1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE19H DAY OF OCTOBER2022BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.147109 OF2020C/W W.P.No.147214 OF2020 W.P.No.147400 OF2020 W.P.No.102798 OF2021& W.P.No.102805 OF2021LA-RES) IN W.P. No.147109/2020 BETWEEN:
1. . SRI.A.A. ATTAR SINCE DIED HIS LRS RIYAZAHMED A ATTAR, AGED ABOUT:
58. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
2. SRI.SHRIMANTH SULEMANAPPA BAGALKOTE AGED ABOUT:
50. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
3. SRI.M.M. HANJAGI AGED ABOUT:
60. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
4. SRI.NARAYANAPPA S/O SANNAGIRIEPPA DASAR AGED ABOUT:
65. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SRI LAXMI NARAYAN BAKERY, MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI. 2
5. SRI.SRINIVAS VENKATESH DASAR AGED ABOUT:
60. YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI6 SRI.PANDURANG S/O SHIVAYYA KUPPA AGED ABOUT:
65. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
7. SRI.FAKKIRAPPA S/O SANNAGIRIEPPA DASAR AGED ABOUT:
60. YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
8. SMT.S C MUDDANNANAVAR SINCE DIED HER LRS MAHESH A MUDDANNANAVAR, AGED ABOUT:
38. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
9. SRI.GANAPATI S/O PANDURANGA VERNEKAR AGED ABOUT:
46. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
10. SRI.S.G. MUDDANNANAVAR AGED ABOUT:
75. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
11. SRI.KRISHNAJI S/O BASAVANTAPPA SHINDE AGED ABOUT:
80. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
12. SRI.SIDDARAMAPPA S/O FAKKIRAPPA NOOLVI AGED ABOUT:
72. YEARS, 3 OCC: NIL, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
13. SRI.VARDICHANDA S/O KEVALACHAND JAIN AGED ABOUT:
80. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
14. IMTIYAZ PATTEAHAMED PATTESABANAVAR AGED ABOUT:
35. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
15. SHA VANECHAND S/O BABULAL JAIN AGED ABOUT:
74. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
16. SRI.MURAGEPPA CHANNABASAPPA UPASI AGED ABOUT:
70. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
17. SMT.SHANTABAI W/O VANECHAND JAIN AGED ABOUT:
68. YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
18. SRI.RAMACHANDRA NARAYANAPPA AGADI AGED ABOUT:
70. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
19. SRI.VISHWANATH KOTTARAPPA ANKALAKOTI AGED ABOUT:
54. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
20. SMT.LALITA W/O MALLIKARJUNGOUDA VEERANGOUDRU AGED ABOUT:
63. YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, 4 R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
21. SRI.SHIVAKUMAR SHIVASHANKRAYYA KOPPAD AGED ABOUT:
50. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
22. SRI.VIJAYKUMAR CHANNABASAPPA YELI AGED ABOUT:
54. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
23. SRI.BABULAL JETMALJI JAIN AGED ABOUT:
70. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
24. SRI.MANJUNATH SUBBARAY RAIKAR AGED ABOUT:
60. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
25. SRI.GNYANESHWAR VITTAL GANACHARI AGED ABOUT:
40. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
26. SRI.UMESHKUMAR PRATAPCHAND JAIN AGED ABOUT:
48. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
27. SRI.SHA MAHAVEER TARACHAND JAIN AGED ABOUT:
46. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
28. SRI.CHANDRASHEKARAPPA S/O IRABASAPPA SADALAGI AGED ABOUT:
70. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, 5 R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
29. SRI.UMESH S/O KAMALAKAR VERNEKAR AGED ABOUT:
46. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
30. SRI.SHIVANAGAPPA S/O SHIVALINGAPPA HOSANGADI SINCE DIED HIS LRS, SHIVALINGAPPA SHIVANAGAPPA HOSANGADI, AGED ABOUT:
50. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, WARD NO.7, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
31. SMT.MAHADEVAMMA MURAGEPPA HOSANGADI AGED ABOUT:
66. YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
32. SRI.RAJAPPA SHESHAPPA JADAV AGED ABOUT:
70. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
33. MALLIKARJUN @ MALLAPPA SHIVALINGAPPA SANKANNANAVAR AGED ABOUT:
51. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
34. SRI.S.S. SHETTAR AGED ABOUT:
81. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
35. SRI.SAJAYAKUMAR VANECHAND JAIN AGED ABOUT:
42. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI. 6
36. SRI.MAHANTGOUDA LINGANAGOUDA PATIL AGED ABOUT:
48. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
37. SRI.MUSTAPASHA BASHREERAHAMED MAKANADAR AGED ABOUT:
42. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
38. SMT.HAMEEDABHANU BASHEERAHAMED MAKANADAR AGED ABOUT:
70. YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
39. SMT.MAMATAJBI SANNAHASANALI MAKANADAR AGED ABOUT:
55. YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
40. SRI.SUNKAPPA NAGAPPA KARNOOL SINCE DIED HIS LRS, JAGANATH S KARNOOL AGED ABOUT:
55. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
41. SRI.VEERANNA S/O BASAPPA MAGALAD SINCE DIED HIS LRS, GANESH S/O VEERANNA MAGALAD AGED ABOUT:
35. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
42. SRI.HUSSENSAB MAHAMEDALISAB KULMI AGED ABOUT:
60. YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
43. SRI.MALATESH GANAPATEPPA UMAPATHI AGED ABOUT:
56. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, 7 R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
44. SRI.DATTATREYA PANDURANG VERNEKAR AGED ABOUT:
44. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
45. SRI.RAGHAVENDRA MANOHAR RATTIHALLI AGED ABOUT:
44. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
46. SRI.RADHAKRISHNA GOPAL RATTIHALLI AGED ABOUT:
65. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
47. SRI.MANOHAR KESHVAPPA RATTIHALLI AGED ABOUT:
68. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
48. SRI.KRISHNAPPA S/O GANESHAPPA ANCHATAGERI AGED ABOUT:
65. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
49. SRI.NEMICHAND HARICHAND JAIN AGED ABOUT:
54. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
50. SRI.PARASMAL JETMAL JAIN SINCE DIES HIS LRS SANJAYKUMAR PARASMAL JAIN AGED ABOUT:
41. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
51. SRI.SHIVAPPA CHANNAVEERAPPA ANKALKOTI SINCE DEAD BY HIS L.Rs 8 RATNAMMA SHIVAPPA ANKALKOTI AGED ABOUT:
86. YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
52. SMT.KAVITA ALIAS SHIVAGANGA W/O SUGEERAPPA SHETTAR AGED ABOUT:
46. YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
53. SHI ASHOK KUMAR NATAMALJI AGED ABOUT:
65. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
54. SRI.SHAMBULINGAPPA DODDABASAPPA BASAPPA SHIRUR AGED ABOUT:
70. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
55. SRI.GOPAL S/O GANGAPPA SHETRA AGED ABOUT:
59. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
56. SMT.SHANTABAI W/O RADHAKRISHNAPPA SHETRA SINCE DIED HER LRS JAGADISH R SHETRA, AGED ABOUT:
36. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
57. SRI.PRAKASH S/O MANIKCHAND JAIN ALIAS OSWAL AGED ABOUT:
58. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
58. SMT.GIRIJAVVA MALLAPPA JOLAD AGED ABOUT:
41. YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, 9 R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
59. SMT.JAYASHEREE SHIVAYOGI KUBASAD AGED ABOUT:
48. YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
60. SRI.MAHAMED RAFIQ S/O SAIDUSAB YADAWAD AGED ABOUT:
58. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
61. SRI.UMESH S/O TEKCHAND JAIN AGED ABOUT:
49. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
62. SRI.MANJUNATH BIKKAPPA KUDATARKAR AGED ABOUT:
49. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
63. SRI.HARISH S/O VEERABDRAYYA ARADYAMATH AGED ABOUT:
40. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
64. SRI.SUBASH PUTTAPPA WALISHETTAR AGED ABOUT:
45. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
65. SRI.REVANAPPA S/O CHANNABASAPPA GOKAVI AGED ABOUT:
58. YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
66. SRI.MAHESHGOUDA S/O VEERUPAKSHAGOUDA CHANNAGOUDRA AGED ABOUT:
39. YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, 1 0 R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
67. SRI.KOTTRABASAPPA S/O SHIVAPPA KOPPAD AGED ABOUT:
65. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
68. SRI.DATTATERAYA S/O GUDDAPPA AGADI AGED ABOUT:
55. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
69. SMT.GOURAVVA D/O GANGADARAPPA TILAVALLI AGED ABOUT:
39. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
70. SRI.MALATESH S/O NARAYANAPPA BANDAMMANAVAR AGED ABOUT:
48. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
71. SRI.IRAPPA DUNDEPPA YERESHIMI AGED ABOUT:
70. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI,DIST: HAVERI.
72. SRI.IRANNA S/O PANCHAPPA KATTI AGED ABOUT:
60. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
73. SRI.SHIVANGOUDA CHANNAGOUDAR AGED ABOUT:
75. YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
74. SRI.BASAVARAJ S/O DYAMAPPA UDYOGANNANAVAR AGED ABOUT:
70. YEARS, 1 1 OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
75. SRI.SHIVAYOGI S/O DYAVAPPA HOSAMANI AGED ABOUT:
39. YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
76. SRI.MRUTYUNJAY S/O KANNAPPA HOSAMANI AGED ABOUT:
60. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
77. SMT.RADHA D/O YALLAPPA HANAGI AGED ABOUT:
44. YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
78. SMT.PARVATEVVA W/O CHANDRASHEKARAPPA GADAD AGED ABOUT:
65. YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
79. SRI.CHANDRASHEKARAPPA S/O BASATTEPPA GADAD AGED ABOUT:
72. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
80. UMESH PANDURANG VERNEKAR AGED ABOUT:
42. YEARS, OCC: NIL,R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
81. RAMANNA H KODIHALLI AGED ABOUT:
75. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRAMOD KATHAVI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GANGADHAR S. KOSAKERI, ADVOCATE) 1 2 AND:
1. . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT (LAND ACQUISITION1AND3 M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD. BY UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, FORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 3 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD. BY UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVT., REVENUE DEPARTMENT (LAND ACQUISITION1AND3, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 4 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI-581110. 5 . THE CHIEF ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNOICATION AND BUILDING (NORTH) SIR M. VISHVESHWARYA MARGH, DHARWAD-580001. 6 . SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLOIC WORKS, FORSTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT, CIRCLE DHARWAD, TQ and DIST: DHARWAD-580001. 7 . THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, FORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT, DIVISION HAVERI, TQ and DIST: HAVERI-581110. 8 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HAVERI SUB-DIVISION, TQ and DIST: HAVERI-581110. 1 3 9 . THE TAHSILDAR BYADAGI, TAHSILDAR OFFICE, BYADAGI-581106. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SMT. VIDYAVATHI KOTTURSHETTAR,ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL, SMT. K.R. ROOPA, HCGP FOR C/R-2, R-4 AND C/R-7, R-1, R-3 AND R-6, R-5, R-8 AND R-9 SERVED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO:RD84AQD2020 DATED1605.2020 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-F, SO FAR AS PETITIONERS PROPERTIES ARE CONCERNED AS MENTIONED ABOVE IN THE SCHEDULE. IN W.P. No.147214/2020 BETWEEN:
1. . SHRI.CHETAN S/O: MAHANTAPPA KABBUR AGE:38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BYADAGI, TALUK: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI, PIN:581106.
2. SHRI. JAYADEVAPPA S/O: BANGAREPPA KABBUR AGE:72 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BYADAGI, TALUK: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI, PIN:581106.
3. SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O: MAHANTAPPA KABBUR AGE:61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O: BYADAGI, TALUK: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI, PIN:581106 1 4 4. SHRI. MURAGEPPA S/O: BANGAREPA KABBUR AGE:58 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O: BYADAGI, TALUK: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI, PIN:581106 5. SHRI. SHIVABASAPPA S/O: PANCHAKSHARAPA KABBUR AGE:55 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: BYADAGI, TALUK: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI, PIN:581106 6. SMT. VIJAYALAXMI W/O: JAYAPPA HEDIYAL AGE:50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD and BUSINESS R/O: BYADAGI, TALUK: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI, PIN:581106 7. SHRI. MRUTUNJAYAPPA S/O: HALAPPA HEDIYAL AGE:45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O: BYADAGI,TALUK: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI, PIN:581106 8. SHRI. NINGAPPA S/O: RAMANNA JADAV AGE:50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BYADAGI, TALUK: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI, PIN:581106 9. SHJRI. PARASJURAM S/O: RAXMANRAO MELAGERI AGE:50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O: BYADAGI,TALUK: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI, PIN:581106.
