Back
2023 Supreme(Kar) 549
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.
Nidasheshi Veeranna S/O. Gavisiddappa and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State Of Karnataka, Represented By Its Secretary, Revenue Department and ors.– Respondents
Writ Petition No. 7954 & 5574 OF 2007
Decided On : 11-10-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri. Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri. M.H. Patil, Addl. Govt. Advocate, Sri.M.B.Kanavi, Advocate
The power of eminent domain must be exercised by the government in accordance with established legal and ethical procedures, and acquisitions cannot be based on mere speculation or without a legitimate public purpose.
Headnote:Eminent Domain - Land Acquisition - Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (Sections 20, 21) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Sections 5A, 6, 17) - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Section 24(2)). Summary: The petitioners, landowners, sought the quashing of acquisition notifications issued by the respondents for their lands. The petitioners claimed that the acquisitions were made without verifying the existence of historical monuments and artifacts and that the notifications were issued contrary to the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. The petitioners also challenged the invocation of the urgency clause and the manner in which the lands were acquired. The court held that the respondents failed to justify the invocation of the urgency clause and that the acquisitions were not for a legitimate public purpose. The court further held that the respondents should have followed established procedures for dealing with potential artifact discoveries on private land. The court quashed the acquisition notifications.
ORDER :
Writ Petition No.7954/2007 is filed by the land owners of the petition land bearing Sy.No.44/1 measuring 2 acres and 3 acres 97 cents situated at Krishnapur Village, Hospet Taluk seeking quashing of the notification of acquisition dated 05.04.2006 issued by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-C and also notification of acquisition dated 25.05.2005 issued by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-B insofar as the petitioners’ lands are concerned.
2. W.P.No.5574/2007 is filed by the land owners of the petition lands bearing Survey No.47/2 and 47/1 measuring 1 acres 60 cents and 40 cents, respectively, situated at Krishnapur village, Hospet Taluk, and also the land bearing Survey No. 681/A/1 and 681/A/3 measuring 1 acre 2 cents and 2 acre 53 cents situated at Kamalapura village, of Hospet taluk, seeking quashing of the notification of acquisition dated 05.04.2006 issued by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-F and also notification of acquisition dated 25.05.2005 issued by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-E insofar as the petitioners’ lands are concerned.
3. The facts leading to the case are under:
The petitioners claim to be agriculturists owning land in Krishnapur Village and Kamalapur Village. The petitioners claim that they are totally dependent on the income generated from these petition lands. The petitioners, however, admit that petition lands are proximate to the Hampi historical monuments and fall within the protected area of Hampi monuments and remains in Karnataka.
The grievance of the petitioners before this Court is that respondent No.5 along with other official respondents have been arbitrarily acquiring lands in the areas surrounding the Hampi Historical monuments. The petitioners claim that these acquisitions are made without verifying the existence of sculptures and carvings. The petitioners also claim that under the garb of protection of ancient artifacts, respondent No.5 has acquired vast extent of land. It is also claimed that respondent No.5 till this date has not carried out any excavation to identify the existence of any historical monuments underneath. Though respondents under the garb of apprehending ancient and historical monuments and archeological sites have been arbitrarily acquiring vast lands, no justifiable reasons are indicated and by invoking urgency clause under Section 17(4), the petitioners’ lands are acquired. The petitioners claim that notifications are issued by the competent authority contrary to Section 20 of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (for short ‘AMASR Act, 1958’).
The petitioners have also questioned the manner in which the lands are acquired. The petitioners have strongly objected that respondents could not have invoked the urgency clause since final notification is issued after lapse of almost one year from the date of preliminary notification. Feeling aggrieved by the acquisition, the petitioners herein filed petition in W.P.No.5574/2007. During the pendency of the writ petition, the authority passed an award and therefore, the petitioners were advised to question the award as they would have lost valuable right of claiming enhancement of compensation. Therefore, the petitioners claim that under protest they have sought reference but there is a serious challenge to the notification acquiring petitioners land. It is also contended that learned Judge dismissed the petition vide order dated 11.01.2012 and the same was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.30419-30422/2013. Feeling aggrieved by the orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench, petitioners were compelled to approach the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court has allowed the petition and matters are remitted back to this Court to decide the validity of acquisition dehors reference proceedings pending before the Reference Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would vehemently argue and contend that offic
