Back
2023 Supreme(Kar) 774
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Krishna S. Dixit, J.
K. V. Srinivas Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 24580/2021 (LA-RES)
Decided On : 17-01-2023
R. Srinivasa Gowda, Advocate, R. Vishwasnath Hegde, Advocate, M.N. Vijaya, Advocate
The main legal point established is that the Right to Property is constitutionally guaranteed under Article 300A, and the sanctity and efficacy of this provision should be upheld, protecting individuals' ownership and possession from interference by authorities.
Headnote:
Right to Property - Land Acquisition - The court held that the petitioners' lands cannot be touched by the State and authorities, save by acquisition in accordance with law, as the Right to Property is constitutionally guaranteed under Article 300A. The court emphasized that the sanctity and efficacy of Article 300A should be upheld, and others giving up their land cannot be a legal ground to compel the petitioners to do the same.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners raised grievance against the authorities for forcibly taking away their land for road expansion, despite their disagreement. The petitioners argued that their ownership and possession should be protected from interference of the respondents, and the acquisition process under the 2013 Act is the only course open.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the petitioners, restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioners' properties until they are acquired in accordance with the law, namely the 2013 Act.
Issues: The main issue was the protection of the petitioners' right to property and whether the authorities could forcibly take away their land for road expansion without following the acquisition process under the 2013 Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the Right to Property is constitutionally guaranteed under Article 300A, and others giving up their land cannot be a legal ground to compel the petitioners to do the same. The court held that the sanctity and efficacy of Article 300A should be upheld, and the petitioners' ownership and possession should be protected from interference of the respondents.
Final Decision: The court restrained the respondents from interfering with the properties of the petitioners until they are acquired in accordance with the law, namely the 2013 Act.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. The short grievance of the Petitioners regardless of the lengthy pleadings & prayer is as to land forcibly being taken away by the Authorities for the expansion of the road in question even when they are not agreeable thereto.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners argues that the Right to Property though not a Fundamental Right is constitutionally guaranteed under Article 300A; his clients cannot be compelled to give up their property except in accordance with law; his clients are not agreeable for relinquishing their property and therefore, if at all the State wants these properties, the acquisition process under 2013 Act is the only course open. He argues that his clients' ownership & possession should be protected from interference of the Respondents save with the authority of law.
3. Learned AGA appearing for the State and the learned Panel Counsel appearing for the Respondent - Authority together submit that some of land owners have agreed and accordingly given up their lands by executing Relinquishment Deeds and therefore, this course is open to the Petitioners as well wherein the compensation payable would be three times the Guideline value keeping in view the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. So contending, they both seek dismissal of these Writ Petitions.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court is broadly in agreement with the submission made on behalf of the Petitioners that their lands cannot be touched by the State and the authorities, save by acquisition in accordance with law the Right to Property having been constitutionally guaranteed. If others have given up their land, that cannot be a legal ground to compel the Petitioners to give up their land too, since constitutionally guaranteeed avails to the property of individuals and not necessarily the collection of individuals. An argument to the contrary would undermine the sanctity & efficacy of Article 300A and therefore, cannot be countenanced.
In the above circumstances, these Writ Petitions succeed in part; the Respondents are restrained from interfering with the properties of the Petitioners till after the same are acquired in accordance with law, namely 2013 Act.
Ordered accordingly.
No costs.
