IN THE HIGH courrr or KARNATAKA AT _BANGALC'IéE' , DATED THIS THE 01-t DAY or-' APRIL, if' =7 j BEFORE; § 4 THE HONYBLE MR. JUSTICE KSHQ_K:~i3. f WRIT PE'I'I'l'IO-N No.'iTf85D of'2bp7. % BETWEEN 1 Mia San Engineering and -1Loo()mo1:ivc_ " Whitcficd Ro_ad',« Bangaiorc -:5-,66;fi4:8,., . -- Represented by'. iiié' Company Sri Iiishbin Agcd'.,abo_u_t 5".2.'vy¢-;;a1*a. " V t pmouszz S 'I'M:-r rub-n-nuf A II'nno+a\ 1 ofizlciia, Rep:gse.i1!0.¢i..by Ministry of and Natural Gas, _ New Delhi, Iepreaentud by its Secretary, of Government of India. 2 u - Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.. ri" ' Line Biirisiranj, No.719, 4"' Block,-7"' Main, 1" Biock. Kaiyannagar. Bangalore, represented by its Presiding Ofliocr, Sri R.R.Jannu, K.A.S. 1.. RESPONDENTS
_.__ .5 L. -a…V’_’ -…..
anti fzuim nu”|.’iuuui’iu1i, d .
bl!
{W Sri B.PapegWds. :”u’3G% for R-1, Sri Vijaya S’nar$at”.~.._°enior
Advocate for Sri B.K.Aridhar, Advocate fa11..!?:f2_»,). ~ V ”
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 ‘ofthe..
Constitution of India praying to quash no’fice” by. the
respcndent No.2, d_t.1-1.05. 2007 on the ven£!o1\of:i11e”g>et;itionei1.Sr3I.
Abdul Javced vide [Annexure–A, 14.05.2£)G7′ on._fhe_ “vef.ui’e1f’ecf’ the ”
.n-u-n-taunt:-l’l11.n_= ‘
fififififififir Vidw’i’- r1.u.u6.nu.nv A aufififl 3%-
This ‘”‘”t Peti’ri’n “ming ‘iii me; nu. dash. C{‘i’&1″‘i made the
following ‘
,_,_,_.1ji._j__i-tt:Cl. ¢:uierse::1.A,1 have taken it
“viii the }.-.31’;-M. adv-m…at.es
appearing for é_ *
‘The V i this petition is to the notice.
dt.1¢.L(J2=’.J.’.-f.}u0′._7_’ ‘{.A;1iiie_iii.:ir:E-,iA:§; crdezg t_i_t,2’_7.(_)’_7.2_0O7 [Annexure-B]
V ” “3. ‘1)wa1*akanafl1, the leamed counsel for the
pet ‘ the acquisition proceedings urg1n’ g the fo11ow1n’ g
V’ — . The notice at Annexume-A is issued to and in the name
of the petitioncr’s vendor. although the petitioner is
the recorded owner of the land in question.
FIBH.
T”I1e preliminary notification is sketchy anti It
does not contain the material :not
mention as to who are __the__owne”rs” the it ‘in
question. Where exactly:”:thef_:pro1iose(i ‘A
pass through in mctipefisofierfi} vast’ 4
acres 32 guntas is not:ii:i’o11t11Ked. ‘-
The order at the concerned
has u the petitioner’s
that the objections
“The to set up his industry. The
liéssiiig. of pipeline would come in the
wsy A full beneficial use of the petitioner’s
It is the specific case of Sri Dwarakanath
_’ . it is feasible and viable to shift the proposed
nipeline to the outer boundary of turning point 30 and
Q0 Dir
Iu-IQI I-F’
dninn {kin
wuss I..|.:.n:I,
exciuded and saved from the acquisition proceedings.
PM
– w–rl.
4. On the other hand. Sri Vijaya Shankar. ‘senior
counsel for Sri B.K.Sridhar for the 2″‘ respondent the
route of the proposed pipeline is prepared. so not ntfeet
use of the pathway, mad crossings, “isms, ”
etc. He submits that the questioziis notiwliether
has to be straight or curved; ensuiing that the
c..s:ns.ge use t..e h..igh;<s:;b_o;e ._.__.s 1..-_.1 Qn mv
Qilfiéiifii" to th' 23" res'**"da:-nt's :lt7_';1a*° "-"'m'ed the pmsenm
of the submission on behaif of the
2nd 1espondent'T." i1'1P;'trneiio.ns"ii that there cannot be any
realigxiznent of the existence of the Hoskote
Kere and 'vicinity of the lands in question.
Sri PspeV__§.'§ov.vda, learned ACGSC appearing for the 1*'-
respondenté the submissions of Sri Vijaya Shanitar,
the iiearnedfsenior counsel.
6. On e..re-J.l _,n_L_e:n_=n_ti_ns -1′ the submissions made at
‘=.’:.fi_’ ‘near, I t’-id ttmt the fir-‘t s”b’*-is-‘En ‘awed en be..a’.f M’ the
i pefifioner is devoid of merits. The notice at Annexure-A sppeafi to
it nave been issued in the name of and to the person whosoevefs
name figures in the revenue records. It is trite position in law that
[J 1″‘) n I
PUSH
the land acquisition oficer is not required to hold a enquiry
into who is the owner of the land in question. i in A
-4
?
