Karnataka High Court
Rajshekhar S/O Channaveerappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16310
WP No. 105860 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT PETITION NO.105860 OF 2024 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. RAJSHEKHAR S/O. CHANNAVEERAPPA KARADAKATTE,
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: 261/1, BASAVESHWAR NAGAR
SHAHAOUR PETE, NEAR TOTAGANTI HOSPITAL,
GADAG - 582 101.
2. RAJKUMAR S/O CHANNAVEERAPPA KARADAKATTE,
AGE:-61 YEARS, OCC:- AGRICULTURE,
R/O:- 261/1. BASAVESHWAR NAGAR SHAHAOUR PETE,
NEAR TOTAGANTI HOSPITAL, GADAG - 582 101.
3. NEELAVVA W/O MALLAPPA KALE,
AGE:-61 YEARS, OCC:- HOUSEHOLD,
R/O:- 261/1. BASAVESHWAR NAGAR SHAHAOUR PETE,
NEAR TOTAGANTI HOSPITAL, GADAG - 582 101.
4. GANGAVVA W/O. RAMACHANDRAPPA KHAMITKAR,
Digitally signed
by SAROJA
HANGARAKI
AGE:-50 YEARS, OCC:- HOUSEHOLD,
Location: High R/O:- 261/1. BASAVESHWAR NAGAR SHAHAOUR PETE,
Court of
Karnataka NEAR TOTAGANTI HOSPITAL, GADAG - 582 101.
5. MADHUMATI D/O. CHANNAVEERAPPA KARADAKATTE,
AGE:-66 YEARS, OCC:- HOUSEHOLD,
R/O:- 261/1. BASAVESHWAR NAGAR SHAHAOUR PETE,
NEAR TOTAGANTI HOSPITAL, GADAG - 582 101.
6. SHAMBU @ SHAMBULINGAPPA
S/O. VEERAPPA KARAKATTI,
AGE:- 55 YEARS, OCC:- AGRICULTURE,
R/O:- 197/29, SIDDALINGA NAGAR MAIN
BUS STOP, GADAG - 582 101.
7. AMRUTH S/O. SHANKARSA PATTAN,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16310
WP No. 105860 of 2024
AGE:- 23 YEARS, OCC: - STUDENT,
R/O:- K H B COLONY, ARVIND NAGAR,
VTC HUBLI, PO: Old HUBLI,
DIST: DHARWAD - 580 024.
8. GAJANAN S/O ARVIND BAKALE,
AGE:- 27 YEARS, OCC:- STUDENT,
R/O:- BANKERS COLONY, GADAG-582101.
9. DEVENDRASA S/O PARASHURAMSA HABIB,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE JOB,
R/O: TEGGINAPETE, KABADI ROAD,
BETAGERI GADAG - 582 102.
10. GANESH S/O. VISHWANATHSA SHIDLING,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: STATION ROAD, VASTRA FORUM,
OPP OLD KAMATH HOTEL, GADAG - 582 102.
11. VANDANA W/O. GANESH SHIDLING,
Age:44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: Station ROAD Vastra FORUM,
OPP KAMATH HOTEL, Gadag - 582 102.
12. SHRIKANTH S/O NARAYANASA LADWA,
AGE:- 55 YEARS, OCC:- AGRICULTURE.
13. VAISHALI W/O SHRIKANTH LADWA,
AGE:- 48 YEARS, OCC:- HOUSE HOLD.
14. PARASHURAMSA S/O SHANKARSA KHATWATE,
AGE:- 39 YEARS, OCC:- AGRICULTURE,
PETITIONER NOS. 12 TO 14 ARE R/O:- TEGGINAPETE,
KABADI ROAD BETAGERI GADAG - 582 102.
15. VINAYAKA S/O. ARUN KHATAWATE,
AGE:- 27 YEARS, OCC:- STUDENT,
R/O:- NEAR BALLARI JIN COMPOUND,
GADAG - 582 101.
