Judgment:
ORDER
Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.
1. W.P. No. 20669/2007 and WP. Nos. 9272/2009 & 9900-9907/2009 are filed by Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise (for short hereinafter called as 'Nandi') and WP. No. 6820/2008 is filed by Indian Machine Tools Manufacturers' Organization.
2. By filing these writ petitions, the notifications dated, 22.11.2006, 13.11.2007 and 3/2.2009 issued by respondent No. 1-Government of India, for acquisition of lands in Madavara Village in Bangalore North Taluk, for widening National Highway No. 4 and for formation of truck lay bay, are questioned.
3. Respondent No. 1-Government of India, having regard to the heavy traffic on National Highway No. 4, wants to convert four lane Highway into six lane Highway. Respondent No. 1 also wants to form a truck lay bay in about 4 acres 35 guntas of land. Various survey numbers are involved in acquisition as mentioned in Annexure-A to WP. No. 20669/2007, viz., Sy. Nos. 27/1C, 27/2, 30/4A, 30/4B, 30/5B, 34/1A, 34/1B, 34/2, 35/1A1, 35/.1A2, 35/1B 36/1, 36/2, 36/3, 36/4, 37/1, 37/2, 37/3, 37/4A, 39/1, 39/2, 39/3, 44/3A1, 44/3A2, 45/1A, 45/1B1 and 48.
4. Sri Udaya Holla, leaned senior advocate appearing on behalf of National Highway Authority of India (beneficiary under acquisition), submitted that the acquisition of the land to an extent of 4 acres 35 guntas for formation of truck lay bay is very much necessary along side of National Highway No. 4, inasmuch as, number of trucks are being parked on National Highway No. 4 for the present; that the formation of truck lay bay will prevent the menace of reckless truck parking in National Highway. Because of parking of trucks on the National Highway, there is lot of traffic congestion. He prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.
5. The acquisition is opposed mainly on the ground that the properties in question are already (initially) acquired by the State Government-respondents 4 and 5 under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'KIAD Act') for certain infrastructure project and after acquisition, infrastructure is being developed in the lands in question and hence the very lands shall not be reacquired by the Central Government.
6. Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the lands in question are already acquired by the State Government under the provisions of the KIAD) Act for implementation of Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project (for short hereinafter referred to as 'BMIC Project') which is being implemented by Nandi; that the lands sought to be acquired by respondent No. 1, are already in possession of the petitioners, pursuant to the earlier acquisition made by the State Government and certain parcels of the land have already been utilized for construction of ramps at an interchange on Bangalore-Tumkur Road (adjoining the properties in question) which provides access for vehicles entering the peripheral road constructed by the petitioners from National Highway No. 4 and exit similarly. At the request of the State of Karnataka, the petitioners have provided 38 acres of land for the purpose of Bangalore International Exhibition Centre (for short hereinafter called as 'Exhibition Centre), which has been established by Indian Machine Tools Manufacturers' Association as a part of BMIC Project. The Exhibition Centre has already come up, inasmuch as three halls are already constructed and exhibitions are going on periodically; that the construction of hall No. 4 is under progress; that an area immediately adjacent to stall No. 4 is set apart by Nandi on behalf of BM1C Project for multi-level car parking to cater to the needs of the vehicles coming to the Exhibition Centre. In such a situation, it would be totally inappropriate to acquire the lands which are already being utilized for infrastructural development. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners highlighted the importance of the Exhibition Centre. He has placed reliance on the documents produced along with the writ petition, which disclose that the financial grants are made by the Central Government and certain incentives, exemptions, etc. are provided by the State Government to this project. Thus, according to him, if the lands proposed to set up multi-level car parking, are acquired, the same would handcuff the petitioners prohibiting them from providing car parking and other infrastructural facility to Exhibition Centre. He further submitted that the petitioners are opposing the acquisition of land only in respect of 4 acres 35 guntas of land, over which the truck lay bay is proposed to be set up. He specifically submitted that the petitioners have no objection for acquiring the lands in question for the purpose of widening National Highway No. 4.
