IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION Nos.9457-9501 OF 2016 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN:
1. SRI GUNDAPPA GOWDA S/O BETTEGOWDA @ RANGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 2. GOPALKRISHNA S/O BETTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 3. RANGASWAMY S/O GUNDAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 4. MANJEGOWDA S/O RANGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 5. RANGAMMA W/O THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 6. B NAGESH S/O BETTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 7. MAVINAKEREGOWDA S/O LATE RANGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 8. RAMACHANDRA S/O LATE GUNDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARAS 9. JAGADISH S/O LATE GUNDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 10. P.RANGEGOWDA S/O PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 11. HANUMANTHEGOWDA S/O DYAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 12. RAMACHANDRA S/O DYAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 13. D.RAMESH S/O DYAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 14. VENKATESH S/O DYAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 15. RANGEGOWDA S/O DYAVEGOWDA 16. G BETTEGOWDA @ ANNAPPA S/O GUNDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS 17. B.LAKSHMAN S/O LATE KARIGOWDA @ BETTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS 18. B. DYAVEGOWDA S/O LATE KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 19. B. KSHETRAPAL S/O LATE KARIGOWDA @ BETTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 20. KAMADHENU FARM REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MANJAMMA W/O.KARIAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
21. BETTAMMA W/O HANUMANTHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS 22. T. GUNDEGOWDA S/O. THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS 23. T. DYAVEGOWDA S/O. THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 24. VENKATESH S/O. LATE. THIMMEGOWDA @ DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 25. KRISHNEGOWDA S/O. HANUMANTHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 26. RAJAMMA W/O LATE. HANUMANTHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 27. NAGESH S/O. HANUMANTHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 28. SANNASWAMI S/O. HANUMANTHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 29. G. PRAKASH S/O. H. GUNDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 30. H. GUNDEGOWDA S/O. HANUMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 31. B. PRABHAKAR S/O. BETTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 32. SAVITHRAMMA W/O. LATE. DYAVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 33. GUNDEGOWDA S/O. JAVAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 34. PUTTARAJU S/O. BETTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48YEARS 35. VENKATARAMEGOWDA S/O BETTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 36. THIMMEGOWDA S/O BETTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 37. RANGEGOWDA S/O BETTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 75 YERS 38. RANGEGOWDA S/O MANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS 39. JAYAMMA W/O M. BETTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 40. B. GNANESHA S/O BETTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 41. HOMBALAMMA W/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA 42. M.V. VASANTHA W/O LATE BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 43. MAVINAKEREGOWDA S/O PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 44. P. RAMEGOWDA S/O PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 45. THIMMEGOWDA S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF BOMMANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573201 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHANMUKHAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, REP BY ITS SECRETARY VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001 2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.3/2, 3RD FLOOR, KENI BUILDING, 1ST CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560009 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KIADB , KRS ROAD, METAGALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA, NEAR VIKRANTH TYRES MYSORE-571112 4. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ZONAL BOARD, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CENTRE, HOLENARASIPURA ROAD, HASSAN-583112 REP BY ITS ZONAL OFFICER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK N NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R3) (BY SRI. DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R1) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION AT ANNEXURE-A ISSUED UNDER SECTION 28(1) OF THE KIAD ACT 1966 AND ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioners who are the holders of small bits of lands as particularized at para 2, page 9 of the Petition are calling in question the acquisition pursuant to the Preliminary Notification dated 29.03.2007 at Annexure-A and the Official Notification dated 15.06.2012 at Annexure-B, inter alia on the ground that their objections have not been duly considered in terms of the judgment dated 13.02.2012 rendered by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in their earlier Writ Petition Nos.37251-37276/2011.
