Arunkumar S/o Shri Narasimha Shetty vs State of Karnataka066 Represented by its Managing Director

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2012 Supreme(Kar) 960

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.
Arunkumar S/o Shri Narasimha Shetty, Shri Sharankumar S/o Shri Narasimha Shetty and Shri K. Kirankumar Shetty S/o Shri Narasimha Shetty —Appellant
Vs.
The State of Karnataka By the Secretary to the Department of Industries and Commerce Government of Karnataka Vikasa Soudha Bangalore-560 001, The Special Land Acquisition Officer-I KIADB 3rd Floor, Thimmaiah Tower 1st Cross, Gandhinagar Bangalore-560 009 and Gail (India) Ltd., Registered Office at No. 16 Bhikaiji Cama Place R.K. Puram New Delhi-110 066 Represented by its Managing Director —Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 5222 and 6563-6564 of 2012
Decided on : 19-04-2012

Advocates:
Advocate appeared:
Mr. A. Krishna Bhat, Associates, for the Appellant
Mr. Vijayakumar A. Patil, HCGP, Sri P.V. Chandrashekar, Sri B.C. Sridhar, for the Respondent

Headnote:KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966 - Sections 28: [Mohan Shantanagoudar, J] Acquisition of land for establishing terminal stations of underground gas pipelines - Notifications issued in order to acquire certain patches of land for establishing terminal stations at regular intervals -Held, For purpose of having one terminal stations, which may require about 2 to 3 acres, area of thousands of acres cannot be acquired. Act nowhere prohibits authorities from acquiring property in certain bits. Acquisition of land can be made in public interest only in respect of needed land for establishing industry and the same cannot be challenged on ground that industrial area cannot be set up in patches.
       KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966 - Section 28: [Mohan Shantanagoudar, J] Acquisition of land for establishing terminal stations for underground gas pipelines - Held, Project is in public interest. Acquisition cannot be challenged on ground that land was intended to be used for tourism industry by petitioners and therefore it is not open for authorities to take away their rights to run industry with a view to establish another industry. Individual interest of petitioner has to be weighed with public interest. More so when petitioners can be suitably compensated as per law. Land Acquisition Officer considering objection though not meticulously, like civil Court, acquisition cannot be challenged on that ground. Such lapse on part of Land Acquisition Officer cannot be taken benefit of by petitioners having regard to object for which acquisition is being made. Further, Land Acquisition officer cannot be expected to pass orders under Section 5-A of Land Acquisition Act as if he is a Civil Court. If Court finds that objections are considered appropriately, then no interference is called for. Prayer on that ground for remand also cannot be granted as matter is in national interest and project was in fast progress.
       KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966 - Sections 28(4) & 3(1): [Mohan Shantanagoudar, J] Acquisition of land for purpose of establishing terminal station for the benefit of GAIL (India) Ltd., - Challenge to the acquisition on the ground acquisition ought to have been acquired under Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 and also as to location - No provision in the PMP Act to acquire land - Held, It is for the expert in the field to decide as to where the terminal stations are to be established. Since there is no provision in the PMP Act to acquire, acquisition under the KIAD Act is proper. Courts generally do not interfere with the expert’s decision in such matters. Writ Petitions dismissed
       PETROLEUM & MINERALS PIPELINES (ACQUISITION OF RIGHT OF USER IN LAND) ACT, 1962 - Sections 3 & 6: [Mohan Shantanagoudar, J] Acquisition of land for laying of underground gas pipelines - No provision in Act for establishing terminal stations for said purpose - Held, Acquisition of land under Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act is legal.
       CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Article 226: [Mohan Shantanagoudar, J] Judicial Review - Expert’s decision regarding establishing terminal station for underground gas pipelines - Held, High Court cannot sit as appellate authority to substitute its decision to decision taken by expert in said field. Acquisition of land cannot be challenged on ground that it was with mala fide intention.

ORDER

Mohan Shantanagoudar J. --Petitioners have sought for quashing the order at Annexure-H dated 8.9.2011 passed under Section 28(3) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 ('KIAD Act' for short) and Annexure-J, final declaration dated 7.12.2011 passed under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act. The petitioners have also sought for quashing the consequential notices issued pursuant to the final declaration. Petitioners are the joint owners of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No. 68 of Guddadarangavvanahalli, kasaba hobli, Chitradurga taluk measuring 5 acres 16 guntas. On 24.7.2010 a notification under Section 3(1) of the KIAD Act was issued by the first respondent declaring the area of 1 acre 10 guntas out of Sy.No. 68/1 of Guddadarangavvanahalli, kasaba hobli, Chitradurga taluk as an industrial area. On the same day, another notification under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act was issued in respect of the very extent of 1 acre 10 guntas out of Sy.No. 68/1 of Guddadarangavvana-halli village, proposing to acquire the said land for the purpose of establishing terminal station for the benefit of GAIL (India) Limited. The final declaration was issued to the same extent on 3.12.2010 which came to be gazetted on 4, 12.2010. The copy of the final declaration is produced at Annexure-D to the writ petition. The petitioners have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 8998/2011 (LA-KIADB) questioning the final declaration, which came to be allowed with a direction to the respondents to provide an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. Thereafter the statement of objections is filed by the petitioners as per Annexure-F. The objections are overruled by the order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (hereinafter referred to as 'KIADB') as per Annexure-H dated 8.9.2011. Subsequently, the final declaration was made once again on 7.12.2011, which came to be gazetted on the same day. Subsequently, the notices are issued as per Annexures-K and K1 to the petitioners calling upon them to appear before the Price Fixation Committee to have their say in the matter before proceeding to pass the Award. Questioning the acquisition notification and the order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer overruling the statement of objections, these writ petitions are filed.

2. Mr. Krishna Bhat, learned advocate for the petitioners on going through the statement of objections filed by the petitioners before the Land Acquisition Officer, submits that the petitioners have mainly raised three objections viz., the acquisitions made under the provisions of the KIAD Act is illegal inasmuch as the acquisitions ought to have been made under the special enactment of the Central Government i.e., Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (hereinafter, referred to as the 'PMP Act'); the petitioners intend to use the land in question for tourism industry inasmuch as they want to establish a resort and that therefore it is not open for the respondents to take away the right of the petitioners to start an industry in order to establish another industry by GAIL (India) Limited; the industrial area cannot be made in patches and it should have been vast extent and about 1 acre of land as acquired in this matter should not have been acquired for the purpose of a single industry.

The writ petitions are opposed by Sri P.V. Chandrashekar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of KIADB and Sri B.K. Sridhar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 3.

3. The records maintained by KIADB reveal that M/s GAIL (India) Limited is a Government of India undertaking.

It has taken a decision to transport the LPG gas through pipelines and hence the pipelines are being laid underground for the said purpose from Dabhol (Maharashtra) to Bangalore. If the gas is transported through pipeline underground, the same would result in reduction of vehicular traffic and that the ga

Click Here to Read the rest of this document