7. Sri D.L.N. Rao, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Bangalore international Exhibition Centre submitted that the Exhibition Centre is of International standard and the same is ever growing institution; that the said project is a vast project and consequently the infrastructural development for the same is required to be done keeping in view the future requirements; that the lands in question are required for multi-level car parking, inasmuch as it cannot have car parking in any other place except in the area of 4 acres 35 guntas, which is sought to be acquired; that the area in question is just adjoining the Exhibition Centre and everybody has to pass through these lands to enter the Exhibition Centre; that if a truck lay bay is formed in the said area, it would interfere with the functioning of Exhibition Centre; that the project in which the Central Government as well as State Government are interested, is already commenced and the same cannot be scuttled by taking away the area which is earmarked for multilevel car parking. He further submitted that there are other patches of lands measuring more than 5 acres of land, available adjoining to National Highway No. 4 for having truck lay bay; that it is not impossible for the Central Government to get 5 acres or more land, for the purpose of formation of truck lay bay, inasmuch as the Central Government can acquire other available lands adjoining National Highway.
8. Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Additional Advocate General for the State, supported the contention of the petitioners by contending that it is inappropriate on the part of the Central Government to acquire the lands for formation of truck lay bay which are already acquired by the State Government for implementation of Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project. He submitted that, one infrastructural project cannot be scuttled by acquiring the very lands for another infrastructural project.
9. From the submissions of the petitioners referred to above, it is clear that the petitioners are not opposing acquisition of the lands for widening of National Highway No. 4. Thus, the portion of the acquisition notifications relating to the lands which are sought to be acquired for the purpose of widening of National Highway No. 4 have to be upheld. Accordingly, the same are upheld with regard to the said properties.
10. The petitioners vehemently opposed the acquisition notifications, by which certain lands are proposed to be acquired for the purpose of formation of truck lay bay, these writ petitions are confined only in respect of those lands, which are sought to be acquired for formation of truck lay bay. Thus, this Court refers to the lands which are sought to be acquired for the purpose of formation of truck lay bay as petition properties.
11. The records reveal that the State Government conceived of BM1C Project for providing Express Highway linking Bangalore and Mysore, which involves design, construction, maintenance, operation of the Express Highway between Bangalore and Mysore. Further, the project involves developing infrastructure around peripheral Bangalore all along the Highway. A Frame Work Agreement (FWA) has been executed by the State Government under which the State Government is required to hand over lands to the petitioner-Nandi for implementation of the project. Validity of the said Frame Work Agreement came to be challenged before this Court. So also, several public interest petitions came to be filed questioning the handing over of the lands for this particular project. All such petitions were dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court and the judgment of the Division Bench came to be confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Karnataka and Anr. v. All India Manufacturers Organization and Ors. reported in : (2006) 4 SCC 683. As per the terms and conditions of the Frame Work Agreement, the State Government has initiated acquisition proceedings for acquiring lands for execution of the BMIC Project. In pursuance thereto, the State Government has acquired the lands in question in Madavara Village in Bangalore North Taluk in the year 2003 and are handed over to Nandi for implementing Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project (BMICP). The very same lands are now sought to be acquired by the National Highway Authority for widening of National Highway and for truck terminus.
12. Nandi has transferred an extent of 38 acres of land to Indian Machine Tools Manufacturers Organization for the purpose of setting up a National Exhibition Centre of global standard. Accordingly, Bangalore International Exhibition Centre is set up wherein several National and International level exhibitions of various trade and industries are conducted.
13. While deciding the aforementioned matter, the Apex Court has observed that the Project envisaged, in addition to the construction of an express way between Bangalore and Mysore, other connected developmental activities, such as, development of area between Bangalore and Mysore, construction of elevated roads, construction of two truck terminals, development of five identified local areas into townships with all infrastructure for habitation and economic activities, and development of tourism to augment the State's revenues, to develop infrastructure around the periphery of Bangalore for handling the heavy volume of traffic.