2. After service of notice, the respondent-KIADB having entered appearance through Sri. Ashok N Nayak, learned Senior Panel Counsel has filed the Statement of Objections resisting the Writ Petitions in substance stating that the objections to the acquisition have been duly considered and the impugned endorsements have been issued in terms of the order dated 09.05.2012 at Annexure-H to the Writ Petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that various grounds of objections were taken against the acquisition in question which needed due consideration at the hands of respondent-KIDAB and its SLAO in terms of the mandate of this Court in the judgment referred to above and this mandate has not been complied in its letter and spirit. He banks upon the operative portion of the aforesaid judgment, para 6 whereof, reads as under:
“6. Since this Court finds that the statement of objections filed by the petitioners are not fairly and objectively considered by the 3rd respondent, the objections filed by the petitioners need to be reconsidered by the concerned Land Acquisition Officer. Accordingly, the following order is made:
The Notification issued under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, dated 31.7.2007 stands quashed in so far as it relates to the lands which are mentioned in Paragraph-3 of these writ petitions. The petitioners shall appear before the 3rd respondent- Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, Bangalore, on 12th March 2012 at 3.00 p.m. Sri Girish B. Baladare, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners should intimate the petitioners accordingly. It is open for the petitioners to file additional statement of objections/objections, if any, before the 3rd respondent on or before 12th March 2012. Thereafter, further proceedings from the stage of Section 28(3) of the Act shall proceed in accordance with law.”
4. Per contra, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondent-KIADB vehemently submits that there has been due consideration of the case of the petitioners by the concerned Authority, which is reflected at Annexure-2 to the impugned Order dated 09.05.2012 at Annexure-H to the Writ Petition, in essence. He also reads out the version of the petitioners at Column-4, the version of Hassan KIADB Officials at column-5 and the consideration of these two in the remarks column of Annexure-2 to the impugned order. He also opposes the writ petitions on the ground of delay and latches.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Shanmukappa and the learned Senior Panel Counsel, Sri. Ashok N Nayak, for the respondent-KIADB, I have perused the Petition Papers and the Statement of objections, as well.
6. The first contention of the respondents that the petitioners have approached this Court with lot of delay and latches that have remained unexplained does not impress the Court inasmuch as these petitioners are the poor peasants having small bits of lands and that they had successfully approached this Court in the earlier round of litigation. A genuine claim of the poor farmers cannot be defeated on the technical ground of delay and latches when admittedly no third party interest is created in respect of the subject lands. The Apex Court in the case of Niranjanlal Agarwala vs. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 23 has ruled that it does not behove the State to contest a good claim on the off chance of success on some unsubstantial technical plea.
7. The contention of the petitioners that their objections at Annexure-G to the acquisition on the grounds specifically urged therein have not been duly considered is substantiated by the mere look at the content and reasoning of the impugned order. The objections of the petitioners related to the extent of land, fertility level of the soil, their high market price and the viability of acquisition. These have not been discussed by the answering respondent despite the observation of this Court in the earlier round of litigation.
8. They petitioners had also stated that these lands were the only means of their livelihood and therefore, acquiring these lands virtually amounts to taking away their means of livelihood itself. This aspect of the matter has not been considered at all by the respondent – KIADB which was swayed away by the version of its officials at Hassan as is reflected in Column No.5 of Annexure – 2 to the impugned order. This cannot be construed as the due consideration at all especially in terms of the observations of this Court in its decision rendered in the earlier round of litigations.
9. Although it is true that the power of eminent domain exercised by the State in the public interest is sacrosanct, the same is subject to the limitations imposed by the law relating to acquisition as interpreted by the Apex Court and this Court in a catena of decisions. When a farmer grieves that his land is the only source of livelihood for the family, the same deserves due consideration at the hands of statutory bodies inasmuch as acquiring such land may amount to depriving the citizen of the means of the livelihood of his family, in violation Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the Case of Olga Tellis AIR 1986 SC 180.
10. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions succeed; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order dated 09.05.2012 at Annexure-H, in so far as it relates to the petition lands; the matter is remitted to the respondent – No.3 for consideration afresh after hearing the petitioners within an outer limit of three months, in accordance with law.
It is open to the respondents to solicit any information or documents from the side of the petitioners as are required for due consideration of their case. However, no delay shall be brooked in the guise of soliciting the information.
Petitioners through their counsel are put to notice to appear before the respondent No.3 on 02.02.2019, sans any further notice and to seek instruction from him as to further course of action.
DS/-
Sd/- JUDGE