Partly allowed

Sri K P Shiva Prasad v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Jan 2014WP/20913/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court heard a writ petition challenging land acquisition for road widening. Rejecting the claim of alternative land due to technical feasibility, the court directed respondents to expedite compensation payment, specifically considering the cost of the petitioner's protective compound wall and drainage beyond standard guidance value.

What did the court decide?

The petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pay compensation expeditiously, which shall include the cost of the petitioner's compound wall and drainage, not restricted to guidan

Sri K P Shiva Prasad Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.20913 OF 2012 (LA-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri. K.P. Shiva Prasad, Son of Late K. Puttanna Gowda, Aged about 47 years, Residing at Bolubail House, Sonengeri Post, Sullia, Dakshina Kannada.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(By Shri. S. Vishwajith Shetty, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department, M.S.Building, Bangalore.

¶13

The Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District, Mangalore.

¶14

¶15

The Land Acquisition Officer and Assistant Commissioner, Puttur Sub-Division, Puttur Taluk, Dakshina Kannada.

¶16

Kannada State Road Development Corporation, Vasanthanagara, Bangalore.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS (By Shri. Anantha .H, Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Shri. B.b. Bajentri, Advocate for Respondent No.4)

¶18

¶19

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records from the R-1 to R-3 vide Annexure-A dated 27.8.2011 in No.KA.E.63 Land Acquisition 2011 Bangalore by the R1 and Annexure-B Acquisition Notification dated 29.12.2011 issued by R-2 published in the Karnataka Gazette Paper dated 5.1.2012 in so far it relates to lands bearing Sy.No.179/2 measuring 1.07 acres and land bearing Sy.179/3B measuring 0.03 cents situated at Jalasur Village, Sullia Taluk , Dakshina Kannada District.

¶20

This Writ Petition is coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the court made the following:

¶21

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶24

respondents.

¶25

The facts of the case are as follows:

¶26

The petitioner is the owner of land bearing Sy.No.179/2

¶27

measuring 1.07 acres and land bearing Sy.No.179/3B measuring 0.03 cents of Jalasur village, Sullia Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. Apart from the above lands, the petitioner also owns other lands. The petitioner is an agriculturist and is entirely dependant on the income from these lands. The petitioner has acquired the same at a family partition and has grown arecanut and coconut trees, apart from coaco and pepper in the lands. The aforesaid lands, namely the land in Sy.No.179/2 and 179/3 are situate adjacent to the Madikeri – Puttur State Highway. They are at a low lying area and are prone to be flooded by rain water and it was the constant concern of the petitioner’s family over the years, that rain water would destroy his crops. Therefore, in the year 1968-69, with

¶28

¶29

great difficulty, the father of the petitioner had constructed a compound wall measuring about 287 meters in length, facing the State Highway, and also constructed a drainage to ensure free flow of rain water within his varga lands. It is estimated that even at that point of time, a huge amount had been expended for the construction of compound wall and drainage. At present, the cost would exceed Rs.40 lakh to reconstruct the same. The learned counsel would also state that even a slight damage to the wall would result in damage to the crops, is established by the circumstance that in the year 1993, the said compound wall was slightly damaged and on account of rains, the entire crops were damaged, which warranted the Tahsildar, Sullia Taluk, to recommend grant of compensation to the petitioner’s mother, for the loss suffered.

¶30

An extent of 200 meters of the petitioner’s land including the compound wall and the drain as aforesaid, is sought to be acquired for the purposes of alleged widening of the State Highway. A survey is said to have been carried out,

¶31

¶32

earmarking the extent of land to be acquired for the purpose of widening the State Highway and the petitioner has been served with a notice dated 18.09.2010, of the proposed acquisition. The petitioner had attended a meeting called by the respondent in this regard and had pleaded that the land of the petitioner be deleted from the acquisition, as in his opinion, there was alternative land available facing his land on the other side of the road belonging to the Government, which could be utilized for widening of the road. It was pointed out that if the wall which was proposed to be acquired is demolished, it would result in the crops on the petitioner’s land being susceptible to damage by rain water and therefore, pleaded that the petitioner would lose his very source of livelihood in the event of any such acquisition, and had also made a representation in this regard. The second respondent in response, had replied that the petitioner’s request would be considered and necessary action would be taken. However, a notification under Section 4(1) dated 28.01.2012 was issued and an emergency clause was

¶33

¶34

invoked under Section 17(2) and 17(4) of the LA Act. It is in that circumstance that the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶35

This Court has, in the first instance, granted stay of the proposed acquisition, which has been extended from time to time and it is now that the matter is taken up for final hearing.