14. The Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the writ petitions questioning the Frame Work Agreement pertaining to BM1C Project, directed the State Government and all its instrumentalities including the Karnataka industrial Areas Development Board to forthwith execute the BM1C Project as conceived originally and implement the Frame Work Agreement (FWA) in letter and spirit. The said direction is confirmed by the Apex Court.
15. At this stage, it is relevant to note certain observations made by the Apex Court, in paragraphs-77 to 79 in the judgment reported in : (2006) 4 SCC 683, cited supra, which read thus:
77. In our view, this was an entirely misconceived argument. As we have pointed out in the earlier part of our judgment, the Project is an integrated infrastructure development project and not merely a highway project. The Project as it has been styled, conceived and implemented was the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project, which conceived of the development of roads between Bangalore and Mysore, for which there were several interchanges in and around the periphery of the city of Bangalore, together with numerous developmental infrastructure activities along with the highway at several points. As an integrated project, it may require the acquisition and transfer of lands even away from the main alignment of the road.
78. The various changes brought about to the KIAD Act, also reflect the intention of the State Legislature to provide for land acquisition for the Project The expressions 'industrial area' and 'industrial infrastructural facilities* as defined under the KIAD Act, definitely include within their ambit establishment of facilities that contribute to the development of industries. We cannot forget that, as originally enacted, the KIAD Act had a different, narrower definition of 'industrial area' in Section 2(6). In 1997, the definition was broadened to also include 'industrial infrastructural facilities and amenities'. Further, Section 2(7-a) was added to define 'industrial infrastructural facilities' in a manner broad enough to take into its sweep the land acquisition for the Project.
79. The learned Single Judge erred in assuming that the lands acquired from places away from the main alignment of the road were not a part of the Project and that is the reason he was persuaded to hold that only 60% of the land acquisition was justified because it pertained to the land acquired for the main alignment of the highway. This, in the view of the Division Wench, and in our view, was entirely erroneous. The Division Bench was right in taking the view that the Project was an integrated project intended for public purpose and, irrespective of where the land was situated, so long as it arose from the terms of the FWA, there was no question of characterising it as unconnected with a public purpose. We are, therefore, in agreement with the finding of the High Court on this issue.
From the above, it is clear that the BM1C Project is an integrated infrastructure development project and not merely a highway project. The project as it has been styled, conceived and implemented is the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project, for the development of roads between Bangalore and Mysore, for which there will be several interchanges in and around the periphery of the City of Bangalore, together with numerous developmental infrastructure activities along with the highway at several points. As an integrated project, it may require the acquisition and transfer of lands even away from the main alignment of the road; that the integrated project is intended for public purpose and, irrespective of where the land is situated, so long as it arose from the terms of the Frame Work Agreement, if acquired, there is no question of characterising it as unconnected with a public purpose. Thus, it is clear that the Apex Court after going through the Frame Work Agreement of the BM1C Project, has concluded that the project was for public purpose and the same is not only intended for development of roads between Bangalore and Mysore, but also intended for numerous developmental activities along with the Highway on several points. Thus, the lands in question were characterised as connected with public purpose. After acquisition of the lands, the lands under acquisition, including the petition properties were taken possession of and the integrated scheme is being implemented by Nandi, which is authorised by the State to implement the BMIC Project. In view of the same, the said project is being implemented by Nandi.
