the land are initiated.

39. Viewed from this angle, it is possible to construct an

argument that individual notices would not be necessary as

the entire affected area is aware of the proposed acquisition.

However, it is to be borne in mind that the process of

consultation in relation to the social impact would only

ultimately lead to the submission of a recommendation to the

State Government.

40. It is quite possible that the report which is published

may or may not recommend acquisition. The decision to

either accept the report as it is submitted or to accept it with

some modification, ultimately lies with the State Government

and based on the decision of the Government, a notification

would be issued. It is, therefore, obvious that the original

extent of land shown may or may not be the subject matter

of notification. If certain lands are left out, those set of land

owners would not be affected by the notification. However, if

certain set of land owners who had participated in the Social

Impact Assessment hearing and had made their submissions

regarding the effect of acquisition, would definitely be

affected, if their contentions were incorrectly considered or

not at all considered by the State Government. If the matter

is viewed from this angle, it would still be necessary to notify

all those persons affected by the acquisition by notifying them

and hearing them. If the ultimate objective of the Act is to

ensure that the acquisition is made as painless as possible, it

is inherent requirement of the Act that every person affected

by acquisition is given an opportunity of being heard.

41. However, in this case, the preliminary investigation of

the Social Impact was not undertaken and no public hearing

was conducted. The notification states that in cases where an

Environment Impact Assessment had been conducted under

another law, there would be no requirement for conducting a

Social Impact Assessment under Section 6(2) of the 2013

Act. The notification also states that the construction of the

Hippargi Dam Project had been started in 1973 prior to the

Environment Impact Assessment notification of the year 1994

and as per the Apex Court's judgment dated 18.03.2004, no

ex-post facto environmental clearance was necessary. As a

consequence, the proposed acquisition could not have been

within the knowledge of all the persons in the affected area.

42. If a person affected by the acquisition were to contend

that the land proposed for acquisition was not for an irrigation

project or that the land was an irrigated multi-cropped land

and hence could not be acquired, obviously, the opportunity

to object prior to the issuance of the preliminary notification

as contemplated under the provisions of Chapter II and III of

the Act was unavailable.

43. There is yet another statutory requirement which

indicates that personal notice to the persons interested calling

upon them to file objections, if any, to the proposed

acquisition are required. Section 11(4) of the 2013 Act11

injuncts any person from making any transaction or causing

any transaction of the land or from creating any encumbrance

on the land from the date of publication of notification. In

order to ensure that this injunction is complied with, it goes

without saying that this specific prohibition indicated in the

statute would have to be conveyed to the person who has an

interest in the land.

44. It is to be borne in mind that under the 1894 Act, there

was no such provision which injuncted the notified person to

restrain himself from creating any encumbrance. Since the

2013 Act imposes a specific prohibition to create any kind of

transaction in respect of the notified lands, it is quite obvious

that the person who is likely to make that transaction is

Section 11(4) of the 2013 Act is extracted at the end of the judgment at page No.35

necessarily required to be notified about the bar that the law

has created for creating any transaction. It is for this reason,

that it becomes imperative that the person who has an

interest in the land and who may make a transaction is

required to be notified. If the persons interested are notified

about the bar for creating any transaction, the probable

objection that they were unaware of the notification would

not be available and this would also ensure that innocent

persons are not subjected to any hardship.

45. Section 15 of the 2013 Act22states that any person

interested in any land which has been notified for acquisition

may object to the area and suitability of the land proposed to

be acquired, the justification offered for public purpose and

the findings of the social impact assessment report. Thus, the

right to object on the ground of the area, the suitability, the

justification for the public purpose and the findings of the

Social Impact Assessment report is specifically conferred on

any person interested in the land.

Section 15 of the 2013 Act is extracted at the end of the judgment at page No.35

46. The term "person interested" is defined under Section 3

(x) of the 2013 Act and reads as follows:

"(x) "Person interested" means:-

(i) all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under this Act;

(ii) the Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers, who have lost any forest rights recognised under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (2 of 2007).

(iii) a person interested in an easement affecting the land;

(iv) persons having tenancy rights under the relevant State laws including sharecroppers by whatever name they may be called; and

(v) any person whose primary source of livelihood is likely to be adversely affected."

47. As could be seen from the above definition, every

person who claims an interest in compensation to be made on

account of acquisition of land is a person interested.

Similarly, a person interested in an easement affecting the

land is also considered as a person interested. Even persons

who have tenancy rights under the relevant State laws

including share croppers are considered as person interested.

