IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.52102 OF 2015 (LA-RES) & WRIT PETITION NOS.56489-490 OF 2015 Between:
1. Sri T.R. Chikkanna, S/o. Late Rangaiah Aged about 70 years, 2. Sri Rangaswamy, S/o. Late Rangaiah Aged about 68 years, 3. Sri Basavaraj, S/o. Late Honnaiah, Aged about 48 years, All are R/at Thaggikuppe Village, Kasaba Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District-562 159. ... Petitioners (By Sri. Nagaiah, Advocate) And:
1. The Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara District, Ramanagara -562 159.
2. The Specialland Acquisition Officer, Ramanagara District, Ramanagara-562 159.
3. T. Narasimhaiah, Aged about 76 years, S/o. late narasimhaiah, 4. Sreerangaiah, Aged about 60 years, S/o. late Chikkarangaiah, 5. T.K. Ranganatha, Aged about 60 years, S/o. Kenchaiah, 6. T.R. Srinivasamurthy, Aged about 60 years, S/o late Ramaiah, 7. T.R. Thopegowda, Aged about 52 years, S/o Rangappa, 8. Rangaswamy, Aged about 62 years, S/o late Ranganayaka, 9. T.R. Rangegowda, Aged about 42 years, S/o late Ranganayaka, 10. T.K. Ramesh, Aged about 58 years, S/o late Kenchaiah, 11. Srinivasaiah, Aged about 50 years, S/o late Thimmappa, 12. Gangadaraiah, Aged about 53 years, S/o late Halerangaiah, 13. T.N. Ravikumar, Aged about 50 years, S/o G. Narayana, 14. T.N. Lokesh, Aged about 30 years, S/o Narasimhaiah, 15. Rangaswamaiah, Aged about 65 years, S/o late Muddarangegowda, 16. T.C. Channappa, Aged about 38 years, S/o Channigappa, 17. Smt. Kempamma, Aged about 45 years, W/O Rangaswamy, 18. R. Ramakrishna, Aged About 60 Years, S/o late Ramaiah, All are residing at Thagginakuppe Village, Thagginakuppe hobli, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District – 562 120. ... Respondents (By Sri. Dildar Shiralli, HCGP for R1 & R2 Sri. H.C. Shivaramu, Advocate for R3 to R18) These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary notification vide Annexure-E dated 20.9.2013 and final notification under section 6[1] of The Land Acquisition Act dated 20.7.2015 vide Annexure-H;
These writ petitions coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:-
O R D E R The petitioners being the owners of land in Survey No.15/1 admeasuring 36 guntas are knocking at the doors of this Court impugning the acquisition proceedings initiated vide the preliminary notification dated 20.09.2013, followed by the final notification dated 20.07.2015 respectively at Annexures-E & H.
2. The respondents having entered appearance through their counsel, after service of notice, have filed their Sttement of Objections accompanied by certain documents resisting the Writ Petitions.
3. Sri. Nagaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that the petitioners are the owners of this small bit of land which is being used for agricultural purpose; the acquisition of the said land can virtually take away their only means of livelihood; there is already a rocky road which can be developed as a good road with small investment and thereby, the acquisition in question can be avoided. He banks upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Raghbir Singh Sherawath Vs. State of Haryana and Ors, AIR 2012 SC 468 in support of his submission that lands of the agriculturists oridinally cannot be acquired at all.
4. Per contra, Sri Dildar Shiralli, learned High Court Government Pleader and Sri H.C. Shivaramu, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the private respondents-3 to 18 i.e., the villagers together submit that the acquisition is confined to only three guntas of the petition land, whereas petitioner is making a big galata as if the entire land is being taken away; this small portion is situate on the margin of the land in question and it does not pass through in the middle of the land in question as to be made out; existing road being absolutely rocky, it is very difficult to develop the same without investment of huge sums of money and therefore, Writ Petitions be dismissed. Sri Shivaramu, learned also points out the sketch, the photographs and the report/mahazar drawn with the participation of a number of villagers in support of his submission.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. I have perused the Writ Petitions paper as also of the Statement of Objections.
6. The land of the petitioners totally measures 36 guntas; only a small portion of 03 guntas i.e., less than 10% of the land is notified for acquisition; this 03 gunta portion does not run through the middle of the land as rightly pointed out by Mr. Shivaramu and Mr. Dildar Shiralli; almost entire road formation barring the petition land is stated to be complete. The option for developing the existing road having been diligently considered, the authorities have found it to be unviable since it is completely rocky and its improvement involves huge expenditure. This Court cannot run the race of opinions in such matters.
7. Though the acquisition was initiated under the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the compensation in a sum or Rs.1,66,209/- is determined under the benevolent provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Therefore, the contention that the land of the villagers cannot be acquired as held by the Apex Court in the Case of Raghbeer Singh supra does not much come to the aid of the petitioner.
8. The submission made by third respondent Mr.
Narasimhaiah, S/o Narasimhaiah that the family of the petitioners has given up some portion of its land years ago is appreciated by the Court. The undertaking given by the respondents that while laying the road in the 03 guntas of petition land no damage shall be caused to the land retained by the petitioners is placed on record.
9. In the above circumstances, these Writ Petitions are disposed off declining relief to the petitioners with the observations made hereinabove.
It is open to the petitioners to claim compensation and its enhancement forthwith and if the claim is made the official respondent shall consider the same forthwith.
Costs made easy.
Sd/- JUDGE DS