Dismissed

Sri Nanjunda Jois v. Govt of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Jan 2014WP/14362/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenging notification under Section 4(1) and Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring land for a Sewage Treatment Plant were dismissed. The Court held the purpose was public, the land was identified after expert study, and the petitioners' objections were either considered or covered, upheld even if ignored.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed and the interim order granted was vacated.

Sri Nanjunda Jois Vs Govt of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF JANUARY 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.14362 OF 2012 (LA-RES)

¶7

CONNECTED WITH

¶8

WRIT PETITION Nos. 22575-576 OF 2012 (LA-RES)

¶9

IN W.P.No.14362/2012

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

Sri. Nanjunda Jois, Son of Chandrashekar Jois, Aged about 68 years, House No. 1091, R.P.Road, Nanjangudu, Mysore (District) – 571 301. …PETITIONER

¶12

(By Shri. A.V. Amarnathan, Advocate)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore – 560 001, (represented by it’s Chief Secretary)

¶15

¶16

Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mysore Sub-Division, Mysore. 3. The Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board, office of the Executive Engineer, Mysore Division, 10^th Main, Saraswathipuram, Mysore – 570 010. (represented by its Executive Engineer Sri. H. Honnegowda)

¶17

Town Municipal Council, Nanjangud, Represented by its Chief Officer, Nanjangud, Mysore.

¶18

[cause title amended As per the court order Dated 9.10.2013] …RESPONDENTS

¶19

(By Shri. A.G. Shivanna, Additional Advocate General, for Shri. Anantha.H, Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Shri. H.N. Shashidhara, Advocate for Respondent No.3 Shri. B.J. Somayaji, Advocate for Respondent No.4 )

¶20

¶21

This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the notification issued under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, by the 2^nd Respondent dated 8.3.2012, produced as Annexure-C.

¶22

¶23

IN W.P.Nos.22575-576/2012

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

Smt. N.K. Shanthamma, Wife of Late M.C. Puttaswamy, Daughter of Late R. Kalegowda, Aged about 68 years, Residing at No.291, Tank Bund Road, New Layout, Ittigegoodu, Mysore – 570 010.

¶26

Smt. Sunitha Ramesh, Wife of S.L. Ramesh, Aged about 59 years, Residing at No.5, 1^st Main Road, 7^th Cross, Saraswathipuram, Mysore. …PETITIONERS

¶27

(By Shri. R.S. Ravi, Advocate) AND:

¶28

The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Revenue [Land Acquisition 1 and 3], M.S.Building, Vidhana Veedhi, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶29

The Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District,

¶30

¶31

Mysore.

¶32

The Assistant Commissioner/Land Acquisition Officer, Mysore Sub-Division, Mysore.

¶33

The Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board , office of the Executive Engineer, Mysore Division, 10^th Main, Saraswathipuram, Mysore – 570 010, Represented by Executive Engineer, Sri. Balachandra Raj Urs.

¶34

[respondent no.4 impleaded Vide court order dated 22.08.2013]

¶35

Town Municipal Council, Nanjangud, Represented by its Chief Officer, Nanjangud, Mysore

¶36

[Amended as per order Dated 09.10.2013] …RESPONDENTS

¶37

(By Shri. A.G. Shivanna, Additional Advocate General for Shri. Anantha .H, Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3

¶38

Shri. H.N. Shashidhara, Advocate for Respondent No.4 Shri. B.J. Somayaji, Advocate for Respondent No.5)

¶39

¶40

¶41

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the notification dated 29.3.2011 made in LAQ.CR:101/2011-12 issued by the 2^nd respondent , vide Annexure-A and quash notification dated 08.03.2012, made in No.Cum.E.118/Bhoo Swa My/2011, published in Karnataka Gazette dated 19.3.2012, issued by the 1^st respondent vide Annexure-D.

¶42

These Writ Petitions coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:

¶43

O R D E R

¶44

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. These

¶45

petitions are considered and disposed of together having regard

¶46

to the common issues that arise for consideration.

¶47

Re. WP 14362/2012

¶48

It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of land measuring 4 acres 2 guntas in Survey No.241/1 of Gulur Grama, Kasaba Hobli, Nanjangud Taluk, Mysore District. It is the petitioner’s case that the petitioner’s family consists of a large number of members and that they are all dependant on the income from the said agricultural lands.