16. SAGAR S/O. DONGARASA PAWAR,
AGE:- 40 YEARS, OCC: - AGRICULTURE,
R/O:- #228, KESHAV NAGAR,
HUBBALLI ROAD, GADAG - 582 101.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16310
WP No. 105860 of 2024
17. ANAND S/O. BABASA BHANDAGE,
AGE:- 39 YEARS, OCC:- AGRICULTURE,
R/O:-KILLA ONI, NEAR TRIKUTESHWAR TEMPLE,
GADAG - 582 101.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PRAMOD N. KATHAVI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, SMT. SHIVALEELA AREHUNASI
AND SRI VENKATARAO DESHMUKH, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT (LAND ACQUISITION),
VIDHANASOUDHA, 3RD FLOOR,
BANGALURU - 560 001.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
GADAG - 582 101.
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
OFFICE OF ASST. COMMISSIONER,
GADAG SUB-DIVISION, GADAG - 582 101.
4. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST.
GADAG DIVISION, BINKADAKATTE
GADAG - 582 103.
5. PRINCIPLE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,
ARANYABHAVAN, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWRAM,
BENGALORE - 560 003.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GANGADHAR J.M., ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR
SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 TO R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION
BEARING NO. KAME20AQD2023 DATED 18/11/2023 ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-D. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION IN
SO FAR AS NOTIFICATION U/S 11(1) AND 19(1) OF RECTLARR ACT
2013, BEARING NO. LAQ:CR:26/2023-24 VIDE ANNEXURE-E DATED
18/11/2023 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 2 AND 3 AND NO. KAME
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16310
WP No. 105860 of 2024
20 AQD 2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-J DATED 28/06/2024 ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT NO. 1 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALSO SET ASIDE ALL THE
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THE SAID NOTIFICATIONS,
INSOFAR AS PETITIONERS LANDS ARE CONCERNED AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)
The present writ petition is filed seeking following
relief:
"a. Issue a Writ in the Nature of Certiorari to quash
the notification bearing No. KAME20AQD2023
dated 18/11/2023 issued by Respondent No.1 vide
Annexure-D.
b. Issue a Writ in the Nature of Certiorari to quash
the Gazette Notification in so far as Notification
U/S 11(1) and 19(1) of rectlarr act 2013, bearing
no. LAQ:CR:26/2023-24 vide Annexure-E dated
18/11/2023 issued by Respondent No. 2 and 3 and
No. KAME 20 AQD 2023 vide Annexure-J dated
28/06/2024 issued by Respondent No. 1 and
consequently also set aside all the further
proceedings pursuant the said notifications, insofar
as Petitioners lands are concerned.
c. Issue or pass any such other writ or order Which
deemed fit in the interest of justice and equity."
2. The facts leading to the present writ petition in
a nutshell are that the petitioners are the owners of the
land bearing Sy.No.267/1 to 267/5 situated at Gadag.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16310
Pursuant to the communication dated 15.11.2023 issued
by respondent No.4 to respondent No.2, as also the
communication dated 15.11.2023 issued by respondent
No.3 to respondent No.2 and communication dated
15.11.2023 issued by respondent No.2 to respondent
No.1, respondent No.1 issued a notification dated
18.11.2023 (Annexure-D) exempting the requirement of a
Social Impact Assessment Report1 under the provisions of
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 20132 for
the purpose of acquiring lands of the petitioners for the
expansion and development of the Zoo situated at Gadag.
3. Subsequent to the notification dated
18.11.2023 issued under Section 11(1) of the Act
(Annexure-E), the petitioners filed objection dated
27.12.2023 (Annexure-G), consequent to which,
respondent No.3 issued an endorsement dated 22.01.2024
(Annexure-H) to the petitioners. Thereafter a final
SIA
Hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16310
notification dated 28.06.2024 was issued under Section
19(1) of the Act (Annexure-J). Questioning the same, the
present writ petition is filed.
4. Heard the submissions of learned Senior
Counsel Sri Pramod Katavi appearing along with learned
counsel Sri Arvind D. Kulkarni, Smt. Shivaleela Arehunsi
and Sri Venkatarao Deshmukh learned counsels for the
petitioners and Additional Advocate General Sri Gangadhar
J. M. appearing along with Smt. Kirtilata R. Patil learned
HCGP for official respondents.