16. When the facts stood thus, the acquisition notifications are issued by the Government of India, for acquiring very lands in Madavara Village for the purpose of formation of truck lay bay through the National Authority of Highway of India, which is the Unit authorised to implement the widening of National Highway No. 4 and for formation of truck lay bay. The final notification is issued on 13.11.2007. The lands sought to be acquired by the Government of India, have already been acquired by the State Government and in possession of Nandi under BMIC Project, which is an integrated project being implemented. The lands proposed to be acquired for the purpose of formation of truck lay bay is earmarked for construction of multilevel car parking area for the benefit of persons visiting the International Exhibition Centre established by Indian Machine Tools Manufacturers' Association and public at large. It is stated by the petitioners and the State Government that the Exhibition Centre conducts exhibition at least 100 days in a year, and the visitors expected are stated to be close to 25,000 to 30,000 and about 6000 to 7000 vehicles are expected to be parked in the complex on the days of exhibition. Thus, the multi-level car parking area is very much necessary for the purpose of the Exhibition Centre. Since the properties in question will be useful for construction of multi-level car parking, the very lands should not have been acquired by the Government of India for formation of truck lay bay. From the above facts, it is clear that the lands are acquired by the State of Karnataka to implement the BMIC Project which is an integrated project, the portion of the same should not have been acquired by the Government of India once again, for implementing another infrastructure project, viz., for formation of truck lay bay.
As BMIC Project is an integrated project, the same should not have been interfered with by the Government of India, by acquiring certain portion properties for formation of truck lay bay, so as to disintegrate the BM1C Project and to frustrate the very object of conceiving the said project. More over, the acquisition notifications are issued in total ignorance of the directions of the Division Bench judgment of this Court as confirmed by the Apex Court { : (2006)4 SCC 683 cited supra} that the BM1C Project should be executed and implemented strictly as conceived originally. The Frame Work Agreement was directed to be implemented in letter and spirit.
17. As could be seen from the pleadings of the parties, judgment of the Supreme Court cited supra and other material on record, it is clear that BMIC Project includes formation of two-truck terminals also. One of the truck terminals to be formed by Nandi under BM1C Project is stated to be about 4 to 5 kms. away from the lands in question. According to the petitioners, the truck terminals to be formed under BMIC Project, would be having much bigger area than what is now sought to be formed by the National Highway Authority, over the properties in question. Merely because the truck lay bay proposed to be formed under BMIC Project is about 4 to 5 kms. away from the National Highway, the same cannot be said to be inconvenient for the lorry drivers to park their lorries. On the other hand, if the truck lay bay is set up in the area in question, the same may hinder the activities of the Exhibition Centre inasmuch as there will not be place for car parking for the visitors and general public. As the Exhibition Centre is already established adjoining the petition properties, the properties in question are more useful for the integrated project of BM1C to have the multi-level car parking. The multi-level car parking to be set up by Nandi would cater to the needs of the visitors of Exhibition Centre and others for parking their cars. As the area within the premises of Exhibition Centre is not sufficient to park the cars, the multi-level car parking is being set up for the purpose of the Exhibition Centre by Nandi as part of BMIC Project. This Court cannot lose sight off the fact that the thousands of cars and coaches come to the complex on the days of exhibition as the exhibition is of international repute and consequently, reasonably convenient space for car parking and parking of coaches is necessary. According to the petitioners, the coaches which come to the Exhibition Centre carrying expensive machines are very huge having length of about more than 70 ft. to 80 ft. and they cannot be parked on the road-side or elsewhere. They will have to be parked inside or near the campus of Exhibition Centre. The cars of the visitors will have to be necessarily parked nearer to the Exhibition Centre. Since no car parking facility or sufficient area is not available within Exhibition Centre, the authorities and the BM1C Project implementing body (Nandi) have thought it fit to set up multi-level car parking place for the visitors of the Exhibition Centre and others over the lands in question. As aforementioned, the petition properties are acquired for formation of implementation of the integrated project, which includes providing infrastructure for habitation and economic activities also. The Government of India should not have issued the acquisition notifications for acquiring the petition properties for formation of another infrastructure project i.e., for formation of truck lay bay. On the other hand, the Government of India, could have acquired some other properties nearer or adjoining National Highway No. 4 for formation of truck lay bay.