Lastly, it is stated that any person whose primary source of

livelihood is likely to be adversely affected is also considered

as a person affected.

48. Thus, in view of the fact that the expression "person

interested" is used in Section 15 of the 2013 Act, it is quite

obvious that all the above mentioned category of persons

would have a statutory right to object to the acquisition on

the grounds indicated in Section 15 of the Act.

49. It is to be noticed here that even the findings of the

Social Impact Assessment report can be objected to by the

person interested. This indicates that even if the expert group

had recommended the acquisition, the person interested

could still assail the findings of the report in the proceeding

under Section 15 of the Act. The fact that the area and the

suitability of the land and also the justification given as public

purpose can be objected by the person interested also

indicates that the objections to the acquisition cannot be

confined only to the land owner.

50. In the instant case, the petitioner was claiming to be

the tenant and also claimed that his application for

conferment of occupancy rights was still pending adjudication

and would thus fall within the meaning of the expression

"person interested". It is obvious that the petitioner could

raise objection that the land was an irrigated multi-cropped

land and could not thus be acquired and it could also raise

objections regarding the suitability of acquiring fertile land for

the purpose of rehabilitating displaced families. It is,

therefore, clear that the petitioner, who would come within

the definition of "person interested" had a right to object to

the acquisition and would, therefore, have to be notified.

51. In this regard, the Rules framed under the 2013 Act are

also required to be examined to have a complete

understanding of the requirement of notifying the persons

interested in the notified lands.

52. Section 109 of the 2013 Act enables the appropriate

Government to make Rules for carrying out the provisions of

the Act.

53. Sections 110 and 111 of the 2013 Act mandate that the

Central Government and the State Government place the

Rules that they have framed before the Parliament or before

the State Legislature, as the case may be.

54. Section 112 of the 2013 Act mandates that the Rules

can be made only after previous publications have been

made.

55. The State Government has framed the Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Karnataka) Rules, 2015 (for

short, hereinafter referred to as "the Karnataka Rules") by its

notification dated 17.10.2015.

56. Two months thereafter, the Central Government has

also framed the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency

in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement

(Compensation, Rehabilitation and Resettlement and

Development Plan) Rules, 2015 on 18.12.2015.

57. The State Government has also amended the 2013 Act

by Karnataka Act No.16/2019. By this amendment, two new

Chapters namely Chapter III-A and IV-A were inserted and

certain sections namely Sections 2, 24, 46, 101 and 109 were

amended and Section 87 was substituted. According to the

statement of objects and reasons, the purpose of this

amendment was to remove the difficulties that the State was

facing in acquiring the lands and to facilitate land acquisition

for various developmental projects. Under this amendment, a

provision is also made to amend the Rules to give effect to

the amendment of the Act by the State.

58. Thus, there are two set of Rules in existence to ensure

that the purposes of the Act are carried out. Since the

"appropriate Government" is defined to mean the

Government in relation to acquisition of land situated within

the territory of a State i.e., the State Government, it is the

Karnataka Rules that would apply to the State and the

Central Rules would apply only in relation to the acquisition of

land situated within the Union territory and in relation to

acquisition of land in which the lands are situated in more

than one State or in relation to the lands which are acquired

for the purpose of Union as may be specified by way of a

notification.

59. The Karnataka Rules, in relation to the notification, is

enumerated under Rule 2033. The said Rule merely states that

the preliminary notification is required to be published in the

Rule 20 of the Karnataka Rules is extracted at the end of the judgment at page Nos.35 & 36

affected areas by way of affixing a written notice to the effect

on the Grama Panchayat office and office of the Village

Accountant. The Rule states that thereafter, the Deputy

Commissioner is required to undertake and complete the

exercise of updating the land records within a period of two

months. The Rule also states that the authorised officer

should conduct a preliminary survey of the lands proposed for

acquisition and he would have all such powers that are

necessary to carry out the survey.

60. The Rule lastly states that the Deputy Commissioner is

required to hear objections and make an enquiry as provided

under Section 15(2) of the 2013 Act and thereafter, submit

his report along with his recommendation to the State

Government. Thus, the Rule does not specifically state that

the persons affected by acquisition would have to be notified

personally.

61. However, the Central Government Rules which were

published two months thereafter in December, 2015, provides

for a completely different approach. Chapter III of the said

Rules provide for matters related to preliminary notification,

rehabilitation and resettlement scheme.