¶49

¶50

It transpires that the second respondent had issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘LA Act’, for brevity), notifying the extent of 14 acres 32 guntas of land for the purpose of proposed construction of a Sewage Treatment Plant under the Nanjangud Town Sewerage Treatment Plan and the notification was duly published in the Gazette on 14.9.2011.

¶51

The petitioner claims to have filed objections to the said notification in respect of the extent that he is holding and the specific objection raised by the petitioner was that any such acquisition and consequent installation of a Sewage Plant would cause severe damage to the entire Gulur Grama. Since the plant would situate within 15 metres of the Grama Thana village and that there is a Vidya Peetha in the vicinity, apart from the fact that there were other government lands, which were available and more suitable for the said purpose, the acquisition of the petitioner’s land could be avoided. However, it is the case of the petitioner that the said objections were

¶52

¶53

ignored and the respondents had issued a notification under Section 6(1) of the LA Act and it is when the respondents sought to take possession pursuant to the same, that the present petition is filed.

¶54

Re. WP 22575/2012

¶55

It is the case of the petitioners that the first petitioner is the owner of land bearing Survey No.26, measuring 4 acres 28 guntas and the second petitioner is the owner of land bearing Survey No.25/2, measuring 1 acre 34 guntas of Gulur village, Kasaba Hobli, Nanjangud Taluk, respectively, and that they are similarly aggrieved by the very notification, which proposed acquisition of their lands for the purpose of setting up of a sewage plant.

¶56

It is further elaborated that the lands of the petitioners are fertile and if the effluent purifier is set up in the petitioners’ land, the chances of seepage into the nearby Ramachandra Rao Canal is a certainty and would affect the public, building and

¶57

¶58

cattle as also the fertility of the land and therefore, is to be avoided.

¶59

It was further stated that there are other Government lands available not only in Gulur village, but also at Hedathale village and Mullur village, which are close by and hence, it is contended that the acquisition of the petitioners’ land can be avoided. Notwithstanding the same, it is the case of the petitioners that their objections were not considered and a final declaration under Section 6(1) of the LA Act was issued. It is in that background that the present petitions is filed.

¶60

It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that earlier, there was a proposal to acquire the land in the very vicinity for the very purpose and that was subject matter of challenge in a Public Interest Petition in WP 1419/2008, which was ultimately disposed of by an order dated 3.8.2009, whereby the acquisition was set at naught and the respondents were called upon to identify other lands, which could be utilised for the said purpose and it is in that background that the

¶61

¶62

respondents have again chosen the land, which is totally unsuitable for the purpose.

¶63

It is reiterated and canvassed by the learned Counsel

¶64

for the petitioners that there is vast extent of Government lands available in the vicinity, which could be utilised for the purpose. The objections filed by the petitioners in this regard have not been considered at all and have not been addressed. The very non-consideration of the objections would be a ground, on which the entire acquisition proceedings can be set at naught. In this regard, the learned Counsel for the petitioners places reliance on a catena of decisions and draws particular reference to the principles of law laid down in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chennai and Others, AIR 2005 SC 3520 .

¶65

It is further pointed out that the statement of objections filed on behalf of the State emphasizes that the identity of the land for the purpose of setting up of a sewage treatment plant is on the basis of a report submitted by a Technical Committee.

¶66

¶67

It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners

¶68

that in the Additional Statement of Objections filed by the State, it is emphasized that relocating of the proposed sewage treatment plant is impermissible on account of the costs that would be involved. In this regard, the learned Counsel for the petitioners would draw attention to the specific averment in the Additional Statement of Objections which is as follows:-

¶69

“If the S.T.P. is established in this Hilly region the laying of pipeline about 1 km distance and its expenditure is an additional burden to the Government. The High Power pump has to be installed to pump water to such high level. All these costs more expenditure and the electricity power is also required more, in this shortage of Electricity season. It is not wise using of this type of electricity unscientifically.”

¶70

Therefore, it is asserted that the State Government,

¶71

which seeks to acquire the land for the benefit of the general public, ought not to quibble in regard to the costs involved and merely on account of the higher costs involved, the petitioners

¶72

¶73

cannot be deprived of their livelihood and therefore, would submit that the same cannot be a reason for utilizing the available Government land for the purpose of establishing a sewage treatment plant. Further, the learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that in the course of these proceedings, there was an attempt to resolve the dispute, by providing alternative land to the petitioners in lieu of the land that is proposed to be acquired and the available land that was offered by the State was totally enough for cultivation. But, as the area was hilly and rocky and therefore, totally unfit for cultivation, the petitioners are before this court seeking to have the acquisition set aside.