10. SHRI. SHIVAYOGEPPA S/O HUCCHAPPA WALISHETTAR AGE:58 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O: BYADAGI, ,TALUK: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI, PIN:581106 11. SHRI. SIDDALINGASWAMI S/O: MALAYYA KOPPADMATH AGE:48 YEARS, 1 5 OCC: BUSINESS R/O: BYADAGI, TALUK: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI, PIN:581106 12. SHRI. HONNURAPPA S/O: FAKIRAPA KADASALI AGE:59 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O: BYADAGI, TALUK: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI, PIN:581106 13. SHRI. JAYADEVAPPA S/O: HUCCHAPPA SHETAR AGE:35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O: BYADAGI,TALUK: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI, PIN:581106 14. SHRI. MURAGEPPA S/O: HUCCHAPPA SHETTAR AGE:62 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O: BYADAGI, TALUK: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI, PIN:581106 15. SHRI. BASAVARAJ S/O: SURENDARAPPA KUBASAD AGE:52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O: BYADAGI, TALUK: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI, PIN:581106 16. SHRI. FAKARUSAB S/O: PEERASAB DODAMANI AGE:65 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O: BYADAGI, TALUK: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI, PIN:581106 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ.P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU,PIN:560002. 2 . THE KARNATAKA STATE HIGH WAY AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BANGALURU, PIN:56002. 1 6 3 . THE SPECIOAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HAVERI-SUB DIVISION, HAVERI DIST: HAVERI, PIN:581110 4 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI PIN:581110. 5 . THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND INLAND WATER TRANSPOIRT SUB-DIVISION, HAVERUI DIST: HAVERI, PIN:581110 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SMT. VIDYAVATHI KOTTURSHETTAR,ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL, SMT. K.R. ROOPA, HCGP FOR R-1, R-3 AND R-5 R-2 SERVED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMUPGNED NOTIFICATION DATED0506.2020 IN NO.DC-HAV- 1500(11)/198/202-HAV-LAQ-GAVERI-DC PUBLISHED ON1806.2020 IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE PART-6B VIDE ANNEXURE-B ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AND4SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AND ETC. IN W.P.No.147400/2020 BETWEEN:
1. . SMT.PARVATEVVA H HANGI SINCE DIED HER LRS SUDEER HANGI AGED ABOUT:
35. YEARS OCC: BUSINESS R/O MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI2 SRI VERAYYA PANCHAKSHRAYYA MADAPURMATH SINCE DIED HIS LRS SUNIL PANCHAKSHRAYYA MADAPURMATH ABOUT:
36. YEARS OCC: BUSINESS R/O MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI17 3. SRI UJJAYYA S/O SIDDAYYA HIREMATH AGED ABOUT:
55. YEARS OCC: BUSINESS R/O MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI4 SRI PUTTALINGAPPA S/O BASAPPA CHAVADI AGED ABOUT:
50. YEARS OCC: BUSINESS R/O MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI5 SRI DR. SHIVAKUMAR BEERAPPA HASALLI AGED ABOUT:
48. YEARS OCC: BUSINESS R/O MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI6 SRI RAMESH KRISHNAPPA CHOUDRI AGED ABOUT:
45. YEARS OCC: BUSINESS R/O MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI7 SRI FAKKIRASWAMY SIDDAYYA HIREMATH AGED ABOUT:
60. YEARS OCC: BUSINESS R/O MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI8 SRI JNANESHWAR RATAPPA HOVALE SINCE DIED HIS LRS (WIFE) SHAKUNTALA J HAVALE AGED ABOUT:
45. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI9 SMT. SANNBAYAKKA RATANAPPA HOVALE AGED ABOUT:
46. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI10 SRI MANGALSINGH PUKARAJ RAJPUROHIT AGED ABOUT:
65. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI11 SRI KADEMAVALLA ESUBASAB KALMANI AGED ABOUT:
60. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O MAIN ROAD, BYADAGI TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRAMOD KATHAVI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GANGADHAR S.HOSAKERI, ADVOCATE) 1 8 AND:
1. . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT(LAND ACQUISITION1AND3 M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001560001 2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS FORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001 3 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT (LAND ACQUISITION1AND3 M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001 4 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAVERI, DISTRICT HAVERI-581110 5 . THE CHIEF ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION AND BUILDING (NORTH) SIR M. VISHVESHWARYA MARGH, DHARWAD-580001. 6 . SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS FORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT CIRCLE DHARWAD, TQ and DIST: DHARWAD58000 7 . THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS FORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT CIRCLE, HAVERI, TQ and DIST: HAVERI -581110. 8 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HAVERI SUB-DIVISION, TQ AND DIST: HAVERI-581110 1 9 9 . THE TAHSILDAR BYADAGI, TAHSILDAR OFFICE BYADAGI-581106. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SMT. VIDYAVATHI KOTTURSHETTAR,ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL, SMT. K.R. ROOPA, HCGP) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.RD84AQD2020 DATED1605.2020 PASSED BY THE RRESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-F SO FAR AS ETITIONERS PROPERTIES ARE CONCERNED AS MENTIONED ABOVE IN THE SCHEDULE AND ETC. IN W.P. 102798/2021 BETWEEN:
1. . VINAYAK S/O NARAYANA RAO DAVANDE AGE28YEARS, OCC TAILORING, R/O BYADGI, TQ BYADGI, DIST HAVERI. 2 . MAHESH S/O. MYALERAPPA AGADI AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O.BYADGI,TQ. BYADGI, DIST. HAVERI3. KAVITA W/O. HOLIYAPPA ANAVERI AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O.BYADGI,TQ. BYADGI, DIST. HAVERI4. VEERAPPA ADPOTED S/O.SHANKARAPPA YELI AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O.BYADGI,TQ. BYADGI, DIST. HAVERI5. SURENDRA S/O. SADANANDA VERNEKAR AGE. 55 YEARS, 2 0 OCC. BUSINESS, R/O.BYADGI, TQ. BYADGI, DIST. HAVERI ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRAMOD KOTHAVI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GANGADHAR S. HOSAKERI., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT (LAND ACQUISITION1AND3 M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001 2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD. BY UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVT. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, FORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001 3 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD. BY UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVT. REVENUE DEPARTMENT (LAND ACQUISTION1AND3 M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001 4 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAVERI, DIST. HAVERI-581110 5 . THE CHIEF ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION AND BUILDING, (NORTH) SIR.M.VISHVESHWARYA MARGH, DHARWAD-580001 6 . SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, FORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT CIRCLE DHARWAD TQ AND DIST. DHARWAD-580001 7 . THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, FORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT21 DIVISION HAVERI, TQ AND DIST. HAVERI-581110 8 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HAVERI SUB-DIVISION, TQ AND DIST. HAVERI-581110 9 . THE TAHSILDAR BYADAGI, TAHSILDAR OFFICE, BYADAGI-581106 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SMT. VIDYAVATHI KOTTURSHETTAR,ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL, SMT. K.R. ROOPA, HCGP, FOR R-1 TO R-9) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE PUBLICATION ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 AND8IN GAZZATE I.E. FINAL NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.R D/07/AQD/2021 DATED1407.2021 UNDER SEC.19(1) OF THE LA ACT2013FOR ACQUISITION OF THE PETITIONERS SCHEDULE PROPERTIES AND ETC. IN W.P. No.102805/2021 BETWEEN:
