*
» ” ‘ Anekal Taiuk,
Bangalore: District.
IN THE HEGH COURT 0:: KARNATAKA, _
DATED THIS THE 6%’ may 05* FEBRU;aRjfif:; i,iO<;=9 _: "
BEFQRE;
THE HC}N’BLE MR. JY§_3Sf§’1CE’~AJIT avfiéimtiax
WRIT ?E’I’I’I’1{)N No 18E_: §6:_(>§’ 20% .{L AmI{;iHB)
WRIT PE’I’ITION”N{}._ 1.w;.r:;a 2008 {LA-KHB}
BE)’I’WEEN’:
WP 1859€§4 Oi?”’12¥i3C3:6
1 Sri ‘MA.A. :a;ag3;ea;1;%?.%%«%%
‘=.szo1_;:v1uni3;4a;sp;1’~ * %
Aged abeut’ -5*?
R,’ at Hinnakkiw v’i.1fg::ge,
V. Jigalii Ijiobli’,
Anszkal ‘I”3-.E.ui<, _
' Bangggiare Diéirict.
‘- Wfu–“Sri isa-‘IV. Nagamju
$Lge§i4i’.about 45 years,
ZR’/.at Hinnakki viilage,
J.i.gf’ani Hcbii,
..Petit:ioners cernmon
in both W.Ps.
( By Sri H. Anantha Krishna Murthy 8:. Associates)
3
171 and 1’72 / 3 (part of Sy. No. 172) of Hi.nnakki’-xgfiiage,
Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Distr§gt.- , —
‘§’hese petitions <:omj,:1g can for h€a'\7:.i__:'1g 'jt}iis% c1–a{y,v'
the court made; 1:116 foflewing:
0 m3:
§E…E
Both these «p€:!LifiQIT1S:4″«C1iSp0Sé(i Gf by this
6015111101} order.
2. The s;u:;;;:¢:»::1: 13595/05 is sy.
N0. 93/ guritas of Hirmakki
matter of WP. No.
1 1’72 nzeasurirrzg 29 gumjas
am} ~v’2{7 gdI:taS’rés15ec{fiiveiy of tha 881116: village.
‘ V. – 3-.111 tfié”ié{7i’it patitions the lands wefe canvertszd
V jrzto v..i101″‘z-agiculttlrai purpose, convarsion order was
conversion charges z-me aiso paici. A1} these
x1anc.§s.. Were sought :0 13¢ acquired pmsuaxzt to the
A’ Ixotiiicaticm dated 1.4. 12805 Vida Annexure-C
. the” ef iefifeflt, the very purpose for which the
to be acquired is being done by the
‘.’.hC§I’€1}i*i(i€I’ wouid not arise; He further submits that an
‘ of 481 acres 11 guntas was notified under
-eeetiofi 4(1) of the Act and final declaration is in respect
With reference to this proposition he would
mzmg reported in 1995 (7) K.L.J, 846 anizffiialeeei
1992 SC 1812?’. Indeed he §”§?(5{11(3« ‘ 2
acqtiisiiion has commencegi j=
Land Acquisition Act and t£:1e*-
Act. would comtemgjiiege are
required to be issued .AA(;x;;/;};:§.;;11issioner. £11
the to him, the
notjficatioig: .?3ei:3;1:t1’i,<,ssio11er, Karnataka
to him, wouid m1I§iJ'.'y
the noéiifieafiezx Indeed the other contention
raised me: Since the lands are converted for
p€3t§£iiOI§f31'S' dnemseives, the question of pmeeedmg
/
/'
of orfly 26} acres. He submits {hat a Iittie less than W
=!'.0" be in Vjiiéice befare the notification is issued
of the Act. Reiterating his objections,
: §3OV€I'I1'£1"i€1'1t authorizilig the Commissioner of
. ''~IE$'I;z».1.,-*°n«ai:a1<a Housing Board to issue notification. undsr
-ssction 4(1) of the Act. In 50 far as deletion is
O\
50% of the Land has been deleted from the acquisitisn
proceedings. Thus, according to him, thtz
acquisition proceedings are liable to be qz1as1’iVs;:’1’§A “”
3. Mr. Ba-savaraj sa:grad.«,*s’1e;in3§as_,;ou}ise1 éspeafing
fer the Board in of objections
submits that “17”€rC%1V:V}t’€ 1’eITed to section
20 of the Act is only with
refers;L*i§:€§VTV ts: the scheme and the
Govt. spfgsxsiial «which is not the case here.
He furt.hez; ‘s§;1bI:iits”-tlist it is not necessary for the
siibmits that a notification is issued by the
concerned, he submits that vast: track of land was
notified. I-is submits that the lands which stood W
X’
. §3<¥:i1Si1*:g"%'sghezné;fi1e same can be irxitiated only after
V"iS:'.:~sanctioned by the Government and the
saxxctioxiéci by the GOV€I'I1IZI"}_(iI"1t. mdeed the said
'deciééion was based on a. ruling of the Apex Court in the
-»v.£-$136 of State of Tamil Nadu vs. A. Mohammad
execution of a housing scheme, which woulfi
gives a meaning that the land i$-:ret*.32Ji1je§::i.V4c’§{j’4
as Contamplated iifidfii’ the_
However it does not give ‘ébf’ 1e111e
is required to be piéiéé it.” ‘i’$”‘séi:1t to the
Government. A said provision
do not five the scheme is
a must are notified. It is no
doubt:r§;e case of 1.995 (7) K.L.J.