1
I’
i’
3
5?
3
the presumption is that the persons interested the
public at large have a constriietive Macrluisition
proceedings. I have issued ‘under Section
3(1) of the Petroleum and (ficquisifion of Right
of User in Land); It does contain
the brief dese:ri1itioii’ to what is prescribed
under Sectiiori fifihe “SaidiAct;””I’~have therefore no hesitation in
_ as the second contention that the preliminary’
it inotificatior: sketehjf ‘and vague is concerned, what can be
said notification is that for the transportation of
‘r_espondent Corporation and for the said purpose, it “eees
pe..i-..:l.,.u..,. . p:{r_id1;cts fivor_n Devanagondi to New Bangalore
hte1*””tio* “‘ Air”-‘rt, D”vanah% yimliue has to be laid u.-3’ the 2″”
E:
E:
the right of user in the land. The public purpose is clearly
in set out. Further the preliminary notification specifies the sub-
division number and also the area. The brief description of the
FIBH
I
land confirms to the legislative prescription
3(2) of the said Act. I therefore reject the second it *
ED
E
”5?
it
it
of the objections aiso merits seiions co1tsi(iemtioii;. .V
Authority has held that there Stat» tat: ooiieitieiing the
petitioner’s objections, arsjfliey A 5(1) of the
said Act states that if for laying of the
pipelines under; has ohjecfions within 21 days
from the date! notification. In the
instant iinofifichtion was published on
«;;34_g3_g-:VJ,iQ7_” pi ‘……1-.t in hint ha-an
i5.04.2%7. _V v.i-‘1’oW_efi::-,1’? vttie
V. Alflflflefififlg of the objections the prescribed
itiisientitled the petitioner to have its objections
..’I’i1§eiv.Division Bench of this court in the case of
v. STATE or xannnruu All!)
i “reported in 193412) KLJ 326. has held that the
‘1~_.ohjecfions not filed within the period piesciibed under law need
-JI
can In… ……4I…..:4.’._… 1…… _. ………-.e…;.;,,..
.fi.£nmn.n c an I’..I’-lllflvll Illa IILIVU fl-U
oonsider the “,_,ieo1ions fi_Ied _
specified. The tzmthorities have
to afford an opportunity of u
._g_
§.
In
:3 E
or a person interested who objections ‘or_’
time specified ;§ta§’.4te;~–..¢2!téi~even notifies such
owner or person cause as is
require¢:1:Au21deri}§. 323(3) that’ confer any right
on__ size): 1to_ar;~ appafiuhim of being heard
flied by such
4%,; “»mt:.. ‘-ha “2;-;.=:~..«_;-:¢ere;.r m an .53; o-.-.2
L av: rv «Ju-
au:hofiiy.js%shhhtoo
in mew’ of the.._’;aw- jam’ datum-.~~’tVby the E1v1s1o’ ‘ ” I1 Bench, the competent
-‘V_s.uthvofi1y__of the .2″? nespondent cannot be held to be at fault for
V7 the objections.
” use of the pefifioncfs property in question is an issue,
has to be considered by the concerned authorities. This
‘4 .4 Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution
FIEH.
of India cannot deliver any finding on whether it is or
viable to shift the proposed pipeline to the outer ‘of
turning point Nos.30 and 32. In
refer to a judgment of the Hon’ble of it
aunmanem KHUBHALGlRil._,:_G98AVi harms use
_L_QQU!§!’!’!¢.J!! QFFIGEE-, All ” ‘199§.i Q!) 3169,;
to which piece is convenient -for eatabfisnm? the bus sum’ (i. The
relevant poltioaof hereinbelow:
as :jtp.iiii’i Shri UCR.Lalit, learned
sertiof large congregation of lalchs
‘peoJptel’¢:{or:=e” the temple town of Lord
V _v of relieving the congestion by
bus stand’ and bus depot to
‘ a place in the ottt=slcirts of dty, extersion itsetf
* to the congregation Though the argument
plausible and attractive, we cannot go into
question. It is for the Government to take a
ll ltiecision and it is not for this Court to give any
in that behaif”. ‘The Government did take
oetatra decision. It is wzaity true that the area
reserved for residential purpcae. It is not the case
that they are establishing the bus stand in the
residential area for the first time. In fact bus stand
F/TBH.
is already existing and acquisition was for
€:’3c’f€i’fiiOii of the e5r’si’i'”ag has stared. L’__fic’iér. ‘ .
einenmstasnees, we do not find i
justification warranting intetferenoef ,« T
__ _ _.__.-.. __…__ -___ -9–.’-_ _ __;,_’._._£__’.; _
11. in i’_i’1c icsui i icgeific in K¥ >£fi reus i to i.i’n:
acquisition proceedings. it “is” to the
petitioner to give -appropriate respondent
as to which route of the is viable and which
route is not presume that the
authorities ._ the pefifionefs case and
take appropIiaitej5deeision’-inthe niather.
12.””Ffu’rt11er,_:stitiioziities concerned still persist in
acquiring the”righteof– the land in question, it is open to the
V’ : to A. seeici “”‘ap”prop1-iate compensation if compulsory
right of user in the land in question, is
injn.wions1y.sifeciing his other property.
.s _ _ not This Writ petition is dismissed but subject to the above
_ isaiti-1iheI’ties and observations. No order as to costs.
bvr