IMPORTANT POINT
Government cannot and does not acquire its own interest.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. —

1. By filing the present appeals the appellants have challenged the validity of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and also the notification issued under Section 6 of the Act whereby the respondents sought to acquire land admeasuring 3 acres 34 guntas situated in Kengeri Village and Hobli, Bangalore, Karnataka.

2. Initially appellants filed writ petitions registered as Writ Petition Nos. 20083-20085 of 1993 before the Karnataka High Court challenging the validity of the notification issued under Section 4 invoking the emergency clause. The High Court of Karnataka, while issuing notice, granted stay. Subsequently, an order dated 30.08.1993 was passed in the writ petition regarding the statement/submission on behalf of the State Government that they would not proceed with the acquisition proceeding of invoking the emergency provision under the Act. Consequent to the same, the appellants herein were given opportunity to file objections.

3. The appellants thereafter filed detailed objections contending inter alia that the vast extent of land that is already possessed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation [for short ‘KSRTC’] and some of the State- owned land is still laying vacant and, therefore, the purpose of acquiring the land of the appellants for formation of link road is unjustified and that the same cannot be said to be required for formation of link road. The appellants also contended that despite the aforesaid objection filed and a report submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer in favour of the claimants, the State Government issued a final notification under Section 6(1) of the Act by holding that the land belonging to the appellants are required for the purpose of workshop and providing residential quarters to its employees.

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action on the part of the State Government in issuing a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the appellants filed Writ Petition Nos. 25361-25364 of 1994 and 25264 of 1994 before the Karnataka High Court challenging the legality and the validity of the preliminary and final notifications.

5. The Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court, by his judgment and order dated 01.02.2000, allowed the said writ petitions holding that in the proceedings prepared by the State Government, the purpose of acquisition was stated to have a link road and in the final notification under Section 6 of the Act, the purpose of acquisition having been shown as completely different, the entire purpose was not justified and tenable. The said fact was also stated to be so, and had been held as unjustified by the Land Acquisition Officer. By so holding the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the said notifications issued under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.

6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order the respondent filed a writ appeal before the High Court of Karnataka. By judgment and order dated 02.07.2003 the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court allowed the appeal filed by the State Government and set aside the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge holding that the acquisition for the land was for a public purpose and that there was no ambiguity in the two notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act.

7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court the present appeals have been filed by the claimants-appellants on which we have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

8. In the light of the submissions made before us we now proceed to decide the contentions raised before us by the counsel appearing for the parties. Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the notification issued by the respondent under Section 4 was vague and the purpose for which the land was sought to be