2010 Supreme(Kar) 1013

2011(3) KCCR 335
High Court of Karnataka
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR
Smt. Susheelamma & Others
Versus
The Secretary to Government & Others
Writ Petition No.9908 of 2008 (LA KHB)
Decided on : 15-11-2010

Headnote:LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - Section 4(1) (as amended by Karnataka Act of 1991 w.e.f. 27-11-1991): [D.V.Shylendra Kumar,J] Acquisition proceedings - Judicial review of administrative action of State - Original purpose of acquisition proceedings was for providing housing to residents of town due to vast expansion and urbanization - Deleting major extent of about 229 acres from out of the initially proposed extent of 252 O. 30 3/4th acres of land and tapering it two down now to meager extent of 23 acres 0.4 guntas of land after excluding lands of two villages in terms of Section 6(1) declaration - Held, Original purpose of acquisition stands abandoned. Such manner of exercise of statutory power by State smacks of hostility against petitioners whose lands were retained in order to favour few others whose lands too were included initially vide notifications under Section 4(1) of Act. Exercise of statutory powers are hit by arbitrariness, mala fide and lack of application of mind. Entire acquisition proceedings was quashed.

       LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - 1894 Section 6(1): [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Issue of declaration by the State Government under Section 6(1) of the Act without hearing any of the representations of the petitioner/landowners no their objections taken note of by the State Government - Petitioner being small landowners belonging to weaker sections have filed writ petitions challenging the notification on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice - Held, In any public administration the State Government should not only keep the large interest of citizens in mind but such concern should be reflected in every action taken by State in its administration. If any action by State does not satisfy this test and is shown to be a colourable exercise, such action has to be interfered - Impugned notification quashed.

        Non-application of mind on the part of the respondents is writ large on the face of the record and the object appears to be to grab the lands of a few marginal landowners while giving up vast tracts of land of influential persons and such action is certainly not to achieve the objective put forth as the ground for acquisition. Such conduct creates a doubt that the respondents are acting to the detriment of t he larger public interest, when the original plan and scheme is not achieved by giving up 9/10th area of the originally proposed land for the developmental activities but retaining only 1/10th extent of the lands initially notified for acquisition. It is, therefore, the entire acquisition proceedings are quashed but liberty reserved to the respondents to come up with a proper plan and scheme for acquiring land to meet the precise need, to examine the possibilities which the State Government and Board can explore for meeting any of the housing requirements and then to come up with an acquisition proposal. The KHB is a statutory board which goes about with the plans and proposals day in and day out and it should have a clear plan for implementing such projects keeping in view the population of the town, available land, financial constraints and all such consideration. Misusing of powers by the authorities has become the order of the day and public authorities, statutory authorities under the various acquisition enactments State and public authorities have been initiating acquisition proceedings left and right without thought or application of mind and then go on issuing de-notifications which ultimately gives and impression to the public at large that only the lands of the poor and marginal landowners is retained for acquisition and of huge tracts of lands owned by affluent, influential persons are eschewed from acquisition proceedings. In any public administration the State Government should not only keep the larger interest of its citizenry in mind in all its endeavours but such concern for the larger good should be reflected in every action taken by the State in its administration. If an action by the State, on close scrutiny does not satisfy this test and is shown to be a colourable exercise, done action has to be interfered with and set at naught. What is not in the interest and the welfare of the people, is definitely not in the interest of the State as it is the people who make up the State.