The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the acquisition of agricultural land. The Court upheld the validity of the notifications under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, stating that Eminent Domain requires payment of compensation and leaves acquisition necessity to the Executive.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP No. 22073 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 22073 OF 2013 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
H V SREEDHAR MURTHAY S/O LATE H.R.VENKATARAMANA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, KALLUSAGARA ROAD, SUMA NILAYA, CHANNAGIRI-577213, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B K NARENDRA BABU.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(LAND ACQUISITION)
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.
WP No. 22073 of 2013
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE R1 UNDER SEC.4(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, DT.29.8.2000 PRODUCED AS PER ANN-C & ALSO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED U/S.6(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT DT.3.12.2001 ISSUED BY THE R1, PRODUCED AS PER ANN-D.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court seeking to lay a challenge to acquisition of subject land commencing with the issuance of Preliminary Notification dated 28.09.2000 under Section 4(1) followed by the Final Notification dated 03.12.2001 issued under Section 6(1) of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Annexures C & D) to the Petition.
acquisition is bad; this is the only land available to the family; it is an agricultural land and the compensation
WP No. 22073 of 2013
would not work out; this land is not required for the purpose for which it is notified for acquisition; and that the
gap between the Preliminary Notification & Final Notification exceeds one year.
WP No. 22073 of 2013
545 has held:
“…Article 300-A embodies the doctrine of eminent domain which comprises of two parts, (i) acquisition of property in public interest; and (ii) payment of reasonable compensation therefor…”
This apart, the Apex Court has time and again held that the power of eminent domain is a form of special power, though regulated by erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that there is absolutely no property which is exempt from acquisition as such, as rightly contended by learned AGA.
WP No. 22073 of 2013
KARNATAKA & OTHERS , disposed off 23.08.2006 and therefore his clients lands should also be dropped is a bit difficult to countenance. Whether land is required or not is ordinarily left to the domain of the Executive and a Writ Court cannot undertaken deeper examination into such matters subject to all just exceptions wherein argued case of the Petitioner does not fit.
In view of the above, the Writ Petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is, costs having been made easy.
WP No. 22073 of 2013
It is made clear that the dismissal of this Petition
shall not come in the way of the owners of the land in laying a claim for compensation in accordance with law.
Sd/JUDGE
Bsv
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the exercise of eminent domain powers under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 can be challenged in a writ petition based on lack of necessity or the petitioner's livelihood dependency.
Whether the gap between the Preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) and the Final Notification under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 violated procedural requirements.
Whether the Writ Court can entertain a challenge to the discretion of the Executive regarding land acquisition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Bihar vs. Project Uchcha Vidya Sikshak SanghRelied on¶39
(2006) 2 SCC 545 · Who else cites this
C H Venkatesh vs. State of Karnataka & OthersReferred¶43
W.P. No. 25780/2002 (LA-HS)
5 provisions across 2 enactments
H V Sreedhar Murthay
The State of Karnataka
Deputy Commissioner Davanagere District
Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer
Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee
Krishna S Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
