Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 17532
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
W.P.No.108602/2019 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
The Ugar Sugar Works Limited
A Public Limited Company
Registered under Companies Act, 1956
Having its Registered Office
At Mahavir Nagar, Vakharbhag
Sangli-416 416
Maharashtra State
at Ugar Khurd-591 316
Tq. Athani, Dist-Belagavi
Represented by its
Managing Director.
… Petitioner
(By Sri H.N.Shashidhara, Senior Counsel for
Sri.Anand C.Desai, Advocate)
AND:
1.
The State of Karnataka
Dept. of Irrigation
Vidhana Soudha, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bengaluru-560 001
Rep. by its Secretary
2.
Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd.,
4th Floor, Coffee Board Building
Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru-560 001
Rep. by its Managing Director
R
2
3.
Executive Engineer
Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd.,
Hipparagi Project, R & P
Division No.3
Harugeri-591 220
Tq. Raibag, Dist-Belagavi
4.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer
Hipparagi Dam Project
Athani-591 304
Dist- Belagavi
5.
The Special Deputy Commissioner
Land Acquisition
Rehabilitation & Resettlement
Major Irrigation Projects
Belagavi-591 101
6.
The Land Tribunal Athani
Athani-591 304
Dist. Belagavi
Rep. by its Chairman
7.
Shri Ganapati Panchayatan
Samasthan Trust
Sangli-416 416
Dist. Sangli
Maharashtra State
Rep. by its Managing Trustee
Sri. Vijaysingh Madhavrao
Patawardhan
… Respondents
[By Sri.Umesh C.Ainapura, Advocate for R2 & R3
Sri.Shreevatsa S.Hegde, Advocate for R7
Smt.V.Vidyavati, AAG for Vinayak S. Kulkarni
AGA for R1, R4, R5 & R6]
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the award passed by the
Respondent No.4, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hipparagi
3
Dam Project in respect of lands situated at Kusnal Village of
Athani Taluka District Belagavi in award bearing No.LAQ:SR-
70/15-16, Dated: 03.02.2018 proclaimed on 05.02.2018 in
respect of Sy. No.127 (Part) measuring 16 Acres 24 Guntas out
of 30 Acre 14 Guntas produced as per Annexure-A, award
bearing No.LAQ:SR-70/15-16, Dated: 08.02.2018 proclaimed on
09.02.2018 in respect of Sy.No.128 measuring 34 Acres 37
Guntas produced as per Annexure-B, award bearing No.LAQ:SR-
70/15-16, Dated: 14.02.2018 proclaimed on 16.02.2018 in
respect of Sy. No.129 measuring 35 Acres 14 Guntas produced
as per Annexure-C and etc.
This writ petition, having been heard and reserved for
orders on 24/11/2022, coming on for pronouncement of orders,
this day, the Court made the following:
It is mandatory for the State to notify all the persons interested in the land (as defined under Section 3(x) of the 2013 Act) including the tenant of the land and hear their objections before taking a decision to issue a final declaration.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 - SECTION 11(1) - NOTIFICATION - SECTION 15 - OBJECTIONS - SECTION 3(X) - PERSON INTERESTED - TENANT - NOTIFICATION OF TENANT - MANDATORY - [2013 ACT]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a public limited company, contends that it is the tenant of 86 acres 35 guntas of land situated at Kusanal Village and Ugar Khurd Village of Belagavi District and they were inducted as tenants under registered Lease Deeds dated 04.09.1951 and 16.02.1972. They also contend that they have made an application seeking for conferment of occupancy rights as provided under the Land Reforms Act and the same is pending adjudication before the Land Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
It is mandatory for the State to notify all the persons interested in the land (as defined under Section 3(x) of the 2013 Act) including the tenant of the land and hear their objections before taking a decision to issue a final declaration.
Issues: 1. Whether it is mandatory for the State to notify all the persons interested in the land?2. And consequentially, whether the tenant of the land is also required to be notified for the purpose of enabling him to file objections to the acquisition?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 11(4) of the 2013 Act seeks to injunct all the persons who are interested in land from creating any transaction, it logically follows that all the interested persons would have to be notified.2. It is for this purpose that Form II mandates that the name and address of all the persons interested are to be mentioned in the notification.3. If the name and address of the persons interested are not completely indicated, they would not be in a position to object to the acquisition and they would also not be bound by the injunction that Section 11(4) seeks to create.4. It is, therefore, clear that the Rules as framed by the Central Government would satisfy the requirement of Section 11(1) of 2013 Act and since the State Rules are silent about notifying the interested persons, in order to achieve the objects of the 2013 Act, it would be necessary and mandatory for the State to notify all persons interested in the lands proposed for acquisition.