5. It is primary contention put forth on behalf of
the petitioners that the official respondents have not
afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as
contemplated under Section 15(2) of the Act. In order to
consider the said contention, it is relevant to notice
Section 15 of the Act which reads as under:
"Section 15 RFTLARR
(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
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16310
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."
6. In support of their submissions, learned senior
counsel appearing for the petitioners places reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Dinesh and Others Etc., vs. State of Madya Pradesh
and Others Etc. The order dated 15.05.2024 passed
in Civil Appeal No(s).6441-6445 of 2024 (Arising out
of SLP(Civil) No(s).28410-28414 of 2023) wherein
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16310
the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the question
as to the nature of hearing required to be afforded under
Section 15(2) of the Act. While considering, the same it
has been held as follows:
13. A bare perusal of Sub-Section (2) of Section 15 of
the Act of 2013 would indicate that the objections
to the land acquisition notification have to be
submitted to the Collector who is mandatorily
required to give the objector an opportunity of
being heard in person or by any person authorized
in his behalf or by an Advocate. After hearing such
objections and making such further inquiry as may
be felt necessary, the Collector is required to make
a report to the appropriate Government with 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 etc. for the decision of that Government.
As per Sub-Section(3) of Section 15 of the Act, the
decision of the appropriate Government on the
objections made under Sub-Section(2) shall be
final.
16. We are afraid that the said interpretation which is
sought to be given by the respondents is ex facie
misplaced and misconceived. The provisions
contained in Section 15 of the Act of 2013 are
analogous to Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894. This Court has interpreted Section 5-A of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in a catena of
decisions. In the case of Om Prakash and
Another v. State of U.P. and Others , it was held
as follows:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16310
"21. ..........Thus, according to the
aforesaid decision of this Court, inquiry under
Section 5-A is not merely statutory but also
has a flavour of fundamental rights under
Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution though
right to property has now no longer remained
a fundamental right, at least observation
regarding Article 14, vis-à-vis, Section 5-A of
the Land Acquisition Act would remain
apposite."
17. In the case of Union of India and Others
v. Mukesh Hans, it was observed:
"35. At this stage, it is relevant to
notice that the limited right given to an
owner/person interested under Section
5-A of the Act to object to the acquisition
proceedings is not an empty formality and is
a substantive right, which can be taken
away for good and valid reason and within
the limitations prescribed under Section
17(4) of the Act. The object and importance
of Section 5-A inquiry was noticed by this
Court in the case of Munshi Singh v. Union
of India [(1973) 2 SCC 337] wherein this
Court held thus :
'7. Section 5-A embodies a
very just and wholesome principle
that a person whose property is
being or is intended to be acquired
should have a proper and
reasonable opportunity of
persuading the authorities
concerned that acquisition of the
property belonging to that person
should not be made. ... The
legislature has, therefore, made
complete provisions for the persons
interested to file objections against
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16310
the proposed acquisition and for
the disposal of their objections. It is
only in cases of urgency that
special powers have been conferred
on the appropriate Government to
dispense with the provisions of
Section 5-A:' "
18. In the case of Hindustan Petroleum
Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai and Others , this
Court has held the right to make objections under Section
5-A to be akin to a fundamental right. The relevant paras
are extracted hereinbelow: -
"6. It is not in dispute that Section 5-A of
the Act confers a valuable right in
favour of a person whose lands are
sought to be acquired.......
9. ........It is also not in dispute that Section
5-A of the Act confers a valuable
important right and having regard to
the provisions contained in Article 300-
A of the Constitution it has been held to
be akin to a fundamental right.
15. Section 5-A of the Act is in two parts.
Upon receipt of objections, the
Collector is required to make such
further enquiry as he may think
necessary whereupon he must submit
a report to the appropriate
Government in respect of the land
which is the subject-matter of
notification under Section 4(1) of the
Act. The said report would also
contain recommendations on the
objections filed by the owner of the
land. He is required to forward the
records of the proceedings held by
him together with the report. On
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16310
receipt of such a report together with
the records of the case, the
Government is to render a decision
thereupon. It is now well settled in
view of a catena of decisions that the
declaration made under Section 6 of
the Act need not contain any reason.
