REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s).19510/2011
P. PARTHASARATHY Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. This special leave petition is directed against the judgment and
order dated 15.6.2011 passed by the Division Bench of the
Karnataka High Court affirming the judgment and order passed
by the learned Single Judge of the same High Court.
2. By the aforesaid order, the High Court where the legality and
validity of the final notification dated 6.2.09 issued under sub-
section (4) of Section 28 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’)
Page 1 of 15
was challenged upheld the validity and legality of the aforesaid
notification issued by the respondent/State exercising the
powers vested in it under sub-section (4) of Section 28 of the
Act.
3. The petitioner herein is the owner of survey no. 154/10
measuring about 2 acres at Kengeri village, Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South taluk. The land of the petitioner was the
subject matter of the notification issued by the State of
Karnataka. The notification was issued under Section 28(1) of
the Act. The petitioner, however, did not file any objection
whereupon a final notification under Section 28(4) of the Act
was issued, which, however, was challenged before the learned
Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court by filing a writ
petition, which was registered and numbered as W.P. No. 24867
of 2005.
4. The learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated
13.01.2009 allowed the said writ petition filed by the petitioner
herein and quashed the final notification issued and also the
consequential corrigendum. The learned Single Judge also gave
a liberty to the respondents to identify the land which they
Page 2 of 15
propose to acquire. It was also held therein by the learned
Single Judge that the petitioner as also the respondent no. 4
would take the proceeding before the High Court as the notice in
the matter of identification of the land in question and file their
objections within a period of four weeks. Subsequent thereto, a
notice was issued to the petitioner by the Board on 6.2.2009. In
the said notice, the Board informed the petitioner that the land
described in the notice is required for the development of the
Karnataka Industrial Development Board and that the
Government of Karnataka had issued a notification under sub-
section (1) of Section 28 of the Act by notification dated
19.12.1998. The petitioner was further informed that he may
show cause as to why the land should not be acquired and that
such a notice is being given to the petitioner pursuant to the
order passed by the High Court in the aforesaid writ petition. A
description of the land was also given in the said notice. The
petitioner as against the same submitted a reply contending,
inter alia, that the land of the petitioner could not and would
not come within the aforesaid acquisition and, therefore, his
name shown in the preliminary notification dated 19.12.1998 be
Page 3 of 15
deleted. He further stated in the said reply filed that the plan
prepared for road including the peripherial road junction,
approved by the competent authority clearly indicate that
the land in question is not at all required or proposed to be
acquired and that being the state of affairs, acquisition of any
portion of the said land bearing survey no. 154 cannot be
sustained either in facts or in law and the same is liable to be
dropped from acquisition.
5. After the receipt of the aforesaid objection filed by the petitioner,
an enquiry was conducted by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer. A report was also prepared, which is placed on record.
It appears the petitioner was represented by his counsel in the
said enquiry proceedings. The concerned officer considered the
records and then ordered that notices be issued to all concerned
persons including the petitioner notifying them that a survey
would be conducted to measure the land and that the petitioner
should be present in the aforesaid survey to be made to show
their respective lands.
6. It is also disclosed from the record that as per the date fixed i.e.
on 18.4.2009, the concerned officers visited the spot and on
Page 4 of 15
that day, the concerned persons including the petitioner and
others were present. In the said survey, the previous phoded
numbers were cancelled and thereafter the mahazar was drawn
in the presence of the parties and they were also given sketch
copies with available records in terms of their requests. The
officer, thereafter, heard the arguments and after referring to
the order of the Karnataka High Court dated 13.01.2009 it was
held that the land measuring 2.33 acres is required for the
project. Thereafter the said Land Acquisition Officer passed an
order that the land bearing survey no. 154/10 of Kengeri village,
Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South taluk is required for the
proposed reasons of acquisition and that the same is suitable
and required as per the joint measurement and schedule and,
therefore, the said land measuring 2.33 acres was ordered to be
acquired. Consequent thereupon a notification under Section
28(4) was issued whereby the land of the petitioner was
acquired by putting the name of the petitioner in the schedule
annexed to the said notification.