1. . SHRI CHETAN S/O MAHANTAPPA KABBUR AGE39YEARS, OCC BUSINESS,R/O BYADAGI, TQ BYADAGI,DIST HAVERI, PIN58110. 2 . SHRI.MURAGEPPA S/O HUCHHAPPA SHETTAR AGE63YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O BYADAGI, TQ BYADAGI, DIST HAVERI, PIN58110. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI.SHIVARAJ.P. MUDHOL., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, 2 2 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING,BENGALURU, PIN56000. 2 . THE KARNATAKA STATE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, 1ST FLOOR PWD ANNEX BUILDING, K R CIRCLE, BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF PROJECT OFFICER, PIN56000. 3 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HAVERI SUB-DIVISION, HAVERI, DIST HAVERI, PIN58111. 4 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAVERI,DIST. HAVERI, PIN CODE. 581110 5 . THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT SUB-DIVISION, HAVERI, DIST.PIN- 581110. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SMT. VIDYAVATHI KOTTURSHETTAR,ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL, SMT. K.R. ROOPA, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-5 R-2 SERVED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED1407.2021 IN NO.RD07IMPUGNED FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED1407.2021 IN NO.RD.07 AQD2021PUBLISHED ON2607.2021, IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AND4VIDE ANNEXURE-B. THESE PETITIONS ARE BEING HEARD AND RESERVED ON0807.2022 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- 2 3
ORDERThe petitioners in all the petitions claim to be the residents residing at Byadagi Taluk, Haveri district, and have been carrying on business in the market area in the said town. Pursuant to the request dated 20.02.2019 made by the Deputy Commissioner, Haveri, the State of Karnataka granted approval on 18.09.2019 for acquisition of lands including the lands of the petitioners for the purpose of widening Gajendragad – Sorab State Highway - 136 between Kilometres 237.05 to 237.90 in Byadagi town. Aggrieved by the same, some of the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.No.116151/2019 and W.P.No.108344/2020. By final order dated 12.03.2020, this Court disposed of the said petitions that the respondents – authorities shall initiate acquisition proceedings for acquisition of the land of petitioners and other land owners by providing an opportunity to them and proceeding further in accordance with law.
2. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and 2 4 Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the said Act of 2013’) came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2014. Section 109 of the said Act of 2013 empowers the Central Government and State Governments to frame Rules. The procedure empowering the respective State Government to frame Rules is provided under Sections 111 and 112 of the said Act of 2013. Exercising powers under the aforesaid provisions, the respondents – State of Karnataka framed the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Karnataka) Rules, 2015, which came into force w.e.f. 17.10.2015. On 16.07.2019, the respondents – State amended the said Act of 2013 by enacting the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2019 vide Karnataka Act No.16 of 2019 w.e.f. 16.07.2019 (for short ‘the said Amendment Act, 2019’). As per the said amendment, sub- clause(u) was inserted to sub-section (2) of Section 109 of the said Act of 2013 empowering the State Government to frame Rules to give effect to the said Amendment Act of 2019. 2 5 3. Sections 4 to 9 contained in Chapter – II of the said Act of 2013 provides for Determination of Social Impact and Public Purpose of the acquisition by preparation of a social impact assessment study and necessary steps in this regard to be taken by the appropriate Government. Under the said Amendment Act of 2019, the State of Karnataka inserted Section 10-A under Chapter III-A, whereby the State Government was empowered to exempt certain projects from the application of Chapter – II of the said Act of 2013 in relation to social impact determination and from Chapter – III of the said Act of 2013, which provides for safeguard of food security. Section 10-A which came into force from 16.07.2019 as stated supra, empowers the State Government to issue notification in the official gazette exempting the application of social impact determination in respect of various types of projects including infrastructure projects as provided under Section 10-A (b) of the said Act of 2013.
4. On 16.05.2020, the respondents – State issued a Notification exempting social impact assessment and 2 6 determination in relation to the proposed acquisition for State Highway – 136 including the lands of the petitioners and other land owners. In this context, it is relevant to state that the said Notification bearing No.RD84AQD2020dated 16.05.2020 issued by the State has not been published in the official gazette or gazetted by the State Government as required under Section 10-A of the said Act of 2013 (Karnataka Amendment). The petitioners submitted their objections to the aforesaid Notification dated 16.05.2020 issued by the State Government. On 05.06.2020, the respondents issued the preliminary notification under Section 11(1) of the said Act of 2013.
5. W.P.No.147109/2020, W.P.No.147214/2020 and W.P.no.147400/2020 have been filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned Notification dated 16.05.2020 and the impugned preliminary notification dated 05.06.2020 both issued by the respondents – State and for other reliefs.
6. A perusal of the order sheet maintained in the aforesaid petitions will indicate that in view of the specific 2 7 contention of the petitioners that the respondents – State were attempting to demolish the existing shops for the purpose of road widening for State Highway – 136 even before issuing the final notification, this Court directed the respondents not to demolish the shops. The said interim order was subsequently continued and remained in force during the hearing of the petitions.
7. The respondents – State filed their statement of objections to the petitions and contested the same. During the pendency of the petitions, the respondents – State issued final notification dated 14.07.2021 under Section 19 (1) of the said Act of 2013 and the same was published in the official gazette of the same on 26.07.2021. The said final notification was brought to the notice of this Court along with a memo filed by the State on 03.08.2021 in the pending petitions. Under these circumstances, petitioners preferred the remaining two petitions in W.P.No.102789/2021 and W.P.No.102805/2021, wherein the aforesaid final notification dated 26.07.2021 has been 2 8 challenged by the petitioners. Even these petitions have been opposed by the respondents – State.
8. During the pendency of the present petitions, the State Government amended the said Rules of 2015 vide Gazette notification dated 28.03.2022, thereby bringing into force the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Karnataka) (Amendment) Rules, 2020 (for short ‘the said Amendment Rules, 2020’). As per the said amendment, proviso was inserted to Rule 34 by stating that the provisions of Rules 21 to 27 and Rules 30 to 34 shall not apply while implementing Government projects and public private partnership projects which are in public interest notified under Section 10-A of the said of Act 2013.
9. Heard Sri.Pramod Kathavi, learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri.Gangadhar S. Hosakeri and Sri.Shivaraj P.Mudhol, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Sri.Prabhuling K. Navadagi, learned Advocate General a/w Smt.Vidyavathi, learned Addl.Advocate 2 9 General for the respondents – State and perused the material on record.
10. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petitions and referring to the material on record, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned Notifications are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the said Act of 2013 and the said Rules (Karnataka) of 2015 and the same deserve to be quashed, since the mandatory requirements of Rules 21 and 22 of the said Rules of 2015 had not been followed by the respondents - State prior to issuing the impugned preliminary notification in addition to the fact that the notification dated 16.05.2020 said to have been issued under Section 10-A of the said Amendment Act of 2019 has not been published in the official gazette nor is the same in accordance with the said provision. My attention is invited to the Affidavits dated 28.08.2021 and 01.09.2021 filed on behalf of the respondents – State in order to point out that the respondents - State have categorically admitted violation and non-compliance of Rule 22 of the said Rules 3 0 of 2015 by the State and as such, the impugned final Notification dated 26.07.2021 is illegal and arbitrary and the same deserves to be quashed on this ground also. It is further submitted that the Amendment to Rule 34 of the said Rules of 2015 by inserting a proviso as per Amendment Rules, 2020 is prospective and not retrospective apart from not being applicable to the instant case, since the said amendment was inserted during the pendency of the present petitions, in which, the rights of the petitioners to claim benefit and put forth the contentions in relation to Rules 21 and 22 had stood crystallized in 2020 itself, when the petitions were filed and as such, the said amendment to Rule 34 cannot be relied upon by the respondents. It is therefore submitted that the present petitions deserve to be allowed and the impugned notifications deserve to be quashed.
11. Per contra, learned Advocate General, in addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the statement of objections, submits that the various contentions and claims urged in the petitions are false and 3 1 devoid of merit. It is submitted that by virtue of the exemption granted in relation to the subject acquisition by issuance of the notification dated 16.05.2020, non- compliance of the procedure regarding social impact assessment will not vitiate the impugned notifications. It is also submitted that mere non-compliance of the procedure prescribed under Rules 21 and 22 of the said Rules of 2015 will also not vitiate the impugned final notification, particularly when Rule 34 has been amended vide Amendment Rules, 2020, whereby the requirement of compliance of Rules 21 and 22 have been done away with and the same is applicable to the subject acquisition since the said amendment is procedural and have retrospective operation. It is therefore submitted that there is no merit in the petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed.
12. After having given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and on perusal of the material on record, the following points arise for consideration in the present petitions:- 3 2 (i) Whether the impugned notification dated 16.05.2020 issued by the State under Section 10-A of the said Act of 2013 (Karnataka Amendment) is legal, valid and proper?. (ii) Whether the impugned preliminary notification dated 05.06.2020 issued under Section 11(1) of the said Act of 2013 is valid and proper?. (iii) Whether the impugned final notification dated 26.07.2021 issued under Section 19(1) of the said Act of 2013 is valid and proper?. (iv) Whether the Amendment to Rule 34 of the said Rules of 2015 (Karnataka) vide notification dated 28.03.2022 is applicable to the instant case?. Re-Point No.1:- 13. A perusal of the Chapter-II of the said Act of 2013 will indicate that Sections 4 to 9 contemplates the procedure to be followed by the Government to determine social impact assessment prior to issuance of preliminary notification under Section 11(1) of the said Act of 2013. Section 4 contemplates that the Government shall carryout 3 3 a social impact assessment study in consultation with the local authorities within a period of six months from the date of its commencement and make the same available to public. The matters, parameters, details and measures to be taken into account and incorporated in the said study are also provided in sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) of Section 4. While, Section 5 of the said Act of 2013 provides for a public hearing prior to preparation of social impact assessment report, Section 6 provides that the report should be published, uploaded on the website of the appropriate Government and made available to the Environment Impact Assessment Agency. Section 7 mandates that the Government shall get the Social Impact Assessment Report evaluated by an independent multi- disciplinary expert group as may be constituted by it in terms of the said provision; while sub-section(4) empowers the said Expert group to make a recommendation to abandon the project and that no further steps to acquire the land will be initiated, sub-section (5) enables the said Expert group to make a recommendation with regard to continuation of the acquisition proceedings. After the 3 4 exercise contemplated under Sections 4 to 7 of the said Act of 2013 have been completed, Section 8 mandates that the Government shall proceed further with the acquisition in terms of the said provision. 13.1 A plain reading of the aforesaid provisions in Sections 4 to 8 contained in Chapter-II of the said Act of 2013 will clearly indicate that a detailed mechanism is provided whereby a report is obtained with regard to social impact assessment from the Collector and the Expert group on the Social Impact Assessment Study and it is only thereafter that the Government is entitled/empowered to proceed with the acquisition. These safeguards relating to social impact assessment, investigation, study and determination contained in Chapter-II of the said Act of 2013 have clearly been inserted, keeping in mind the aims and objectives of the said Act of 2013 and so long as the said mandatory requirements contained in Chapter-II have not been exempted by issuing / publishing a duly gazetted gazette notification in the official gazette in accordance with Section 10-A of the said Act of 2013 (Karnataka Amendment), any acquisition and a preliminary notification 3 5 issued without following or complying with the said mandatory requirements/procedure would be vitiated, illegal and contrary to law. 13.2 The importance, relevance and mandatory compliance of a social impact assessment determination and report can also be discerned from the provisions contained in Sections 14 and 15 of the said Act of 2013, which provide an opportunity of filling objections, hearing etc., to the land owners and this is yet another circumstance to indicate that in the absence of following the said procedure, the entire acquisition proceedings would stand vitiated on this ground also. 13.3 As stated supra, the said Act of 2013 was amended by the State of Karnataka vide the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2019 vide Karnataka Act No.16 of 2019 w.e.f. 16.07.2019. Under the said amendment, Chapter III-A was inserted after Chapter-III by incorporating Section 10-A. The said amendment is extracted hereunder:- 3 6 "CHAPTER III-A Provisions of chapter II and chapter III not to apply to certain projects 10-A. Power of State Government to exempt certain projects.- The State Government may in the public interest, by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt any of the following projects from the application of the provisions of Chapter II and Chapter III of this Act, namely:- (a) such projects vital to national security or defence of India and every part thereof, including preparation for defence or defence production; (b) infrastructure projects including educational institutions, Hospitals, Government or Local Self Government Offices electrification, irrigation projects and drinking water projects; and (c) affordable housing and housing for the poor people."
