Judgment:
ORDER
Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.
1. Petitioners are the owners of various properties situated adjoining the State Highway passing through Town Municipality, Bagepalli. They have put up commercial buildings over the said properties adjoining the road. The respondent-State issued Preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' on 16.10.2006 proposing to widen the State Highway which passes through Bagepalli Town. The petitioners have filed their statement of objections to the preliminary notification. Hearing on objections under Section 5A of the Act was conducted on 27.12.2006 and 28.12.2006. Thereafter, the Final Notification, dated 22.2.2007 is issued for acquiring certain properties belonging to the petitioners and others for widening of the State Highway at Bagepalli. Questioning the acquisition notifications, these writ petitions are filed.
2. Sri Jayakumar S. Patil and Sri Madhusudan R. Naik, learned Senior Advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the proposed widening of the road is totally unnecessary: that the proposal of the respondents widening the road by 100 feet width may not be necessary having regard to the lesser traffic density; that the statement of objections filed by the petitioners are not considered in proper perspective by the Land Acquisition Officer, inasmuch as, he has merely reiterated the remarks of the concerned Engineer, that the bridge constructed on Chitravathi river which connects the State Highway and the National Highway is having the width of 50 feet only and therefore, the proposal to widen the road to an extent of 100 feet is impracticable; that the respondents should not have acquired 3 mtrs. of land on either side of the road for the purpose of building line; and that another existing by-pass road which connects the State Highway with the National Highway should be developed instead of widening the road in question.
3. The writ petitions are opposed by the State Government as well as some of the Ex-Councillors of Bagepalli Town who have been impleaded in the writ petitions. The respondents contended that there is no by-pass road existing as contended by the petitioners; that there is no proposal to have by-pass road in future also; that though the bridge is having width of 60 feet, the same is adequate to cater the traffic density, inasmuch as, the bridge need not contain the drainage. building line etc.; that the bridge is meant only for passing of vehicles and the people; that the bridge is away from Bagepalli Town, inasmuch as it is situated at the starting point of State Highway, therefore there is less traffic on the bridge; that the enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act is held on two days in detail i.e., on 27.12.2006 and 28.12.2006; that the grounds urged in these writ petitions were urged by the petitioners before the Land Acquisition Officer during the course of enquiry under Section 5A of the Act and those objections are considered and rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer before recommending for issuance of Final Notification; that the Land Acquisition Officer has applied his mind independently to the facts of the case while submitting report under Section 5A of the Act; that the building line to an extent of 3 mtrs. is not the subject matter of the acquisition; that the 3 mtrs. acquired on either side of the road after the space meant for laying drainage is acquired for the purpose of future expansion of the National Highway and not for having the building line; that the State Highway is being widened in accordance with the well established norms followed by Indian Road Congress; that according to the Indian Road Congress, the normal space of Highway in. Urban area is 30 mtrs. and accordingly, the State Highway in question is proposed to be widened by 30 mtrs. only; and that out of 360 properties which are sought to be acquired, the State has already taken possession of the properties belonging to 280 persons and the buildings situated on the acquired area are demolished i.e., 75% of the persons have already voluntarily vacated the acquired portion of land, On these among other grounds, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.
4. The records reveal that the enquiry under {Section 5A of the Act was held by the Land Acquisition Officer on two days i.e., on 27.12.2006 and 28.12.2006. Each of the objections raised by the petitioners is considered independently by the Land Acquisition Officer and is answered to by him. While doing so, the Land Acquisition Officer has taken into consideration the remarks of the concerned Engineer also. The Land Acquisition Officer has not merely relied upon or followed the report of the concerned Engineer. On the other hand, the Land Acquisition Officer has come to his own conclusion after subjective and objective satisfaction. While considering the statement of objections, the Land Acquisition Officer has clearly observed that there is no by-pass road connecting the Stay Highway to National Highway.
5. From the above, it is clear that there is no bypass road existing, as contended by the petitioners. For the present, there is no proposal for forming by-pass road in the near future also. In this context, the contention of the petitioners that the by-pass road should be developed also cannot be accepted.
6. It is not in dispute that the bridge connecting the State Highway with the National Highway situated on Chitravathi River is having width of 60 feet. The State Highway which runs through Bagepalli Town is at present having width of 65 to 66 feet. The portion of the State Highway which passes through Bagepalli Town is sought to be widened up to 100 feet by the present acquisition notifications. In this context as aforementioned, the petitioners' counsel submitted that it is impracticable to have 100 feet width road when the bridge itself is having 60 feet width. The said contention cannot be accepted, inasmuch as the bridge is situated far away from Bagepalli Town. It is at the starting point of the State Highway. The Traffic congestion, according to the authorities is mainly in Bagepalli Town. The State Highway in question is the only major road which passes through Bagepalli Town. All the Government Offices, Schools, Colleges, APMC Yard, Bus Stand, Temples, Cinema Theatres are situated adjoining the said road. Thus, it is but natural that the traffic congestion will be more in Bagepalli Town. Such traffic congestion is not there near the bridge, which is far away from Town. Therefore, the authorities thought it fit to widen the road by acquiring the properties in question in Bagepalli Town only. As aforementioned, the bridge is far away from Bagepalli Town. Thus, merely because the bridge is having width of 60 feet, the widening of the road at Bagepalli Town cannot be scuttled. More over, the bridge does not and need not have drainage and building line. It is not in dispute that the bridge is having about 60 feet of width. Out of the said area, an area of 2/25 mtrs. width is left for footpath on either side of the bridge. The remaining portion except the median line is used for carriageway. The width of carriageway is about 7.5 mtrs. on either side of median line of the bridge The same extent of the land of 7 mtrs. on either side of the median line is sought to be formed in Bagepalli Town also by acquiring the properties. Thus, the width of the carriageway and the width of the footpath remain the same even in Bagepalli Town. Only the portion relating to the drainage (1.5 mtrs.) on either side of the road and 3 mtrs. extra area (meant for future expansion) are sought to be laid after acquiring the properties in question. Thus, the width of the bridge is not the relevant factor in the matter on hand, inasmuch as it will not affect the traffic on the State Highway within Bagepalli Town.
