Back
2009 Supreme(Kar) 355
High Court of Karnataka
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR
Zakirunnissa & Others
Versus
State of Karnataka Rep.by its Secretary Commerce & Industries Department & Others
Writ Petition No.14296 of 2008 (LA-KIADB)
Decided on : 11-06-2009
For the Petitioner:Vardhaman V. Gunjal, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, Udaya Holla, Advocate General, along with Keshava Reddy, GA., R2 & R3, Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Counsel for P.V. Chandrashekar, R4, Udaya Holla, Sr. Advocate for AAREN Associates, R6 & R9, Ashok Harnahalli, R8, Gangadhar Sangolli, R9, Shwetha Anand, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the deference to technical expertise and policy decisions in matters related to the establishment of infrastructural facilities, as well as the authority of the State Government in making such determinations.
Headnote:
Notification - Land Acquisition - Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 - Section 3(1), Section 28(6) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the applicability of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 to the acquisition of land for the Bangalore Metro Rail Project. It highlighted the definition of 'industrial infrastructural facilities' under Section 2(7-a) of the KIAD Act and the court's interpretation of the Act's applicability to the metro rail project. The judgment also referenced the Division Bench rulings in H.N. Nanje Gowda and another –vs-State of Karnataka and Others and Darshan-vs-State of Karnataka to support its decision. Additionally, the court discussed the Mysore Tramways Act, 1906 and its relevance to the establishment of the metro railway station, providing interpretations of relevant sections and highlighting the President's authority to adapt existing laws under Article 372 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged a notification issued under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 and the notices issued under Section 28(6) of the same Act, related to the acquisition of their properties for the Bangalore Metro Rail Project. They contested the location of the South End Metro Railway Station and raised concerns about the project's impact on the surrounding areas.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the provisions of the KIAD Act were applicable to the project and upheld the notification declaring the area as an industrial area. It dismissed the petitioners' objections to the acquisition process and the location of the railway station, emphasizing the technical and managerial decisions made by the authorities. The court also rejected the petitioners' contentions regarding the underground metro rail project, mala fide intentions, and the consideration of their objections by the acquiring authority.
Issues: The issues included the applicability of the KIAD Act to the acquisition for the metro rail project, the validity of the notification and notices issued under the Act, the decision to shift the location of the railway station, and the consideration of the petitioners' objections by the acquiring authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the applicability of the KIAD Act to the project, the technical and managerial decisions made by the authorities, and the lack of mala fide intentions in the decision-making process. It emphasized the deference to technical expertise and policy decisions, and the authority of the State Government in determining the suitability of the location for the railway station.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court ruled in favor of the respondents, stating that the petitioners were not entitled to any relief.
Petitioners have questioned the Notification vide Annexure-“F” dated 17.1.2009 issued by the 3rd respondent-The Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as KIAD Act for short), as also the notices issued under Section 28(6) of the KIAD Act vide Annexures ‘G-1’ and ‘G-2’ dated 15.5.2008, calling upon the petitioners to hand over the possession of the acquired properties. The petitioners have also prayed in the writ petition that the South End Metro Railway Station may be located in Survey No.6/1 and 6/2 of Dasarahalli (Jayanagar Extension). Alternatively, it is prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to construct the South End Metro Railway Station as per the original approved design and alignment vide proceedings at Annexure-‘A’ on the property earlier earmarked for South End Metro Railway Station.
2. The averments in the writ petition disclose that the petitioners herein are the owners of (a) C.T.S.No. 2458, B.B.M.P. Khata No.16, Corporation Ward No.50, V.V. Puram, Bangalore, East-West measuring 12.30 x 12.35 sq.mtrs. and North-South measuring 15.90 x 15.90 sq.mtrs, and (b) C.T.S.No831, B.B.M.P. Khata No.75/2, Corporation Ward No.50, V.V. Puram, Bangalore, East-West measuring 9.90 x 9.90 sq.mtrs. and North-South measuring 12.50 12.60 sq.mtrs. The aforesaid two properties are some of the properties which are sought to be acquired for the purpose of mega project called “Bangalore Metro Rail Project”, along with other adjoining properties. The petition properties and the adjoining properties are being acquired for locating South End Metro Railway Station. According to the petitioners, the report of the proceedings of Government of Karnataka dated 28.2.2004 vide Annexure-‘A’ fixes the place wherein the South End Metro Railway Station is to be established; the properties at SI.Nos.59, 60, 61 and 62 found in Annexure-‘A’ are the places earmarked earlier for establishing the South End Metro Railway Station and those properties do not include the petition properties. Later, at the behest of the owners of those properties and the Chief Secretary of the Government of Karnataka, the South End Metro Railway Station is now being shifted about 200 meters away from the earlier place, north side. According to the petitioners, there is no application of mind on the part of respondents 1 to 4 while preparing the report pertaining to Bangalore Metro Rail project; that while preparing the project report, the authorities have copied certain ingredients from other projects; and that the Mysore Tramways Act, 1996 cannot be made use of for establishing the Bangalore Metro Railway Station or to the acquisition of the land for establishing railway station; that the metro railways to be established by the respondents 1 to 4 under the provisions of Mysore Tramways Act, 1906, is improper, that the project in question will result in sound pollution and will generate lot of dust and vibration in the adjoining areas; that the metro rail project could have been established wholly underground and not above the ground as is being done for the present; that the South End Metro Railway Station is badly planned, inasmuch as, there are hospitals, schools, markets, commercial buildings etc., in the nearby vicinity and consequently, people are put to greater hardship; that there will be no place for parking of the vehicles, in case, if the station is established in the present location; that the State Government’s property is vacant and is available in the nearby area i.e., just about 500 meters away from the properties in question and that the respondents are not making use of the same for establishing the station; that the design of the railway station is not ready as on this day; that the general public ought to have been consulted before starting the metro rail project; that the KIAD Act is not applicable, inasmuch as, metro rail is not an industry