7. The validity of the aforesaid notification was challenged by filing
a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court. The learned Single
Page 5 of 15
Judge who heard the writ petition, after hearing the counsel
appearing for the parties, dismissed the writ petition by his
order dated 11.9.2009 holding that the order of the learned
Single Judge in the earlier writ petition no. 24867/2005
directing the Land Acquisition Officer to provide opportunity to
the petitioner and also to identify the land and thereafter to
proceed with the matter having become final and binding and
since subsequent to the said order, the land having been
identified and his objections having been considered and the
actual portion of the land required for formation of the road
having been notified, there could be no further grievance of the
petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner
was dismissed.
8. Being aggrieved by the said order, a writ appeal was filed before
the High Court, which is the impugned judgment and order. By
the said judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court
dismissed the appeal holding that any defect in the preliminary
notification would not prove fatal to the acquisition proceedings.
It was also held that though survey number was not challenged,
a fresh inquiry was held to identify the land whereupon the land
Page 6 of 15
was identified and thereafter order was passed followed by final
declaration that the land of the petitioner is required for the
project. Consequently, the appeal was also dismissed and the
present petition was filed on which we have heard the learned
counsel appearing for the parties.
9. Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
has submitted that the land was not identifiable as although the
extent of land was mentioned in the notification but the
boundaries that were given were incorrect and erroneous and,
therefore, the notification issued by the respondent State under
sub-section (4) of Section 28 of the Act is liable to be quashed.
10. In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel has
relied upon the decisions of this Court titled Narendrajit Singh
&
Anr.
Vs. The
State of U.P. and Anr. reported in (1970) 1
SCC 125, Madhya
Pradesh Housing Board Vs.
Mohd.
Shafi
and Others reported in (1992) 2 SCC 168 and Om Prakash
Sharma
and Others Vs.
M.P
. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam
and Others reported in (2005) 10 SCC 306.
11.Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for the
Page 7 of 15
respondent no. 5 and Ms. Shenoy, learned counsel appearing
for the State have refuted the aforesaid submissions of the
counsel appearing for the petitioner and submitted that the land
which was sought to be acquired by the respondent was
identifiable all along. It is also submitted that the petitioner was
given opportunity to file his objections, which were considered,
and even the land was re-surveyed in order to identify the exact
location and area of the land in terms of the order passed by the
learned Single Judge and thereafter upon proper identification
and verification of the land, the notification under sub-section
(4) of Section 28 of the Act having been validly issued, there
could be no interference in the present case.
12.In the light of the aforesaid submissions of the counsel
appearing for the respondents, we propose to dispose of this
special leave petition by giving our reasons thereof.
13. The project that we are concerned with was also the subject
matter of appeal filed in this Court in the case of State of
Karnataka
and Anr. Vs. All
India Manufacturers
Association and Anr. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 683. In
paragraph 77 of the said judgment, it was held by this Court
Page 8 of 15
that the concerned project is an integrated infrastructure
development project and is not merely a highway project. It was
also held that the project which is styled, conceived and
implemented is the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor
Project which conceived of the development of roads between
Bangalore and Mysore. There are several interchanges in and
around the periphery of the city of the Bangalore together with
numerous developmental infrastructure activities along with the
highway at several points. It is, therefore, needless to reiterate
that the project is a very important project and the land which
is sought to be acquired is proposed to be a part of the
peripheral road being a part of the aforesaid developmental
infrastructure.
14.The issue that arises for our consideration is whether there was
any inaccuracy with regard to the description of the boundaries
of the land which is sought to be acquired by the respondents.
In fact, in the earlier round of litigation wherein validity of sub-
section (1) of Section 28 was not challenged, what was done was
to quash the notification issued under sub-section (4) of Section
28, which was in fact under challenge. Even thereafter and
Page 9 of 15
pursuant to the orders of the High Court which had become
final and binding, a re-survey was done after going through the
objection filed by the petitioner. In the said re-survey where the
petitioner was also personally present, the land proposed to be
taken and acquired was identified, sketch map was prepared
and thereafter only the final notification under sub-section (4) of
Section 28 was issued.