¶74

While the learned Counsel for the respondents, including the learned Government Pleader, would resist the petition and would point out that there is no dispute as to the purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired is a public purpose. The primary contention that the petitioners have not been heard and their objections have not been considered is

¶75

¶76

misleading. An inquiry held pursuant to the proceedings under Section 5-A of the LA Act have addressed several objections raised by the petitioners at length and this is evident from the record that is made available. In any event, the very grievance being urged in the present petitions, it is open for this court examine whether there is any merit in the said contention.

¶77

As already pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the endeavour on the part of the State to set up a Sewage Treatment Plant is since the year 2005 and the land that was identified for the purpose not having been found favour with this court, by virtue of a Public Interest Petition that was filed, the respondents have been extra cautious in identifying an alternative land and it is on the basis of a report of a Technical Committee, consisting of experts drawn not only from the Pollution Control Department, but also from the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board and the Revenue Department. It is on a close study of the lay of the land and the topography and the feasibility of setting up of the plant and

¶78

¶79

keeping all the considerations in view, that the lands of the petitioners has been identified. The present situation being that the sewage water generated in Nanjangud Town is directly fed into the river and there is constant and high pollution of the river body and therefore, the entire underground drainage system has been laid and is complete except for the setting up of the sewage plant, which is held up on account of the interim order granted in these proceedings. Hence, the contention of the petitioners that the setting up of the plant would endanger the nearby river water canal is misleading. On the other hand, it would be possible to avoid further pollution and damage to the water body if the treatment plant is set up forthwith.

¶80

It is further pointed out that insofar as the contention that the alternative land, in which the plant could be set up, is being avoided on account of additional costs, is an understatement. It is contended that though it could be technically possible to set up a treatment plant at another alternative location, it can only be at enormous cost and avoidable exercises. Even the present

¶81

¶82

plant at the present location, the projected cost of which, as originally estimated, by virtue of the pending proceedings, has increased by 150% and that any further delay would escalate the price and it would be well within the respondent’s reach to relocate the plant and establish at any other location even at present cost. Hence, the interpretation sought to be given to the averment in the statement made on behalf of the State that it is the prohibitive, which prevents the State from establishing the Sewage Plant elsewhere, is not to be lightly taken, as it would be well neigh impossible for the State to establish such a plant in an alternative location added to its costs. What is emphasized is that even to establish a plant, as originally envisaged, is now more than one and half times costlier than it was projected. Hence, it is submitted that the grounds urged in the petition do not merit consideration and the same ought to be rejected.

¶83

On a perusal of the record and the rival contentions

¶84

on behalf of the parties, as already pointed out, there is no

¶85

¶86

doubt that the purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired is public purpose. It is no doubt true that the petitioners’ may be dependent on the land in question for their livelihood. However, the respondents have not acted irresponsibly in identifying the land for the purpose of setting up a sewage treatment plant and it is on record that it is after a detailed research that they have identified the land as being ideally suited for the purpose. The contentions to the contrary by the petitioners or an opinion formed by this court on that basis, cannot replace the expert opinion, which is available on record. Therefore, there is little scope for interference. Insofar as the contention that the objections of the petitioners have not been considered and that they have not been heard, even if accepted, the objections raised by way of these petitions or the grounds urged in the present writ petitions, adequately covered the objections that could be raised to the proposed acquisition. The need of the public and the purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired is far greater than that of the petitioners.

¶87

¶88

This is evident on the face of it. Therefore, the contentions and

¶89

the grounds urged in the writ petitions cannot be sustained.

¶90

In that view of the matter, the petitions stand dismissed.

¶91

The interim order granted stands vacated.

¶92

Sd/JUDGE

¶93

Sri Nanjunda Jois v. Govt of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Nanjunda Jois v. Govt of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Ravikumar H Vs the Bangalore University

B T Achaiah Vs M/S Canara Steel Limited

P. Ezhilarasan Vs the Registrar (Evaluation)

Smt Gowramma Vs State of Karnataka

Saraswathi K Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Hanumakka Vs State of Karnataka