Final Decision: The declaration issued in March, 2017 published on 06.04.2017 vide Annexure-E is quashed. Consequently, the three awards passed i.e., in respect of land bearing Sy.No.127/P1 measuring 16 acres 24 guntas on 03.02.2018 vide Annexure-A, in respect of Sy.No.128 measuring 34 acres 37 guntas on 08.02.2018 vide Annexure-B and in respect of Sy.No.129 measuring 35 acres 14 guntas on 14.02.2018 vide Annexure-C are also quashed.Petitioner is permitted to file objections to the preliminary notification within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the authorized officer shall consider the same and proceed in accordance with law.
1.
In this writ petition, acquisition of 86 acres 35 guntas of
land situated at Kusanal Village and Ugar Khurd Village of
Belagavi District is questioned by the petitioner - Company.
Petitioner, a public limited company, contends that it is
the tenant of these lands and they were inducted as tenants
under
registered
Lease
Deeds
dated
04.09.1951
and
16.02.1972. They also contend that they have made an
application seeking for conferment of occupancy rights as
4
provided under the Land Reforms Act and the same is
pending adjudication before the Land Tribunal.
A notification under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair
Compensation
and
Transparency
in
Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short,
hereinafter referred to as "the 2013 Act") was issued on
31.05.2016 proposing to acquire a total of 86 acres 35 guntas
of land comprised in Sy.No.127/P1 (measuring 16 acres 24
guntas), Sy.No.128 (measuring 34 acres 37 guntas) and
Sy.No.129 (measuring 35 acres 14 guntas) for the purpose of
establishment of a Rehabilitation Centre at Kusanal Village as
a result of execution of Hippargi Dam Project. This notification
was also published in the Gazette on 09.06.2016 vide
Annexure-D.
On publication of Section 11(1) notification, the
authorities served notices on the owner Sri Ganapati Maharaj
Sangli, who did not object to the acquisition for the purpose
of establishment of a Rehabilitation Centre at Kusanal Village
as a result of execution of Hippargi Dam Project.
5
It is not in dispute that notices were not served on the
petitioner calling upon it to submit objections, if any, to the
proposed acquisition.
It is stated that a report was submitted to the State
Government and the State Government, on consideration of
the said report took a decision to acquire the land on
19.10.2016 and consequentially to issue a declaration.
Consequently, a declaration under Section 19(1) of 2013 Act
was issued in March, 2017 (date not mentioned) and was also
published in the Gazette on 06.04.2017 vide Annexure-E.
Thereafter, it appears that notices were issued to the
land owner and three separate awards were passed i.e., in
respect of land bearing Sy.No.127/P1 measuring 16 acres 24
guntas on 03.02.2018 vide Annexure-A, in respect of
Sy.No.128 measuring 34 acres 37 guntas on 08.02.2018 vide
Annexure-B and in respect of Sy.No.129 measuring 35 acres
14 guntas on 14.02.2018 vide Annexure-C.
8.
It is also stated that pursuant to the aforesaid awards,
the State has also paid compensation of about Rs.12.83
crores to the land owner.
6
9.
It is the contention of the petitioner that it was
incumbent upon the State to notify it about the acquisition
since it was the person who was actually affected by the
acquisition. It is contended that the Sugar Factory being run
by the petitioner was heavily dependent on the sugar cane
that was grown in 86 acres 35 guntas of land and if these
lands are acquired, they would suffer a huge loss. It is also
contended that the question of petitioner's entitlement to be
conferred with occupancy rights was pending adjudication
before the Land Tribunal and in this view of the matter, it was
completely wrong on the part of the State to have paid
compensation to the owner in respect of subject lands, which
were in possession of the petitioner and in respect of which
its claim for being conferred with occupancy rights was
pending adjudication before the Land Tribunal.
10.
It is also specifically contended by the petitioner that in
the RTC, the name of the petitioner is entered in the
cultivator's column and therefore, the State could have no
excuse for not notifying the petitioner.
7
11.
It is stated that since the State was aware about the
proceedings pending before the Land Tribunal, the petitioner
ought to have been notified about the acquisition.
12.
It is also contended that the petitioner had in fact filed
a declaration under Section 66 of the Land Reforms Act and
that was also pending consideration.
13.
It is sub
