IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NOs. 2464-2465 OF 2015 (LA-RES) BETWEEN:
H. BASAVARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, SON OF LATE. BASAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 1a. DAKSHYANAMMA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS WIFE OF LATE H.BASAVARAJAPPA.
1b. H.GANGADHAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS SON OF LATE. H.BASAVARAJAPPA.
1c. H.SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS SON OF LATE. H.BASAVARAJAPPA.
1d. H.MADHUMATHI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE H.BASAVARAJAPPA ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF NYAMTI VILLAGE, BALAGUTTI HOBLI HONNALLI TALUK,DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 583 131.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VINAYA KEERTHY. M, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS VIKASA SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIKASA SOUDHA VIDHANA VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE - 583 131.
4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE - 583 131.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. R. ANITHA HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.47353 OF 2014 DATED 29/06/2015.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Respondent No.3 issued a Preliminary Notification dated 1.1.2013 and a Final Notification dated 16.7.2014 seeking to acquire lands of the appellant for the purpose of construction of Police Quarters. Questioning the said acquisition, instant writ petitions were filed.
2. The contention before the learned Single Judge was that the construction of the Police Quarters is against public policy. The construction of the Police Quarters is unnecessary and therefore, public funds are being wasted, and alternate land is also available. However, none of these contentions found merit with the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the contentions put-forth cannot be accepted. Hence, the petition was dismissed.
3. On hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any error committed by the learned Single Judge. The reason put-forth by the petitioner that acquisition is against public policy cannot be accepted by the court. It is for the Government to decide with regard to the public policy, and construction of Police Quarters cannot be said to be against public interest. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that unnecessarily public funds are being wasted on construction of the Police Quarters cannot be accepted. The further contention that alternate land is available and therefore that should be used rather than the land of the petitioner is also a decision taken by the State. Until and unless mala fides are alleged against the State, such contention cannot be accepted. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge being just and appropriate do not call for any interference.
4. Hence, we find no good grounds to interfere with the well considered order of the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the appeals being devoid of merit are dismissed. However, dismissal of the appeals would not in any way come in the way of the appellant seeking appropriate compensation from the respondents.
In the circumstances, considering I.A.1 of 2015 for condonation of delay in filing the appeals would become futile.
SD/- SD/-
JUDGE JUDGE nv