IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION Nos.32204-32205/2014 (LA-RES) BETWEEN:
1. Ramakka W/o. late Paravanna, Aged 70 years, 2. Lakshmidevamma, W/o. Late Ramchandranna, Aged about 39 years, Both are residing at Chattenahalli Village, B.D. Pura post, Korategere Taluk, Tumkur District – 572 121. … Petitioners (By Sri. Manjunath G.Kandekar, Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka Department of Revenue, M.S.Building, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur District, Tumkur – 572 121.
3. The Assistant Commissioner, Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Madhugiri Sub Division, Madhugiri, Koratagere Taluk, Tumkur District – 572 121.
4. Executive Officer, Tumkur Panchayath, Koratagere Taluk, Tumkur District – 572 121.
5. Rajanna S/o. Narasiyappa, Aged 55 years, R/at Chattenahalli Village, Palavanahalli Hobli, Korateger Taluk, Tumkur District – 572 121. … Respondents (By Sri. Dildar Shiralli, HCGP for R1 to R3 Sri. J.N.Naveen, Advocate for Sri. A.Nagarajappa, Advocate for R4 Sri. Kamaraju, Advocate for R5) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash Annexure–A dated 08.02.2013 and Annexure–B dated 18.06.2014 passed in dispute No.LAQ/SR/03/2013-14 and etc., These Petitions Coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER The grievance of the petitioners is against the acquisition of an extent of land i.e., 1 gunta in Sy.No.26/1 and 3 guntas in Sy.No.26/3 and this portion of the land is on the northern margin of the said survey numbers of B.D.Pura, Holavanahalli, Koratagere Taluk.
2. After service of notice, the respondents have entered appearance and filed the Statement of Objections resisting the grant of prayer to the petitioners, taking up various contentions.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the margin of the portion now sought to be taken by the acquisition, there lies a katcha road, which the Google Map reflects and therefore, without exploring the possibility of utilization of the said road, the official respondents could not have straightway gone for initiating the acquisition; this important factor having not been adverted to by the official respondents, there is an apparent non- application of mind and therefore, the acquisition is liable to be set at naught.
5. Per Contra, Sri. Dildar Shiralli, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents submits that there is no katcha road, which the petitioners alleges on the basis of some Google Map; it is only 1 gunta in Sy.No.26/1 and 3 guntas in Sy.No.26/3 of land are being taken, which is too small a portion and therefore, the complaint of the petitioners is not worthy of consideration; he also submits that whether a road is required to be laid or not, where such road needs to be laid and what should be the dimensions of the road are all matters that lie in the executive domain and therefore, the Court should not ordinarily interfere with the same. So submitting, the learned HCGP seeks dismissal of the writ petitions.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP appearing for the official respondents. I have perused the writ papers and also the Statement of Objections filed by the opposing side. An affidavit subsequently filed pursuant to the order of this Court is also looked into.
7. The contention of the petitioners that the acquisition is bad for non-application of mind to a material factor which would, if looked into, have brought about a different result, is not substantiated by the evidentiary material borne out by record. The official respondents in their Statement of Objections and also in their independent affidavit have specifically stated as to what is the state of affairs, which can not be easily doubted in the absence of contra material.
8. As rightly pointed out by the learned HCGP, the State acquires land in exercise of powers of eminent domain and by its very nature, the decision making ordinarily lie’s in the domain of the executive. The opinion formed by the official respondents as to the requirement of the land, the extent of land and such other things ordinarily are not liable to suffer scrutiny at the hands of the writ Court. This Court again reiterates its opinion that it does not usually interfere with the matters that essentially lie in the wisdom of the executive. Courts can not run the race of opinions, with the executive government.
9. Added to the above, the extent of land sought to be acquired is very small; compensation is payable in respect of the said land in accordance with law. The Statement is made on behalf of official respondents that immediately after accomplishment of acquisition process, the compensation would be disbursed to the land owners as per records, without brooking any delay.
10. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions, being devoid of merits, are dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE SMJ/KLV