(d) industrial corridors set up by the State Government and its undertaking (in which case the land shall be acquired up to such distance on both sides of designated railway lines or roads and as specified by the State Government for specific projects from time to time and notified as such in State Gazette); and (e) infrastructure projects, including projects under public-private partnership where the ownership of the land continues to vest with the State Government: Provided that, the State Government shall, before the issue of notification, ensure the extent of land for the proposed acquisition keeping in view the minimum land required for such project. 13.4 Section 10-A indicates that in public interest, the State Government is empowered to, by notification in 3 7 the Official Gazette, exempt any of the projects mentioned in Clauses-(a) to (e) of the said provision. It is the specific contention of the respondents-State that the proposed acquisition of the subject lands of the petitioners for the purpose of road widening of State Highway 136 is an infrastructure project within the meaning of Section 10-A(b) referred to supra, since projects relating to transport including roadways, railways, airways and waterways are infrastructure projects, which are capable of being exempted from the mandatory requirements contained in Chapter-II of the said Act of 2013. In this context, it is relevant to state that a perusal of Section 10-A clearly indicates that the said exemption can be granted by the State Government only by publication of a notification in this regard in the Official Gazette. 13.5 However, a perusal of the impugned notification dated 16.05.2020 is sufficient to show that the said Government Notification is merely a notification simpliciter, which has not been published in the Official Gazette as mandatorily required in Section 10-A of the said Act of 2013. To put it differently, for the purpose of exempting the 3 8 subject acquisition from complying with the mandatory requirements of Sections 4 to 8 of Chapter II of the said Act of 2013, it was incumbent upon the respondents-State to publish the impugned notification in the official gazette as specifically required under Section 10-A of the said Act of 2013; as stated earlier, the impugned notification dated 16.05.2020 is merely a Government Notification simpliciter, which has not been published in the Official Gazette as required under Section 10-A and consequently, in the absence of any material to establish that the said exemption notification exempting the application of Chapter-II of the said Act of 2013 to the subject acquisition was published in the Official Gazette in conformity with Section 10-A, it cannot be said that the subject acquisition stood exempted from following and complying with the mandatory requirements of Chapter II of the said Act of 2013. 13.6 The legality and validity of the impugned notification dated 16.05.2020 can be tested from yet another angle; the word ‘notification’ has been defined under Section 3(v) of the said Act of 2013 as hereunder:- 3 9 ‘3(v) “notification” means a notification published in the Gazette of India or as the case may be, the gazette of a State and the expression “notify” shall be construed accordingly’. 13.7 A conjoint reading of Section 10-A r/w 3(v) of the said Act of 2013, will indicate in unmistakable terms that the requirement of publication of the notification in the official gazette is extremely strict, stringent and rigid and there cannot be any relaxation of the said mandatory requirement; to put it differently, so long as the notification has not been gazetted or published in the official gazette, the same cannot be construed or treated as a valid notification under Section 10-A of the said Act of 2013 and the same deserves to be declared and held as illegal, invalid, inoperative, unlawful and non-est in the eye of law and consequently, no reliance can be placed upon the impugned notification dated 16.05.2020 by the respondents – State for proceeding further in the acquisition proceedings and from taking any steps in this regard including issuance of the preliminary notification and all acts, deeds and things done by the respondents, pursuant 4 0 to the aforesaid illegal and invalid impugned notification dated 16.05.2020 would also be rendered illegal and invalid in the eye of law. At any rate, even assuming that the respondents – State are entitled to publish the impugned notification dated 16.05.2020 in the official gazette today or subsequently, the said publication would not cure the initial defect of non-publication prior to issuance of the preliminary notification and post – facto publication cannot be made the basis to validate or legalise the subject acquisition proceedings initiated pursuant to the impugned notification. 13.8 To reiterate, the impugned notification dated 16.05.2020 purported to have been issued under Section 10-A (Karnataka Amendment) of the said Act of 2013 having not been gazetted or published in the State official gazette as mandatorily required under the said provision, the impugned notification is invalid, inoperative, void, unlawful and non-est in the eye of law and consequently, the subject acquisition proceedings initiated pursuant to the impugned notification are also clearly illegal, invalid and unenforceable in law. 4 1 Point No.1 is answered accordingly by declaring and holding that the impugned Notification dated 16.05.2020 is illegal, invalid, inoperative, void, unlawful and non-est in the eye of law and consequently, the subject acquisition proceedings initiated pursuant to the impugned notification are also clearly illegal, invalid and unenforceable in law. Re-Point No.2:- 14. The next question that arises for consideration is, with regard to the legality and validity of the impugned preliminary notification dated 05.06.2020 issued by the respondents – State under Section 11(1) of the said Act of 2013. 14.1 In this context, there is no gainsaying the fact that compliance with the mandatory requirements of Sections 4 to 8 contained in Chapter II of the said Act of 2013, is a mandatory pre-condition / condition precedent before the State proceeds to issue a preliminary notification under Section 11(1) of the said Act of 2013. It follows therefrom that if there is non-compliance of the aforesaid mandatory requirements in relation to social impact assessment study, report, determination etc., any 4 2 preliminary notification issued without such compliance would clearly be illegal and invalid; in the instant cases, undisputedly, the respondents – State did not comply with the aforesaid mandatory requirements contained in Sections 4 to 8 of Chapter-II of the said Act of 2013 and on the other hand, contend that by virtue of the impugned Notification dated 16.05.2020, there is exemption from complying with the said requirements. While dealing with Point No.1 supra, I have already come to the conclusion that the impugned Notification dated 16.05.2020 is illegal and invalid and consequently, in the absence of any legal and valid exemption notification issued under Section 10-A of the said Act of 2013, it was incumbent upon the respondents – State to comply with the mandatory requirements of Sections 4 to 8 of Chapter-II and as such, any acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents – State are also clearly illegal and invalid and the impugned preliminary notification also deserves to be quashed. 14.2 Insofar as the contention urged on behalf of the State that the subject acquisition proceedings are in the nature of an infrastructure project as defined in Section 10- 4 3 A(b) of the said Act of 2013, which exempts following the procedure under Sections 4 to 8 of Chapter II, thereby rendering the preliminary notification valid and legal is concerned, needless to state that in view of my finding above that the impugned notification dated 16.05.2020 is illegal and invalid, there is no exemption whatsoever available to the respondents – State to bypass the said procedure and consequently, the impugned preliminary notification issued without either following the mandatory procedure or without obtaining valid and legal exemption is also illegal and invalid and the said contention cannot be accepted. 14.3 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, Point No.2 is also answered by holding that the impugned notification dated 16.05.2020 is illegal and invalid and that the same deserves to be quashed. Re-Point No.3:- 15. Section 16 of the said Act of 2013 mandates that upon publication of the preliminary notification under Section 11(1) of the said Act of 2013, the ‘Administrator’ as 4 4 defined under Section 3(a), who is an officer appointed for the purpose of rehabilitation and resettlement of affected families under sub-section (1) of Section 43 shall conduct a survey, undertake a census and take necessary steps to prepare a draft rehabilitation and resettlement scheme as provided in Section 16 of the said Act of 2013. Further, Section 16(5) requires a public hearing in this regard after giving sufficient and adequate publicity and opportunity to all persons, whose lands are proposed to be acquired. Section 16(6) also directs the Administrator, on completion of the public hearing to submit the draft Scheme along with specific report on the claims and objections raised in the public hearing to the Collector (Deputy Commissioner). 15.1 Section 17(1) empowers the Deputy Commissioner to review the draft Scheme along with the Rehabilitation and Resettlement committee at the project level constituted under Section 45 of the said Act of 2013. Section 17(2) directs the Deputy Commissioner to submit the draft Scheme along with the suggestions to the Commissioner for Rehabilitation and Resettlement for approval of the Scheme. Pursuant thereto, Section 18 4 5 contemplates that after according approval, the Commissioner shall make public the approved Scheme by causing the same to be made available, published and uploaded as provided in the said provision. 15.2 Chapter-V of the said Karnataka Rules of 2015, have been framed for the purpose of giving effect to Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the said Act of 2013 in relation to the Rehabilitation and Resettlement scheme. Rules 21 to 27 of the said Rules of 2015 provide for the manner in which the said Scheme has to be prepared, approved and published. The preparation, approval and publication of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme in terms of Sections 16 to 18 of the said Act of 2013 r/w Rules 21 to 27 provide a mechanism and procedure to be followed prior to issuance of the final declaration / notification under Section 19(1) of the said Act of 2013. 15.3 A perusal of the said Rules of 2015 (Karnataka) will indicate that initially when W.P.No.147109/2020, W.P.No.147214/2020 and W.P.No.147400/2020 were preferred, the respondents had not issued the final notification / declaration which was 4 6 issued only on 14.07.2021 and gazetted on 26.07.2021 during the pendency of the said petitions and accordingly, petitioners have filed the subsequent petitions in W.P.No.102798/2021 and W.P.No.102805/2021 challenging the final notification. In these petitions, it is specifically contended that the mandatory procedure prescribed in Sections 16 to 18 r/w Rules 21 to 27 had not been followed, in particular, Rule 22 of the said Rules which mandates an opportunity of public hearing to the petitioners and other land owners had not been followed by the respondents prior to issuance of the final notifications / declaration. In response to this contention, two Affidavits dated 27.08.2021 and 01.09.2021 containing identical averments have been filed on behalf of the respondents – State along with the documents. 15.4 A perusal of the said Affidavits will clearly indicate that the State has unequivocally and categorically admitted that Rule 22 of the said Rules of 2015 had not been followed as can be seen in paragraph-7 of the Affidavit dated 01.09.2021. The said Affidavit reads as under:- 4 7 AFFIDAVIT I, Shivanand B Ullegaddi S/o Basavantappa age:
57. years, working as Assistatnt Commissioner, Haveri, Sub-Division, Haveri, today at Dharwad , do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows; 1. I Know the facts of the case based on the records maintained int he office and hence I swear to the contents of this Affidavit.
2. I humbly submit that, now I am working as Assistant Commissioner, Haveri, Sub- Division, Haveri from 05.02.2021 to till date.
3. I humbly submit that, the Assistant Director of Land Records, Bydagi on 20.10.2020 submitted a JMC Report to the Office of the Asst. Commissioner. The Copy of the JMC Report is herewith produced and marked as DOCUMENT No.1 for kind perusal of this Hon’ble court.
4. I humbly submit that, after Notification under Section 11(1) of the Act, 2013 to follow the procedure under Rule 21 of the Rule 2015, the Tender was called to conduct a survey through private Agency and undertake census to the affected families. The tender was finalized on 29.09.2020. The copy of the order issued to the one NGO Sri. Ekadhanta Grameenabhivruddhi and Nagarabhivrudhi Seva Samithi (R) Haveri. The Copy of the Order dated:
29. 09.2020 is herewith produced and marked 4 8 as DOCUMENT No.2 for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.
5. I humbly submit that, at the time of conducting survey, the successful bidder with reference to the report of the JMC conducted the Survey and Census of the affected families as per Document No.2. Thereafter, with reference to JMC report the NGO- Sri. Ekadhanta Grameenabhivruddhi and Nagarabhivrudhi Seva Samithi(R) prepared a draft Rehabilitation and Resettlement for affected families of the survey and census are submitted on 30.11.2020. The copy of the same is herewith produced and marked as DOCUMENT No.3 for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.
6. I humbly submit that, it is published in the news paper on 17.12.2020, fixing the date of hearing on 18.12.2020. The copy of the new paper publication is herewith produced and marked as DOCUMENT No.4 for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. Thereafter, on 18.12.2020 meeting was held. The meeting proceedings is herewith produced and marked as DOCUMENT No.5 for kind perusal of this Hon’ble court.
7. I humbly submit that, requesting this Hon’ble Court the entire proceedings for acquisition has been properly done. But, by oversight rule-22 of the Rule 2- 15 was not followed. Therefore, I humbly requesting 4 9 this Hon’ble court to provide 2 months time to complete the proceedings under Rule -22 of the rules 2015. Thereafter, submit a report to the Higher Authority for issuance of the Section 18 and 19 of the Act, 2013. The request made by the Deputy Commissioner to the Office of the Advocate General. The Copy of the request letter is herewith produced and marked and DOCUMENT No.6 for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.
8. I humbly submit that, after receiving the report from the NGO, the Administrator prepared the draft report with recommendation forwarded to the Government on 31.03.2021. the copy of the draft report of Survey and Census of affected families dated:
31. .03.2021 is herewith produced and marked as DOCUMENT No.7 for kind perusal of this Hon’ble court.
9. I humbly submit, that, the Commissioner of Rehabilitation and Resettlement, Bengaluru approved the same with conditions on 07.04.2021. The copy of the approved dated:
07. 04.2021 is herewith produced and marked as DOCUMENT No.8 for kind perusal of this Hon’ble court.
10. I humbly submit that, the Rule 21 of the Rule 2015 has been carried out and the Agency (NGO) has submitted a report after conducting the survey and census of the affected families. 5 0 11. I humbly submit that, the above said proceedings till 05.02.2021 is conducted by the then Assistant Commissioner.
12. I state that, what is stated above is true and correct and to the best of my belief and knowledge.
15.5 As is clear from the aforesaid Affidavit, the respondents – State have admitted in unequivocal, definite and unambiguous terms that there has not been compliance of Rule 22 of the said Rules of 2022, which mandates an opportunity of public hearing in favour of the land owners as provided in the said Rules. In fact, the respondents – State have also requested two months time to complete the proceedings. The said Affidavit is sufficient to establish that there has not been compliance of the mandatory requirements contained in Sections 16 to 18 r/w Rules 21 to 27 referred to supra and consequently, the impugned final notification / declaration without complying with the said mandatory requirements is clearly illegal and invalid and not sustainable in law. 15.6 In this context, it was contended that on behalf of the respondents – State that if an opportunity was given, the respondents would comply with the said lacunae as 5 1 admitted in paragraph-7 of the Affidavit referred to supra and complete the proceedings. This contention cannot be accepted, since for the purpose of enabling the respondents – State to comply with the Sections 16 to 18 r/w Rules 21 to 27 afresh, it would be necessary and essential to set aside the impugned final notification / declaration dated 14.07.2021, which was gazetted on 26.07.2021; that would be impermissible in law, since the period of one year prescribed in Section 19(1) of the said Act of 2013 to issue the final notification / declaration from the date of issuance of the preliminary notification dated 05.06.2020 had already stood expired on 27.08.2021 / 01.09.2021 when the Affidavits were filed. In other words, even assuming that the final notification had been set aside, liberty to issue a fresh final notification after complying with Sections 16 to 18 r/w Rules 21 to 27 was not permissible in law, since this Court does not have jurisdiction or authority of law to extend the period of limitation of one year to issue the final notification, which expired on 05.06.2020 itself as held by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Padma Sundara 5 2 Rao vs. State of T.N. & Others – (2002) 3 SCC533 Under these circumstances, in view of the undisputed fact that the mandatory requirements of Sections 16 to 18 of the said Act of 2013 r/w Rules 21 to 27 of the said Rules of 2015 (Karnataka) had not been complied with by the respondents prior to issuance of the final notification / declaration dated 14.07.2021 as admitted by the respondents – State itself, I am of the considered opinion that even the impugned final notification is illegal and invalid and the same deserves to be quashed. Point No.3 is also answered by holding and declaring that the impugned final declaration / notification dated 14.07.2021 gazetted on 26.07.2021 is also illegal and invalid and that the same deserves to be quashed. Re-Point No.4:- 16. The last point that arises for consideration is, whether the mandatory requirements of Sections 16 to 18 of the said Act of 2013 r/w Rules 21 to 27 of the said Rules of 2015 (Karnataka) would not be applicable to the subject acquisition in view of amendment to Rule 34 of the said 5 3 Rules of 2015 by virtue of the Amendment Rules, 2020 which came into force w.e.f 28.03.2022. In this context, it is needless to state that by the time the said amendment came into force, the final notification dated 14.07.2021 had already been issued by the respondents. As per the said amendment, Rule 34 was amended by inserting a proviso to the Rule, which reads as under:- 8. Amendment of rule 34:- In rule 37 of the said rules, after sub rule (3), the following shall be inserted, namely:- “ Provided that, the provisions of rules 21, 22, 23 24, 25, 26 and 27 and rules 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 shall not apply while implementing the Government projects and public private partnership projects which are in public interest notified under Section 10A”. 16.1 A perusal of the said amendment to Rule 34 will clearly indicate that the provisions of Rules 21 to 27 and Rules 30 to 34 shall not apply while implementing Government projects and public private partnership projects, which are in public interest notified under Section 10-A. It is sought to be contended by the respondents – State that the said amendment is retrospective in nature 5 4 and operation and would apply to the subject acquisition, thereby dispensing with compliance of the requirements of Sections 16 to 18 of the said Act of 2013 r/w Rules 21 to 27 of the said Rules of 2015 (Karnataka). In my considered opinion, the said contention cannot be accepted for the following reasons:- (i) The proviso inserted by way of amendment clearly indicates that the same would apply only in relation to the projects notified under Section 10-A; in other words, the projects such as the subject acquisition which have not been duly notified under Section 10-A would not attract the applicability of the said proviso; while dealing with Point Nos.1 and 2, I have already come to the conclusion that there is no valid and legal notification under Section 10-A and consequently, in the absence of the subject acquisition being duly exempted by virtue of a valid and legal notification under Section 10-A as required in the proviso, the proviso would not apply to the subject acquisition and as such, no reliance can be placed upon the said proviso by the respondents - State in support of their contentions. 5 5 (ii) Interestingly, while the proviso seems to apply only to Rule 34, there is no corresponding amendment to the substantive statutory provisions in the form of Sections 16 to 18 of the said Act of 2013; in the absence of any amendment to Sections 16 to 18, no reliance can be placed only upon the proviso to contend that the mandatory requirements of Sections 16 to 18 r/w Rules 21 to 27 need not be complied with by the respondents; (iii) There is no nexus or connection between Rule 34 (main rule) and the proviso inserted by way of amendment and on this ground also, the amendment cannot be said to apply to the subject acquisition. (iv) The rights created in favour of land owners including the petitioners under Sections 16 to 18 r/w Rules 21 to 27 are substantive / vested rights which are not merely procedural in nature, particularly when the opportunity of public hearing is directed to be given in favour of the land owners and consequently, it cannot be said that the amendment is retrospective in nature or operation; it follows there from that the said amendment to Rule 34 being prospective, the same will neither affect nor 5 6 apply to the final notification issued on 14.07.2021, much prior to the amendment coming into force on 28.03.2022. (v) In the case of Shankar Lal Nadani vs. Sohan Lal Jain – 2022 SCC Online SC442 after reviewing the earlier law on the issue, the Apex Court has reiterated that rights of parties stand crystallized on the date of institution of the lis and therefore, the law applicable on the date of filing / institution of the lis will continue to apply till the same is disposed of or adjudicated and change of law will not impact or affect the vested right of a party that had accrued and stood crystallized in his favour as on the date of institution of the lis; undisputedly, the challenge to the final notification dated 14.07.2021 on the ground of non- compliance of Sections 16 to 18 r/w Rules 21 to 27 was preferred by the petitioners on 06.08.2021 and 07.08.2021, much prior to the amendment to Rule 34 which came into force on 28.03.2022. Viewed from this angle also, the amendment will not apply to the subject acquisition and the said contention urged by the respondents cannot be accepted. 5 7 16.2 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, Point No.4 is also answered in favour of the petitioners by holding that the amendment to Rule 34 of the said Rules of 2015 (Karnataka) is not applicable to the subject acquisition proceedings or the impugned notifications.
17. Insofar the judgments relied upon by the respondents – State, including the judgments in relation to the contention with regard to the amendment to Rule 34 of the said Rules of 2015 (Karnataka) being retrospective is concerned, having regard to the special / peculiar facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case, which are different and distinguishable from the facts obtaining in the said judgments, the same are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand and no reliance can be placed upon the same by the respondents in support of their contention.
18. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER(i) The petitions are hereby allowed. 5 8 (ii) The impugned notification dated 16.05.2020 is hereby declared and held to be illegal, invalid, inoperative, void, unlawful and non-est in the eye of law and consequently, the subject acquisition proceedings in relation to the subject lands of the petitioners which were initiated pursuant to the impugned notification are also clearly illegal, invalid and unenforceable in law. (iii) The impugned preliminary notification dated 05.06.2020 and final notification dated 26.07.2021 are hereby quashed insofar as the subject lands of the petitioners are concerned. SD JUDGE Srl.