346 (%Mefi£ckra;§g¢iah&:j”as~; State of Karnataka and
othe:’s) ha s” @.i§s-hibited from executing the scheme not
Yousqf, reported in AJ.R. 1992 SC p. 1928. It is aiso
brought tar my notice that the decision of the Apex Couriifi
_/’
V. act maliy require that the fmal scheme
‘ –VtgA;;, :v’§A;J~A1§’f:;)ared and appmved by the Government.
was laid by the learned counsel
far the: petitianer in para 33 of the judgment
A ‘” ‘ certain obgervations are made by the Apex ‘
{30j1;1rt 1:0 the efiecxt that where the 131101 is sought to be
acquired far the purpose of execution of a Housing fl
in the Case of Mohammeci Yousef has
the Apex Court in A.I.R. 1995 ‘p; .4237 (:;’.~’;£;it:; £§:*?1%a::.=.11 j
Natiu vs. L. Krishnan and Qtherié}, . .
6. ‘i’he Apex Court in ‘ih_e”-33.56 cf ST_{3.t€ §)f.9N&Ci ‘L! ‘
(AER 1996 SC 497) flas a pre-
requisite before a und<~:r section 4
of the Act. I:1_3.i'e§;d whai' before the
Court wgas Vcrf; Nadu Housing
i;'#-Tifirfe Apex Court was of the
View "~,tha'1; ~ acquisition proceedings were
commeficad .uIicierA._t11t::;3'geI1era1 enacnnem, section 4 of
/
I.
– Avsexieizie umgezst i§e”«éput in piece and apemval of the
a must befere the iancls are notified fer
..1ee1{zeci:’int0 is section 24 ef the Act. Section 24 of the
A’ Act: speaks about sanctiorzing of the housing scheme
“ianci its execution. To my mind, What is eemempiateci is
2:
Scheme, the notification under section 4 efV~’e*1eV’w§g,_fi*;; :__Aaf:t
Wonk} expressly state that the” be >1′
acquired is requireci for
is also to be noticed thatVLi’£§.§er
Authorities Act, 19:32. eeaxmg with the
scope of the scheme there must. be
a scheme iezelgiee 6-.:: I1::i:: government is a
must for acquisition. But
howeeef .f’e1’t:11 coming in the
p1’esemVV Aet.’ .V1m”ieed*~ ‘re’fereI:ee which is made to the
pre*.:-is1i.o;1?.§’ efithe Aet, §$2*hich would not indicate that the
aequi_$i’Eio.i}. Another provision which is required to be
not approval of the scheme but the execution thereof. /W
j
V neei:ca::iQ;1g..
V’ ” ,c:Zt}m{ereio11 as well as certain other lands have been left
e§1»t, it is to be noticed that the total extent of land
2 Etotifieci is 329.39 acres and under the final notification
8. This takes us to the next contention ef
couneei for the petitioner regarding _ _
authority to issue notification.
made available wherein _§;I},_ exereise A’
conferred under clause :3′) of (Sf the
Gevertunent has 1′ Ceeieéissioner,
Kaznataka Hozifiixig functions of
the ‘éecfion 4 of the Act.
Having ?; ‘ aefifieefion issued by the
Goveri3_13:1e:1tV __ titre Commissioner of the
Housing Board {:3 ‘e..¢i:..’eLe,_é{ Deputy Commissioner, I am
of “view tiiat_V_ tV1ie eempetent authority has issued the
9. 112:’. S13.’ far as East: two contenfions Ifegarding
“?54.22 acres was acquireei. It is no doubt true that/W
X’
«–.c0r:§zérsion’v%. has piace before issuance of the
_pf€:1i’:11i§i1z3;y évizotifiicatiozw. In so far as remaming iarids
“~<._"V'-?§.SS"£1£ijI'iCfi§A 301' the greliminary notification. The Board in
" t}1a,_§t;at€II1eI1¥: of abjection has stated that indeed an
.é fiffbrt was made by {he authority '£0 ciezlete the lands by
conducting spot i1"1Sp€Cti{)1"1 on 30.6.2006. 811%: however %
about 6 acres of land was ieft out of the
that by itseif, it Cazmet be said fi11ai~–th¢2%§ A
the acquisition. The peVtitio:;i:=;;'$ –A.'_V_i:"io
contend that all the lands é:£1"x~éjéi:9I1Vc§§i9'1e§1.; krery
purposc for which th¢:–'}gnd 'bé piixt to use
fer the same purpesye it is 13.0
doubt true conversion has
been conversion. is still
measures acres
12 gu1ifi3ia'S.'_ is the acquisitien on the
ground that-~ hay-';= 1§t:ef3; c:01';1rer:ed. But however such
ar€..§Vonce;ri::§§dT, the conversion has taken piazza afltar the
/
it could not be given effect to, i:t::as1}:1uc:h as,_.:f1'e_
Wsuid came in the middki: of the project.
IE}. Since all the conmnfiG¥{S'.uréeé
ceunsei for the petitiafiefs th€%é§%iéw? f.hat the
acquisition proceedinggfl%:2ii};1é}.?;i§;i§Ve
11. Vfigerit in thase petitions.
_ V V V
” ” ‘
5 Mr. ieaxned A.G.A. is permitted to
fiievniiteziio éfappearance within four weeks.
Sd/-»
Iudqe