?
IN THE HIGH COURT OE KARNATAKA AT I3AI\I(IAI.oHE
DATED THIS THE 38*" DAY OF JANUARY 2010
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE v. GOPAI,AGOW1.T)::A..V
AND ~ _
THE H0I\rI31,E MRJUSTICE A.S.B_Q_P }'x.I:\}N§Z_§'~
WRIT APPEAL NO. 4442,{26O'9« I
BFIIVVEEN:
I UNION OF INDIA "
REP. BY ITS CABINET SEcI"EI;HI--I 19 ()U1._
2 OFFECER IC IIEc;AI, cI1;I;II."' _
FOR S'1'A'E'IQN COMAIVIANQEVR *
Aim-'QI2"«:;E S'*;:AIS'I'RIC'I'
BANGA.I,()RiZ A 560 009 R.f£SI'(}NIDErlN'i'.'55
% .. .(§3Y SR1 R G I__3:i;¥.I..I:'l(:.'l;_]{CCe
this day, B01-"ANNA.J., delivered the f'()11(>\vi;',i:g:2; :V.
JUDGME1s;_1~ 2 "
The 1'
accompanying the applicat.idi'1»«.V:i11.V' HEZKLVBO/2009
are accepted. The de.!;;iy_o13_ filing the Etppfiéll
is eoncioned. The merite1fjit,selp1*«,ei's" Lip for disposal}
after hearing§-.t.hCE1Ve.;11'~11'e<j 1' CV0u.;i1V€sie! I pelrties.
'The No. 1 and 2 in
VV.P.NO.55i-4~4"'/20.09 Aa.f'e'~.-}Ln5ei"()1'e this Court. 21ssai1ing the
Oi:'O9--.--23009 passed by the 1<?aI'I'1(:?d Sixaglt?
011361', the learned Si1'1gle Jmige has
dispesed .e')'i':'itV'11}e w1"i*i petition holding tthat. the f'pri*me inip.( "t»ai'.1ec:=;. 'Et~l"1('T3'.u
accordirigly. the notifieati0'i1:"dat.ecl. at
Armexure--G was p1zbl'is_hedlVAb§* '\.-ir:h.ile'l'iA.eerteiih"ree.Iriet:i(>ris
were imposed on the vieii'1it..y oi the
land bel0ngiQg:lhj- tip eoiistmtttioii.
In this I1"S'€l for the appellmit
also E:-iiQhewev()nt',ai1'1ed in Se('Iio1'1s 3
and Qef Act. 1903. {for short the
'Aet.'}.. .. H€Il(,f3_. l'l_".~VVé1$7(T(lT1t'.€I1CfCd by the 1e2,1rned Cmmsel
"-fer"*the3~.éip;fiellani.théit the learned Single Judge was not
Sn' MR. Naik. leameel senior eoimsel
"ifepi*e£-seating the first resptiridentz however S()£,l§._§h{. to
.t _§:__fst.ify the decision of the learned -Si1']gl(3.Jl1(igC. in this
it
regard. it was pointed out by the l€'c1l'i'1€Cl senior c..*_o__i11'1sel
that the contesting respondent: hereiri could =1-amff:-;;ms
been singled out. It was further pointed onf’ tel-ialtV’i-tl’1el_re
are several eo1’1stmet1’o1’1s in 1l~12iti’–aiIfe£i_. 21I_.’1c{*i’i_ is.fm’1ly
insofar as the contesting resp(in€}ei11–_is c:(>n;%e’r’r1e-‘~(i,Veslueli,
restriction was imposed wh.e>4h.»l1e had l’o1’ No
Objection Certeifica1.e_.~.._Eve;1″”o’tl.ieriiri.se. it’l”\}vas pointed
out that the provision lco.1’l1’talinecil in.._ll’he.Vsaid Act. had not
been eomplied’«wi’_’t.h by a’p;l5ellil:;1nt:fé1i1d therefore the
learned . V
In the has been (:ontendecl, the
only point to beioonsi-delred is as to whether the learned
Judge urasl}Listif’ied in coming to the conclusion
.,.th’r1.’§VV” ” llV”i.1_otific:ation published barring such
c:c)ns_trL1_oL~ion= by the land owners in the vi(:1’_nity had not
‘”w__l”‘been extended beyond 18 months. The faict that. the
_ eontesting respondent. hereiri is the owner of the land
»..measuring 20 gi1n1;as in_Sicledahal1i village.
Yashwanthapura Hobh, Ba11g2iI()a*e North T.2’1Iuk an___(.i the
same is situate on the southern side of the -p”i’-oj3e’i”‘i.y
beloliging to the Airforee not in dispuie. V’
regard. the contesting responcierrr’ had i’or.fiNE;–.
Objection Certificate’ for putting up isoi’ist.n.:c:fi”i1i’é¢!’iVe’._
property. The permission ‘wEi~s c1enie_d’by”v_the Ai’;*i”c)1′(“e V
authorities by plaeingsirelianee’ flr1ot.Ai’f’i(‘:atitv)§n dated
15.02.2007. Since had been
referred to ‘lthe the ieamed
Single Judge vseeifiii-:not:ifieat,ion in the light.
of the &S_’ee’t:i:oI1 9 of the Act and on
rightly ..~~peri0d of 18 rnonths as
eonten1_pIai:e’ei V_VLi:1,de1’A”»_9V{é{J of the Act: had lapsed, as
by/A. theiééippeilants herein had Come to the
eo’11QIuAsi’o»nh ‘vfh’a:t;”j.as on the date when the ‘no objeeiion
eerii.fie.21tr:7 _W’2″iS sought. the notification was moi in
‘A ~’a ‘operat;i.oni.:’ Hence. the Ai1’fo1’ee ;1ut:hori1.ies could not.
j ‘h._et-we _1fei’used permission.
A
7».
(3
6. In this 1″(-:ga1″Cl. on noticing the provision in the
said Act, we are also of the View that”. the not.ificat.ion
was not in siibsistence and themfrire, the learned Single
Jricige was justified in coming to such a c:onelt_1sion.
HCHCE. insofar as the learned Sing§1e~Jucige _(:’oii«1.ii1g’
conclusion that the czontesting resp()11d.ei1t.”‘~.he–1féif1 ls’ l
entitled to put. up COIlStI”UCl’lQI1:..lU:’ lhéA_lS’L1bSlStllT1:g.’
situation. we see no error. s”I’h_oL1gliA1j,_h”e l(3a1l”VI;1″CVV”(_’£.vCOLlVl~lSél
for the appellant relied on .l.l”1€vi§lC8.I’l1€(l
Single Judge of the High Court: in
the caséllloi’ l?i’o”rI«:£,s {INDIA} LTD AND
oas vs,Vo*NioN_o’1e’.ilNoirAZ’mi’) ores £2009 INDIAN PNH
667], the sainfié v.zo’ulci’.iiot be of assistance in the present”
A”-faC”i’s.’ T1′: the saidlilécrision. it is no doubt. true that the
V’a–._;jrovisioi1.s”oft-the Act. has been consiclered and we also
are-~..(:lear’al:ioiit the provisions in the Act and the object’
ll :'”ol’ t.hezs..:f’me to protect, the defence installation. Bui. all
” _ ‘ action would have to be taken in accordaiice with the
ii = wizrovisions contained therein. in the instant case, as
l