IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.
Gayathri Dattu - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 5431 of 2020 (LA-RES)
Decided On : 02-02-2022
Land Acquisition - National Highways Act - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Preliminary Notification dated 30.12.2011, Final Notification dated 23.10.2012, Award dated 22.02.2013, Notices dated 25.07.2019 and 29.07.2019 - The court considered the legality of the acquisition proceedings, the method of road formation, and the applicability of compensation under the N.H. Act of 1956 and the said Act of 2013. The court found the impugned Notices to be illegal and arbitrary, quashed them, and remitted the matter back to the concerned respondent(s) for reconsideration.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claimed to be the absolute owner of the schedule property and contested the acquisition proceedings, alleging non-compliance with the N.H. Act of 1956 and deprivation of opportunity to challenge the acquisition. The petitioner also argued for compensation under the said Act of 2013 and challenged the method of road formation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the impugned Notices to be illegal and arbitrary, quashed them, and remitted the matter back to the concerned respondent(s) for reconsideration.
Issues: The issues included non-compliance with the N.H. Act of 1956, deprivation of opportunity to challenge the acquisition, entitlement to compensation under the said Act of 2013, and the legality of the method of road formation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned Notices were illegal and arbitrary, and remitted the matter back to the concerned respondent(s) for reconsideration.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, the impugned Notices were quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the concerned respondent(s) for reconsideration.
JUDGMENT
S.R. Krishna Kumar, J. - In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-
"(a) Issue writ of certiorari or any other order or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the:
(i) Preliminary Notification dated 30.12.2011 bearing Notification No. 2925(E) (Annexure B) issued by Respondent No. 1;
(ii) Final Notification dated 23.10.2012 bearing Notification No. S.O. 2552(E) (Annexure C) issued by Respondent No. 1;
(iii) Award dated 22.02.2013 bearing No. LAQ/NHAI/NH207/AWD/CR-5/2012-13 (Annexure-D) issued by Respondent No. 3;
(iv) Notice dated 25.07.2019 bearing No. SLAO & CANH-207/CR1/2019-20 issued by Respondent No. 3 (Annexure-K) and
(v) Notice dated 29.07.2019 bearing No. SLAO & CANH-207/CR1/2019-20 issued by Respondent No. 3 (Annexure-L).
(b) Direct the respondents to issue fresh Notification in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 by annexing the road Map/Lane Map along with the Gazette Notification and finalize the acquisition proceedings thereafter;
(c) Declare that following the Eccentric method in formation of road without any justification is arbitrary and it amounts to offending the petitioner's right under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India;
Or in the alternative,
(d) Declare that the entire land acquisition proceedings in respect of the schedule property have lapsed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013;
(e) Issue any other appropriate order/direction/writ as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case including the cost, in the interest of justice and equity;
2. Briefly stated the various contentions put forth in the petition are as under:-
(i) Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the schedule property bearing Sy. No. 14/1A1 measuring 10 guntas situated at Aralumallige village and Sy. No. 103 measuring 934 Sq.mtrs situated at Kesthur village, both at Doddaballapur taluk, Bangalore Rural District. The schedule property is situated about 700 mtrs from Doddaballapur ring road and the details of the same have been set forth in the petition.
(ii) It is contended that though the Central Government notified the schedule property for acquisition for the purpose of National Highway vide preliminary notification dated 30.12.2011, the petitioner was not served with any notice of the same and she would not object/oppose the acquisition at that point in time. Subsequently, a final notification under Section 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short 'the N.H. Act of 1956') was issued on 23.10.2012 without providing any opportunity to the petitioner. It is also contended that thereafter an award was passed on 22.02.2013 without providing any opportunity to the petitioner. It is further contended that the name of the petitioner was not found in the notifications and award and thereby depriving the petitioner of any opportunity to challenge the acquisition proceedings. It is further contended that the procedure prescribed in Section 3 of the N.H. Act of 1956 was not followed, which vitiates the acquisition proceedings.
(iii) The petitioner has contended that possession of the petition schedule property was not taken and award was not passed prior to coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short the said Act of 2013) and that consequently, compensation has to be paid in favour of the petitioner as per the said Act of 2013.
(iv) The petitioner has also contended that the acquisition by the respondents following the eccentric and not concentric method is illegal and deserves to be quashed apart from the fact that the earlier company called Transstroy (India) Limited was not going ahead with the project and though the award was passed on 22.02.2013, there was no paper publication for th
The court emphasized the importance of providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and considering all contentions and documents in accordance with law.
The court emphasized that failure to follow mandatory procedures in land acquisition invalidates the award, highlighting the necessity of proper notifications and consideration of market value as per....
Schedule-II deals with elements like provision of housing units in case of displacement, land for land, offer for developed land, choice of Annuity of employment, Subsistence grant for displaced fami....
Acquisition of land - passing of award with a delay of six years etc., would render the Award invalid and land acquisition proceedings lapsed, in the absence of a specific provision dealing with the ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.