62. It categorically states that the preliminary notification

referred to in Section 11 should be published in Form II. Form

II indicates that the details of requirement under Section

11(1) of 2013 Act are specifically stated and more

importantly, it is required to specifically indicate the name

and address of the persons interested. The tabular column

indicated, which is part of Form II, as under:

Sl. No.   Survey    Type of   Type    Area          Name                     Boundaries
          No.       title     of      under         and
                              land    acquisition   address
                                      (in           of person     N.         S.         E.     W.
                                      hectare)      interested

                Trees                                                        Structures

    Variety             Number                                         Types            Plinth Area

63. As could be seen from the said tabular column, it is

necessary that the name and address of the persons

interested is required to be stated in Form II. Form II also

stipulates that no person is permitted to make any

transaction as provided under Section 11(4) of the 2013 Act

and objections, if any, should be filed within 60 days.

64. As already stated above, the expression "person

interested" has been defined under Section 3(x) of the 2013

Act and the petitioner comes within the meaning of the said

definition and will, therefore, have to be construed as a

person interested. It is, therefore, clear that Form II which is

to be published is not confined only to the land owner, but is

also in respect of persons who were interested in the land.

65. It may be pertinent to state here that the Land

Acquisition Officer, in the instant case, has actually served a

notice in the prescribed Form No. II to the land owner as

evidenced by Annexures-X, X-1 and X-2. The fact that the

Special Land Acquisition Officer adopted Form No.II

prescribed under the Central Rules by itself proves that he

also considered the requirement of notifying the persons

interested was necessary.

66. If Section 11(4) of 2013 Act seeks to injunct all the

persons who are interested in land from creating any

transaction, it logically follows that all the interested persons

would have to be notified. It is for this purpose that Form II

mandates that the name and address of all the persons

interested are to be mentioned in the notification. If the name

and address of the persons interested are not completely

indicated, they would not be in a position to object to the

acquisition and they would also not be bound by the

injunction that Section 11(4) seeks to create. It is, therefore,

clear that the Rules as framed by the Central Government

would satisfy the requirement of Section 11(1) of 2013 Act

and since the State Rules are silent about notifying the

interested persons, in order to achieve the objects of the

2013 Act, it would be necessary and mandatory for the State

to notify all persons interested in the lands proposed for

acquisition.

67. As already stated above, the State has in fact issued

notices as specified in the above mentioned Form II to the

land owner, thereby, indicating that it was indeed following

the Central Rules.

68. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the

petitioner is claiming to be a tenant as defined under the

Land Reforms Act and that its application for being conferred

with occupancy rights was pending consideration before the

Land Tribunal. It is also not in dispute that the name of the

petitioner is reflected in the cultivator's column of the RTC,

thereby indicating that they are cultivating the land and it,

therefore, has an interest in the land. Despite these two

glaring factors, the State has proceeded to notify only the

land owner as if he was the only person interested in the

land. It is to be borne in mind that the petitioner claims to be

a tenant under two registered Lease Deeds which date back

to 1951 and 1972 and it is, therefore, obvious that the

petitioner does have a subsisting interest in the lands in

question.

69. It is to be stated here that the decisions relied upon by

the learned Additional Advocate General as well as counsel

appearing for the land owner relating to service of notice on

persons interested all relate to acquisitions made under the

1894 Act, which did not contain a provision injuncting the

owner or any person interested from creating any

transaction. In this view of the matter, the proposition of law

laid down in those decisions can only be made applicable to

the acquisitions under the 1894 Act and cannot be made

applicable to the acquisition under the 2013 Act.

70. An argument was also sought to be advanced that a

tenant of a notified land has no right to question the

acquisition since his interest in the land has a limited tenure

and could always be determined by the owner. It was

contended that in respect of buildings, a tenant could only

have the right to claim a refund of a deposit and cannot claim

to be in possession indefinitely and there was no legal right

inhered in a tenant to oppose the land acquisition.

71. As stated above, Section 15 of the 2013 Act confers a

right to persons interested to object to the acquisition on the

area and suitability of the land, the justification offered and

also to assail the findings of the Social Impact Assessment

report. The definition of the term "person interested" brings

within its purview a person having tenancy rights and also a

person whose primary source of livelihood is likely to be

adversely affected by the proposed acquisition and thus,

these categories of persons are also clothed with the right to

object to the acquisition. The fact that the definition

considered any person whose primary source of livelihood is

likely to be adversely affected would be a person interested

obviously means that every person who is mainly dependent

on the land sought to be acquired is entitled statutorily to

object to the acquisition.