¶36

The learned counsel for Respondent No.4, in support of the Statement of objections that are filed, would point out that though the acquisition of land may result in undue hardship to the petitioner, the purpose and object of such acquisition is to provide a curve on the said road, as this is absolutely necessary, as opined by the experts who have examined the matter thoroughly and with particular reference to the petitioner’s representation and request, it is pointed out that there was a review of the opinion of the Expert Committee and the Expert Committee has indicated the consequence of considering any other alternative to acquiring the land of the petitioner and forming a curve as proposed. It is stated that in the event of the

¶37

¶38

petitioner’s land being dropped from acquisition, the entire curve design has to be modified which would lead to acquisition of lands further down, belonging to other private owners of lands, which would warrant a renewed acquisition procedure. It is also admitted that on the opposite side of the road to the petitioner’s lands, there is Government land available. However, if the said Government land were to be utilized by deleting the land of the petitioner by widening the right hand side of the road, the road alignment would be contrary to the Indian Road Congress standards. The project road passes through rolling terrain and the alignment of the project road has been designed as per IRC : 73-1980 ‘Geometric Design Standards for Rural Highways’. Further, if the road were to be widened on the right hand side exempting the petitioner’s land, the alignment of the curve formation which has been designed for a speed of 65 kmph, as per IRC: 73 – 1980, cannot be maintained. The project road alignment between KM 174 + 150 and KM 174 – 450, has been designed

¶39

¶40

as per the relevant IRC standards with design parameters as follows:

¶41

Design speed – 65 kmph. Curve radius – 150 mts. Curve length – 138.6 mts.

¶42

Stopping sight distance – 90 mts.

¶43

Any deviation in the above specifications would render

¶44

the entire stretch a black spot, making it an accident prone zone. Therefore, based on the above specifications, the land acquisition has been assessed and the process has been issued and any slight modification of the alignment on the right hand side, the design, speed and curve radius and other parameters would decrease and it would be below the acceptable standards. Therefore, the shifting of the alignment beyond this location on either side would involve change in alignment for the land which has already been acquired and would require large scale modification for the additional length of the project road and

¶45

¶46

that the shifting of the centreline at the proposed location is technically not permissible and would not be correct as per the applicable IRC standards. Further, it would not be possible to minimize the land acquisition and avoid huge cutting and filling quantity at hilly and valley locations The Respondent No.4 has also produced the copy of the review of curve design undertaken by the Engineering Section and an extract of the Geometric Design Standards for Rural Highways, along with Statement of objections. It is also stated that the Mysore – Bantwal road (State Highway-88), which is said to be improved, is almost complete on either side of the stretch except at the present location, which is the subject matter of the present petition. To consider the case of the petitioner would lead to avoidable hardship to several other land owners and apart from leading to additional costs to the Exchequer and that since the petitioner would be adequately compensated for the acquired lands as per the guidance value, it would not be for the petitioner to raise any grievance.

¶47

¶48

Given the above facts and circumstances, the need for

¶49

acquisition of the land is evident as made out by the Respondent No.4 with details as stated above. Therefore, the suggestion of the petitioner that alternative ‘paramboke’ land is available, which is Government land on the other side of the road facing the petitioner’s land, is not a viable alternative. Hence, it is inevitable that the petitioner’s land would have to be acquired in the larger public interest and the project has been considerably delayed in view of these pending proceedings. Therefore, on the face of it, it cannot be said that there is an alternative measure which would enable the respondent to form the road while dropping the petitioner’s land from the acquisition process. This is not possible, as can be seen from the material on record. However, it is to be kept in view that the petitioner being paid the compensation as per the guidance value, may not meet the situation. In that, the petitioner has built a compound wall which is in fact a wall which protects his crops from rain water flooding and if this is to be demolished in

¶50

¶51

the process of acquisition, unless the petitioner takes immediate steps to protect his crops by building an alternative wall in the available area, it would result in further losses and damages to the petitioner. Therefore, the cost of the wall merely on the basis of a guidance value, may not be realistic and it is necessary that the special circumstances of the case in which the petitioner is situate, be taken into consideration by the respondents, in providing adequate and fair compensation and not necessarily restricted to the guidance value, as is sought to be proposed and projected. Since the petitioner would have to urgently construct a compound wall before the next rainy season, in the event that the wall should now be demolished and the road widened, it is also necessary to expedite the payment of compensation to the petitioner and therefore, the respondents are directed to correspondingly move with expedition insofar as the payment of compensation to the petitioner in an adequate measure, as already indicated, to compensate the petitioner’s expenditure involved in constructing the compound wall,

¶52

¶53

without restricting the basis to the extent of land acquired, but shall also take into account the cost of the wall along with the drainage that would have to be built, and his case for payment of compensation shall accordingly be considered, with expedition.

¶54

With that direction, the petition is disposed of. The interim order granted earlier stands vacated.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

Sri K P Shiva Prasad v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K P Shiva Prasad v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Narayana Reddy S/O Late Veera Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Manjulamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri v Rajappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Krishna Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Nitheesh Narayanan Vs Secretary

Shri Gopal Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka