Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 748
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
S.G. PANDIT, J.
Mallappa — Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka — Respondent
Writ Petition No. 4465 of 2008
Decided on : 05-07-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Basavaraj S. Byakod, Adv., P.A. Kulkarni, Adv., V.S. Kalsurmath, Adv., Anand R. Kolli, Adv., Harsh Desai, Adv.
Once land is acquired and possession is taken, it vests with the State Government free from encumbrance, and cannot be reassigned or denotified. The utilization of acquired land for any other public purpose is permissible, and the establishment of a petrol pump serves a public purpose.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Allotment of Land - Land Acquisition Act - Section 4(1), Section 6(1) - The court rejected the petitioners' claim to quash the allotment order and denotify the land, holding that once the land is acquired and possession is taken, it vests with the State Government free from encumbrance. The court cited legal provisions and precedents to establish that the acquired land cannot be reassigned or denotified, and can be utilized for any other public purpose. The court also emphasized that the establishment of a petrol pump would serve a public purpose and cannot be considered for private use.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners' lands were acquired in 1991 for the purpose of forming a link road. Subsequently, respondent No.5 was allotted a portion of the acquired land for establishing a petrol pump. The petitioners challenged the allotment and sought denotification of the land, claiming that the acquired land was not utilized for the intended purpose.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the petitioners' claims, stating that once the land is acquired and possession is taken, it vests with the State Government free from encumbrance. The court emphasized that the acquired land cannot be reassigned or denotified, and can be utilized for any other public purpose. The court also held that the establishment of a petrol pump would serve a public purpose and cannot be considered for private use.
Issues: 1. Challenge to the allotment of acquired land for establishing a petrol pump. 2. Request for denotification of the acquired land.
Ratio Decidendi: Once the land is acquired and possession is taken, it vests with the State Government free from encumbrance. The acquired land cannot be reassigned or denotified, and can be utilized for any other public purpose. The establishment of a petrol pump would serve a public purpose and cannot be considered for private use.
Final Decision: The writ petition is rejected.
JUDGMENT :
S.G. Pandit, J.
The petitioners are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying the following reliefs:
1. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the allotment order dated 29.02.2008 passed by the BDA allotting half acres of land in favour of the 5th respondent bearing No. marked as Annexure-C to the writ petition.
2. Direct respondents No.1 to 4 to restrain the 5th respondent from putting up any petrol pump on the lands in dispute.
3. Denotify the land to an extent of 10 acres 25 guntas together in Sy.No.34/2 and 34/2/2 situated at Bagalkot.
2. The petitioners claim that they were the owners of land bearing Sy.No.134/2 to an extent of 6 acres 25 guntas and land in Sy.No.134/2/2 to an extent of 4 acres situated at Bagalkot. The petitioners state that the respondent-State issued Annexure-A preliminary notification dated 09.08.1991 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, the 'Act' ) for acquisition of petitioners' lands. Subsequently, the respondent issued final notification under Section 6(1) of the Act on 20.06.1992. Award in respect of the acquired lands was passed on 02.06.1994 and on reference, compensation was enhanced. The petitioners also received the compensation including the enhanced compensation.
3. Respondent No.5 made an application to respondent No.2 requesting for allotment of 1 acre of land for setting up a petrol pump. Considering the application filed by respondent No.5, respondent No.2 on 28.12.2006 allotted the land measuring 1500.00 sq.mtr. in Sy.No.134/2 to respondent No.5. It is stated that respondent No.5 paid a sum of Rs.4,84,380/- on 09.02.2007 and possession of the land was also handed over to the respondent No.5 on 07.07.2007. Sale deed was also executed and registered in favour of respondent No.5 on 12.07.2007. The petitioners being aggrieved by the allotment of land in favour of respondent No.5 are before this Court praying to quash the allotment order dated 29.02.2008 under Annexure-C. Further, the petitioners have also prayed to denotify the land to an extent of 10 acres 25 guntas in Sy.No.34/2 and 34/2/2 situated at Bagalkot. In that regard it is stated that the petitioners had made a representation to the respondents on 09.03.2007.
4. The respondent-State on appearance has filed statement stating that with an object of achieving full fledged development of the acquired area, land was allotted to respondent No.5 for the purpose of establishing petrol pump which would be useful for general public and to meet the needs of fuel to the users of the road. Respondent No.5 filed statement stating that he had made representation to respondent No.2 for allotment of 1 acre of land for establishment of petrol pump which was considered and allotted 15 guntas of land. He submits that he has paid the entire sale consideration and he has taken the possession of the allotted land.
5. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the materials on record.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners' lands were acquired in the year 1991 with a specific purpose of formation of link road from Navanagar to Bagallkot. But only 20 guntas of acquired land is utilized for road purpose and the remaining acquired land is not utilized for any other purpose. As the land acquired is not utilized for the purpose for which it is acquired, the petitioners submit that they are entitled for repossession of the lands. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the allotment of land to respondent No.5 is not for public purpose. It is also contended that respondent No.5 was a member of the Bagalkot Town Development Authority has got the allotment made in his favour. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have made representation to the respondent authorities to denotify the land and they have stated that they are ready to deposit the compensation received. It is contended that even though rep