15.That the petitioner could file his objection and he was fully
heard and was also given an opportunity regarding
identification of the land indicates that the petitioner had ample
opportunity to place his case, which was considered but
decided against him. In our considered opinion full opportunity
having been given to the petitioner to place his case and to
oppose the acquisition process, there could be no further
grievance of the petitioner in that regard.
16.We are also of the opinion that no prejudice is caused to the
petitioner in any manner for the land was re-surveyed and
thereafter the land sought to be acquired was identified, which
included the land of the petitioner and, therefore, the entire pre-
conditions and formalities as laid down under Section 28 of the
Page 10 of 15
Act were duly complied with and were adhered to and followed
and, therefore, there cannot be any further cause of grievance
for the petitioner.
17. In this connection, we may appropriately refer to a decision of
the Constitution Bench of this Court in Babu Barkya Thakur
Vs. State of Bombay and Others, reported in AIR 1960 SC
1203. In paragraph 12 of the said judgment, the Supreme
Court has held that the purpose of the notification under
Section 4 is to carry on a preliminary investigation with a view
to finding out after necessary survey and taking of levels and if
necessary digging or boring into the sub-soil whether the land
was adapted for the purpose for which it was sought to be
acquired. It was further held in that decision that it is only
under Section 6 that a firm declaration has to be made by the
Government that the land with proper description and area so
as to identifiable is needed for a public purpose or for a
company. The aforesaid observation was made after holding
that what was a mere proposal under Section 4 becomes a
subject matter of a definite proceeding for acquisition on
issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act.
Page 11 of 15
18.We feel that the law laid down in the said decision applies in
full force to this case also. In the present case also there were
some errors and mistakes in the notification issued under sub-
section (1) of Section 28 of the Act but the same did not, in any
manner, prevent the petitioner from submitting an effective
objection and also from getting an opportunity of effective
hearing for him. A re-survey was done in his presence and,
therefore, the purpose for which the provision of sub-section
(1), (2) and (3) have been enacted, have been fully carried out in
the present case.
19.We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that although there
was some discrepancy in the description of the property
proposed to be acquired and the description given although
might not have been exactly accurate, but the same did not in
any manner misled the petitioner regarding the identity of the
land which is corroborated by the fact of the detailed enquiry
which was conducted in his presence. The petitioner was also
able to file a detailed and effective reply to the show cause
notice issued to him.
20. The decisions which are relied upon by the learned counsel
Page 12 of 15
appearing for the petitioner are clearly distinguishable on facts.
So far the decision in case of Narendrajit
Singh & Anr.
Vs.
The
State of U.P. and Anr. reported in (1970) 1 SCC 125
(supra) is concerned, in the said case we find that this Court
interfered with the declaration because there was no particulars
given in the notification. In the said case, there was no mention
of any locality at all and in that context, this Court interfered
with the proposed acquisition.
21. So far the next case, namely, Madhya Pradesh Housing Board
Vs.
Mohd.
Shafi and Others reported in (1992) 2 SCC 168
(supra) is concerned, in that case also details and particulars of
the land were not given and a wrong public purpose was
mentioned and in that view of the matter, this Court interfered
with the acquisition proceeding.
22. As regards the case of Om
Prakash Sharma and Others Vs.
M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam and Others reported in
(2005) 10 SCC 306 (supra) which was relied upon by the
counsel for the petitioner is concerned, in that case neither any
survey number was given nor any khasra number was given.
Even the name of the persons were not mentioned and in that
Page 13 of 15
context the declaration was quashed with a liberty by way of
giving a fresh opportunity for initiation of a fresh acquisition
proceeding.
23.The aforesaid cases are clearly distinguishable on facts and,
therefore, they have no application in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
24.Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we
are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge as
also the learned Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court
did not commit any mistake or error in dismissing the writ
petition.
25.We find no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order
passed by the Division Bench. The petition has no merit and is
dismissed, but leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
26.Since we have dismissed this petition, any interim order passed
by the High Court shall also stand vacated by this order.
………………………………………
J
(Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)
Page 14 of 15
……………………………………..J
(ANIL R. DAVE)
NEW DELHI,
AUGUST 24, 2011.
Page 15 of 15