7. It is relevant to note that the area of 3 mtrs. which is sought to be laid after the drainage area is not for the purpose of building line, but the same is said to have been meant for future expansion of the Highway. Thus, the contention that the acquisition of the land for formation of the building line to an extent of 3 mtrs. on either side is incorrect. The Indian Road Congress has issued a special publication in the year 1996, which deals with the acquisition for formation of Highways. Clause 4.1 of the said publication reads thus:
4.1 Acquisition of Adequate Highway Land:
One of the most effective methods of ensuring that ribbon development does not take place is to acquire a liberal right-of-way at the initial stage itself, with an adequate provision for meeting both the present and the anticipated future requirements. The following standards need to be followed in this aspect: TABLE 1 LAND WIDTH FOR DIFFERENT CLASSES OF ROAD-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Land width in metres--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Plain and rolling country Mountainous and steep terrain------------------------------------------------------------------Class of roadRural areas Urban areas Rural areas Urban areas------------------------------------------------------------------Normal Range Normal Range Normal Excep- Normal Excep-tional tional-------------------------------------------------------------------NationalAnd StateHighways 45 30-60 30 30-60 24 18 20 18MajorDistrictRoads 25 35-30 20 15-25 18 15 15 12OtherDistrictRoads 15 15-25 15 15-20 15 12 12 9Village Roads 12 12-18 10 10-15 9 9 9 9--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. From the above, it is clear that the normal area required for the purpose of Highway in Urban Sector is 30 mtrs. The range would be 30 to 60 mtrs. Which means 30 mtrs. width Highway is a minimum requirement for formation of the Highway, in this matter also the State Highway is being widened for 30 mtrs. Thus, the action of the authorities in planning to have 30 mtrs. width Highway is just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. The authorities while doing so, have kept in mind the present and future traffic density. The Road in question is not only meant for local people and the people of Bagepalli Taluka, but is also being used as a State Highway. There cannot be any dispute that the infrastructure is necessary for progress of our country. The means of transportation, power and communications are in dire need of substantial improvement, expansion and modernization. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ramniklal N. Bhutta and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in : AIR1997SC1236 , wherein it is observed thus:
Before parting with this case, we think it necessary to make a few observations relevant to land acquisition proceedings. Our country is now launched upon an ambitious programme of all round economic advancement to make our economy competitive in the world market. We are anxious to attract foreign direct investment to the maximum extent. We propose to compete with China economically. We wish to attain the pace of progress achieved by some of the Asian countries, referred to as 'Asian tigers', e.g., South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. It is, however, recognised on all hands that the infrastructure necessary for sustaining such a pace of progress is woefully lacking in our country. The means of transportation, power and communications are in dire need of substantial improvement, expansion and modernisation. These things very often call for acquisition of land and that too without any delay. It is, however, natural that in most of these cases, the persons affected challenge the acquisition proceedings in Courts. These challenges are generally in the share of writ petitions filed in High Courts, invariably, stay of acquisition is asked for and in some cases, orders by way of stay or injunction are also made. Whatever may have been the practices in the past, a time has come where the Courts should keep the larger public interest in mind while exercising their power of granting stay/injunction. The power under Article 226 is discretionary. It will be exercised only in furtherance of interests of justice and not merely on the making out of a legal point. And in the matter of land acquisition for public purposes, the interests of justice and the public interest coalesce.
9. It is for the authorities concerned to decide, based on fact situation as to the necessary infrastructure to be provided to a particular place. Thus, it is the realm of the concerned authorities to decide as to width of the road to be laid in a particular town. The Courts cannot act as appellate authorities in such matters. The Apex Court in the case of The State of Punjab and Anr. v. Gurdial Singh and Ors. reported in : [1980]1SCR1071 has observed thus:
First, what are the facts? A grain market was the public purpose for which Government wanted land to be acquired. Perfectly valid. Which land was to be taken? This power to select is left to the responsible discretion of Government under the Act, subject to Articles 14, 19 and 31 (then). The court is handcuffed in this jurisdiction and cannot raise its hand against what it thinks is a foolish choice. Wisdom in administrative action is the property of the executive and judicial circumspection keeps the court lock-jawed save where power has been polluted by oblique ends or is otherwise void on well-established grounds. The constitutional balance cannot be upset.
10. In this matter, this Court does not find any mala fide intention on the part of the respondents while acquiring the properties in question. Merely because the Ex-Councillors have got themselves impleaded in the writ petitions, it cannot be said that the acquisition notifications are politically motivated. The Ex-councillois are basically residents of Bagepalli Town. Thus, they are naturally interested to get the necessary infrastrucure for Bagepalli Town. About 75% of the persons who have lost their commercial establishments in the acquisition proceedings on hand, have not approached this Court. The structures belonging to them are already demolished. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any fraudulent intention on the part of the respondents while issuing acquisition notifications. It is also relevant to note that the respondents have taken the possession of the Government properties wherever they are available, for widening the road. Even the portion of the property belonging to the Bus Stand is also taken for widening the road. Looking from any angle, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the acquisition notifications, in view of the above and since the acquisition is in public interest, the acquisition notifications cannot be interfered with.
11. Hence, writ petitions fail and accordingly same are dismissed.