Land Acquisition: Karnataka HC Directs Authorities to Hear Objections Before Finalizing Notification Under Sec 11(1) of 2013 Act

Karnataka High Court Upholds Natural Justice in Byadagi Road Widening Project, Directs Authorities to Reconsider Objections

DHARWAD: In a significant order providing relief to dozens of property owners, the Karnataka High Court at Dharwad has directed state authorities to provide a fair hearing and consider all objections before proceeding with a land acquisition for the Gajendragad-Sorab State Highway project. While not quashing the preliminary notification, the bench of Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur emphasized that the principles of natural justice must be followed, ordering a halt to any coercive action until the petitioners' grievances are addressed.

---

Background of the Case

The writ petition was filed by 77 residents and business owners from Byadagi town, Haveri district, challenging a Preliminary Notification dated February 27, 2023. This notification, issued under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the 'Act of 2013'), proposed the acquisition of their properties for widening the State Highway.

The petitioners, who have lived and operated businesses on Main Road, Byadagi, for several years, argued that the acquisition would deprive them of their homes, shops, and livelihoods.

Arguments of the Petitioners

Represented by Advocate Gangadhar S. Hosakeri, the petitioners put forth several key arguments:

* Procedural Lapses: They contended that the authorities failed to conduct a mandatory Social Impact Assessment (SIA) as required by the Act of 2013.

* Availability of an Alternative: The petitioners highlighted the existence of an alternate vacant route that would be less expensive for the government and would spare their private properties, which include hospitals, schools, and hotels.

* Violation of Constitutional Rights: The acquisition, they argued, was a clear violation of their rights under Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 19 (Right to Practice any Profession), and 300A (Right to Property) of the Constitution of India.

State's Counter-Arguments

The State, represented by the Advocate General, strongly opposed the petition, claiming it was not maintainable as it only challenged a preliminary notification. The government's counsel argued:

* Public Interest: The road widening is crucial for Byadagi, an international hub for chilli trade, and the project is in the larger public interest. A Public Interest Litigation (W.P. No.7377/2017) had previously directed the state to expedite the road's construction.

* Project Progress: A significant portion of the highway project is already complete, with only an 825-meter stretch within Byadagi town remaining. Many other land losers have already accepted the acquisition and are willing to receive compensation.

* Due Process Assurance: The State assured the court that the acquisition process would strictly follow the law, including providing notice, a fair hearing, and an opportunity for landowners to file objections.

Court's Reasoning and Directions

After hearing both sides, Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur noted that the primary challenge was against a preliminary notification, which is an initial step in the acquisition process. The Court acknowledged the government's assurance to follow due process.

In his oral order, the Judge stated, "As what is now questioned is only a Preliminary Notification, there could be possible that the respondents may consider the objections and drop the proceedings with regard to the lands belonging to the petitioners."

Balancing the needs of public infrastructure with the rights of individual property owners, the Court disposed of the petition with specific directions to safeguard the petitioners' interests.

Final Order and Implications

The High Court issued a directive to the respondent authorities to:

1. Consider all objections: Authorities must consider objections already filed and any new ones submitted by the petitioners.

2. Provide an opportunity of hearing: Petitioners must be given a chance to be heard and to submit additional documents.

3. Halt Coercive Action: No coercive measures shall be taken against the petitioners until their objections are considered and a reasoned order is passed.

4. Adhere to Natural Justice: The entire process must comply with the principles of natural justice.

This judgment reinforces the legal principle that even in projects of public importance, state authorities cannot bypass the statutory requirement of fair hearing and due consideration of objections from affected citizens. It provides a crucial window for the residents of Byadagi to present their case for an alternative alignment and protect their properties and livelihoods.