Since the lands in question had already been acquired for the purpose of development of an infrastructure project (i.e., BMIC project) and progress has been made in that regard, simultaneously the project will have to proceed in other lands also as the project is an integrated project. In such a situation, if portions of the lands in question are acquired by the National High Way Authority for formation of truck laybay (which is another infrastructure project), it is reasonable to expect that it would hamper the progress of the work done in the BMIC project.
18. It is material to note that Bangalore International Exhibition Centre was set up after obtaining the approval of Union of India. The Union of India, has contributed Rs. 49.12 crores to meet the costs of Exhibition Centre which is established for the public purpose. One nominee of the Government of India, one nominee of the State Government and one nominee of R & D Institution concerned with the Industrial Cluster each are appointed on the Board of Directors/Governing Body/Executive Body of the Special Purpose Vehicle formed under the Industrial Infrastructure Upgradation Scheme, 2003. The same is clear from Annexure-A produced along with WP. No. 6820/2008. The said document clearly reveals that the Government of India has granted the approval for Upgradation of Infrastructure Facilities at Machine Tools Cluster, Bangalore, under Industrial Infrastructure Upgradation Scheme at a tentative costs of Rs. 135.50 crores. The contribution of the Government of India, to the tune of Ks.49.12 crores is also included in the project cost From the above, it is clear that the Central Government is very much interested in Industrial Infrastructure Upgradation Scheme, 2003. Pursuant to the said Scheme, the Exhibition Centre is established by Indian Machine Tools Manufacturers' Association. The said Association proposes to establish a Centre of Excellence for machine tool design, training facilities, workshop and support service along with a large Convention-cum-Exhibition Centre. The proceedings of the Government of Karnataka vide Annexure-B to WP. 6820/2008 clearly reveal that about 40,000 sq.mtrs. is needed for providing parking facility. The very document at Annexure-B reveals that the land to an extent of 38 acres, which falls within BM1C Project being implemented by Nandi, is handed over to Indian Machine Tool Manufacturers' Association for formation of Bangalore International Exhibition Centre at the request of the State Government. Thus, it is clear that both the State Government as well as the Central Government are interested in Bangalore International Exhibition Centre. If it is so, the Government of India has to visualize that the area in question is very much necessary and suitable for having multi-level car parking to cater to the needs of Exhibition Centre and to fulfill its objects.
19. As aforementioned, the State Government by filing its statement of objections, opposed the acquisition notifications issued by the first respondent The Government of Karnataka fully supports the writ petitioners by contending that the properties in question are very much necessary for establishing multi-level car parking which is part of BMIC Project. From the above, this Court is of the clear opinion that the acquisition notifications issued by the National Highway Authority of India for acquiring properties for setting up the truck lay bay is improper, inasmuch as the very area is acquired by the State Government for the purpose of implementing BMIC Project, which is an integrated project. The said project cannot be allowed to be disintegrated in the interest of public and the State. As part of the BM1C Project, and to cater to the needs of Exhibition Centre, Nandi has decided to set up multilevel car parking over the properties in question. This fact is totally ignored by the Government of India, which, as aforesaid, has also has granted sufficient funds for the Upgradation of Infrastructure Facilities at Machine Tool Cluster, Bangalore under industrial Infrastructure Upgradation Scheme. There is nothing on record to show that the Government of India will not get other alternative land measuring about 5 acres for formation of truck lay bay adjoining National High Way No. 4.
20. Having regard to the totality of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, and since the acquisition notifications are issued without considering the aforementioned materials, the same cannot be sustained in so far as they relate to the properties sought to be acquired for formation of truck lay bay. Accordingly, the following order is made:
i) Acquisition notifications under challenge in these writ petitions in so far as they relate to acquisition of the lands for the purpose of setting up of truck lay bay, are bad in the eye of law and hence they are quashed in respect of those lands;
ii) However, the acquisition notifications issued for the purpose of acquiring the lands for widening National High way No. 4 stand confirmed.
Writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.