72. It is also to be kept in mind that when the 2013 Act

fundamentally changes the very process of compulsory

acquisition and seeks to involve everyone affected including

the local self Government to participate and give their inputs

regarding the proposed acquisition, even before a decision is

taken to initiate acquisition, it would be illogical and unnatural

to exclude a tenant of a land who would also be dependent on

the land to object to the acquisition.

73. The State, by not notifying the petitioner, who was a

person interested in the land, has committed a serious

illegality. The State, by notifying only the land owner, has

basically deprived the petitioner of raising objections to the

acquisition. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is

utilizing the entire 86 acres 35 guntas of land for the purpose

of raising a sugarcane crop for manufacturing sugar in its

Sugar Factory, in my considered view, it is clear that the

petitioner ought to have been heard before issuance of the

declaration. Since the petitioner has not been heard, the

acquisition proceedings and the declaration are vitiated and

the same will have to be quashed.

74. Thus, the points framed above are answered holding

that it is mandatory for the State to notify all the persons

interested in the land (as defined under Section 3(x) of the

2013 Act) including the tenant of the land and hear their

objections before taking a decision to issue a final

declaration.

75. In the result, the writ petition is allowed.

76. The declaration issued in March, 2017 published on

06.04.2017 vide Annexure-E is quashed. Consequently, the

three awards passed i.e., in respect of land bearing

Sy.No.127/P1 measuring 16 acres 24 guntas on 03.02.2018

vide Annexure-A, in respect of Sy.No.128 measuring 34 acres

37 guntas on 08.02.2018 vide Annexure-B and in respect of

Sy.No.129 measuring 35 acres 14 guntas on 14.02.2018 vide

Annexure-C are also quashed.

77. Petitioner is permitted to file objections to the

preliminary notification within 60 days from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order and the authorized officer shall

consider the same and proceed in accordance with law.

sd JUDGE

PKS

11.Publication of preliminary notification and power of officers thereupon._(1).....(2)...(3)... (4)No person shall make any transaction or cause any transaction of land specified in the preliminary notification or create any encumbrances on such land from the date of publication of such notification till such time as the proceedings under this Chapter are completed:

Provided that the Collector may, on the application made by the owner of the land so notified, exempt in special circumstances to be recorded in writing, such owner from the operation of this sub- section:

Provided further that any loss or injury suffered by any person due to his wilful violation of this provision shall not be made up by the Collector.

15. Hearing of objections.- (1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under sub- section (1) of Section 11, as being required or likely to be required for a public purpose, may within sixty days from the date of the publication of the preliminary notification, object to:-

(a) the area and suitability of land proposed to be acquired;

(b) justification offered for public purpose;

(c) the findings of the Social Impact Assessment report.

(2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by any person authorised by him in this behalf or by an Advocate and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under sub-section (1) of Section 11, or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the appropriate Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him along with a separate report giving therein the approximate cost of land acquisition, particulars as to the number of affected families likely to be resettled, for the decision of that Government.

(3) The decision of the appropriate Government on the objections made under sub- section (2) shall be final.

20 Notification: (1) The Preliminary Notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 11 shall be published in the affected areas by way of affixing written notice to the effect on the Grama Panchayath office and office of the Village Accountant.

(2) After issuing the notice under sub-section (1) of Section 11, the Deputy Commissioner shall undertake and complete the exercise of updating land records within a period of two months as specified hereunder:-

(a)       Delete the name of dead persons
(b)       Enter the names of legal heirs of the deceased persons;
(c)       Take effect of the registered transactions of the rights in lands;
(d)       Update all entries of the mortgage in the land records;
(e)       Make necessary entries in respect of all prevalent forest laws;





(f)       Make necessary entries in respect of assets like well, tree;
(g)       Make necessary entries of crops grown and their area;
(h)       Make entries in case of Government land;
(i)       Any other updating that is required.
(3)       The authorized Officer shall conduct preliminary survey of the land proposed for acquisition

and shall have all powers to carry out such survey in accordance with provisions of the Act. (4) The Deputy Commissioner or the Authorized Officer shall after hearing objections and making enquiry as provided under Section 15(2) of the Act, shall submit his report along with his recommendations to State Government whose decision will be final.

(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE