Point of Law: Supreme Court has further struck a note of caution that though Courts are generally not entitled to go behind declaration of Government to effect that acquisition is for "public purpose", an exercise of judicial review is permissible where power of acquisition is exercised in a colourable manner or if it is a fraud on power.

JUDGMENT :

P. Krishna Bhat, J.

The appellants herein were the petitioners in W.P.No.112171/2015 & connected matters in which they had challenged the acquisition of their lands in Muchakandi and Bagalakote villages of Bagalakote District under two notifications issued by the respondents. The same came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge by a common judgment dated 10.12.2021. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before us in these appeals.

2. Under the impugned notifications, about 1275 acres of lands were acquired in Muchakandi & Bagalakote WA No. 100139 of 2022 C/W WA No.100062/2022 villages of Bagalkot District for the purpose of implementing Unit-III of Upper Krishna Project (for short "UKP"). It is stated that ever since 1985, lands were being acquired for implementing UKP which was for the avowed "Public Purpose" of irrigating large tracts of land in various districts of North Karnataka extending upto Yadagiri.

3. There is no dispute about the fact that an award dated 30.12.2010 was passed by the Krishna Water Dispute Tribunal-II permitting the increase of height of Dam from 523 mtrs to 525 mtrs which in its wake would have submerged large extents of lands in Bagalkot. The impugned notifications were issued for establishing township in order to rehabilitate and resettle people who were going to be displaced on account of such submergence.

4. The learned Single Judge raised following two questions for consideration upon hearing the submissions of the learned counsel on both sides :

"a. Whether the issuance of the declaration under Section 6(1) notification was issued beyond the period of one year stipulated in the 1st explanation WA No. 100139 of 2022 C/W WA No.100062/2022 of Section 6 and consequently rendered it a nullify?

b. Whether the State was justified in acquiring additional lands of about 1643 acres for establishing Bagalkote-Navanagar Unit III under the impugned notifications?"

5. On the first question, by taking note of the relevant dates and the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'Act'), the learned Single Judge recorded a finding in the negative. The discussions in this behalf are at paragraphs 29 to 43 of the impugned judgment. The correctness of the said finding has not been seriously contested before us by the learned Senior Counsel Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, appearing for the appellants. In any case, the relevant dates noticed by the learned Single Judge having not been disputed before us, we are satisfied that no other conclusion on the said point for consideration in the facts of the case is possible.

6. Extensive and expansive submissions were made before us by learned Senior Counsel on both sides. Submissions for the appellants was led by Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri. Basavaraj Godachi, Advocate and learned Counsel Sri. C.V. Angadi and the submissions for the respondents was led by learned Senior Counsel Sri. M.R. Naik assisted by Sri. G.K. Hiregoudar, learned Advocate.

7. After hearing the submissions of learned Senior Counsel of both sides, we are satisfied that there is no merit in these appeals and they are liable to be dismissed.

8. The moot points canvassed in extensor before us necessitate some treatment of the extent of judicial review permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a matter of this nature and so also the nature and extent of power of the State to acquire lands under the umbrella provision "Public Purpose". Again, we have no doubt in our mind that law on both these heads admit of no ambiguity leaving no scope for further elucidation in view of catena of decisions emanating from the Hon'ble Apex Court; but yet we are treating the same in some detail largely on account of deference to the pain-staking submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel on both sides on the merits of the case.

9. Before dealing with the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to inform ourselves of the extent of judicial review