(See Kalumiya Karimmiya v. State of
Gujarat [(1977) 1 SCC 715] and Delhi
Admn. v. Gurdip Singh Uban [(2000)
7 SCC 296]).
29. The Act is an expropriatory legislation.
This Court in State of M.P. v. Vishnu
Prasad Sharma [(1966) 3 SCR 557]
observed that in such a case the
provisions of the statute should be
strictly construed as it deprives a
person of his land without consent.
[See also Khub Chand v. State of
Rajasthan [(1967) 1 SCR 120] and
CCE v. Orient Fabrics (P) Ltd. [(2004)
1 SCC 597]]"
19. This Court has interpreted Section
15(2) of the Act of 2013 in the case of
Shiv Singh and Others v. State of
Himachal Pradesh and Others,
wherein it was held as under:-
"6. Under the scheme of the Act, once
the objections are filed by the
affected landowners, the same are
required to be decided by the
Collector under Section 15(2) of
the Act after affording an
opportunity of being heard to the
landowners, who submitted their
objections and after making
further inquiry, as the Collector
may think necessary, he is
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16310
required to submit his report to
the appropriate Government for
appropriate action in the
acquisition in question.
7. In this case, we find that the Collector
neither gave any opportunity to the
appellants as contemplated under
Section 15(2) of the Act and nor
submitted any report as provided
under Section 15(2) of the Act to the
Government so as to enable the
Government to take appropriate
decision. In other words, we find that
there is non-compliance of Section
15(2) of the Act by the Collector. In
our view, it is mandatory on the
part of the Collector to comply
with the procedure prescribed
under Section 15(2) of the Act so
as to make the acquisition
proceedings legal and in
conformity with the provisions of
the Act."
27. Furthermore, on discussion made above, the
land acquisition notification dated 27th May, 2022 was
issued by the State Government. Hence, neither the
District Collector could act as the appropriate Government
in regard to the acquisition in question nor was he
authorised to delegate the powers to the SDO. As a
matter of fact, considering the scheme of the Act of 2013
and the law as laid down by this Court in the case of Shiv
Singh(supra), the District Collector was simply required to
hold inquiry on the objections filed under Section 15(2) of
the Act and thereafter, to forward the record of
proceedings along with his opinion to the State
Government for its decision. The State Government is
mandated to take a decision on the objections as per
Section 15(3) of the Act. However, these mandatory
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16310
requirements of the statute were not followed in the case,
and hence, the proceedings are hit by non-compliance of
Sections 15(2) and 15(3) of the Act of 2013."
(emphasis supplied)
7. Admittedly in the present case, consequent to
the objections dated 27.12.2023 (Annexure-G) filed by the
petitioners, the official respondents have issued the
endorsement dated 22.01.2024 (Annexure-H). The said
endorsement does not, by any stretch of imagination
satisfy the requirement of hearing as contemplated under
Section 15(2) of the Act as interpreted by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh and others (supra).
8. Having regard to the aforementioned, the relief
sought for by the petitioners is required to be granted and
the process of acquisition is required to stand restored to
the stage of Section 15(2) of the Act.
9. In view of the aforementioned, the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is party allowed;
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16310
ii) The notification dated 28.06.2024
(Annexure-J bearing No.KamE 20 EQD
2023) is hereby quashed;
iii) The petitioners shall appear before
respondent No.3/Competent Authority on
25.11.2024 at 3 p.m;
iv) It shall be open to the petitioners to file
additional objections, in addition to the
objections dated 27.12.2023 already filed
by the petitioners and if such request is
made, respondent No.3/competent
authorities shall consider the same
appropriately;
v) It shall also be open to the petitioners to
question as to whether respondent No.3 is
the Competent Authority for taking further
steps in accordance with the provisions of
the Act;
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16310
vi) Respondent No.3/competent authority shall
afford adequate opportunity to the
petitioners as contemplated under Section
15(2) of the Act as interpreted by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Dinesh and othes(supra);
vii) Consequent to the appearance of the
petitioners, the official respondents shall
conduct further proceedings in accordance
with law;
viii) All contentions of both the parties are left
open;
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
SSP
CT-ASC
