ALOYSIUS LT CL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :- In these writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have sought for quashing the Notification bearing No. LAQ (1) SR 5/85-86 dated 17-9-1985 published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 24/10/1985 issued under sub-section (1) of Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by Karnataka Act 17/61 and Central Act 68 of 84 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') proposing to acquire the portions of properties bearing Nos. 60 and 61 belonging to the petitioners respectively for the purpose of widening of Miller road and St. John's church road, Division Nos. 83 and 87 of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore. They have also sought for quashing the Notification bearing No. RD 241 AQB 85 dated 11-6-1986 published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 17/06/1986. Along with the properties in question several other properties numbering in all 36 have been acquired for the aforesaid purpose.

(2.) It is contended by Sri. K. G. Raghavan, learned counsel for the petitioners that the properties in question are neither waste nor arable, therefore, application of urgency clause is unwarranted; that the purpose of acquisition in question does not fall either under sub-sections (1) or (2) of Section 17 of the Act therefore State Government acted without the authority of law in applying the urgency clause; that the fact that the Notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act was published as long back as on 24/10/1985 and thereafter nearly after a lapse of 9 months a declaration was made under Section 6 of the Act is insufficient to indicate that there was no such urgency involved and as such there was no justification for dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act; that the properties in question are not at all required for widening of the roads in question.

(3.) On the contrary it is contended by the learned Government Pleader that the traffic on the Miller road was very heavy and due to the congestion of traffic any delay in widening the roads would have resulted in several untoward incidents. Therefore, the Commissioner of the Corporation made a report to the Government to widen the roads immediately on acquiring adjoining properties on applying urgency clause as otherwise inconvenience caused to the public due to closure of the road and also due to the congestion on the Miller road as a result of heavy traffic cannot at all be removed. It is submitted by her that the Government on considering the report made by the Commissioner and in view of the urgency involved, decided to acquire the properties mentioned in the Notification on applying the urgency clause; that after coming., into force of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, it is open to the State Government to acquire the properties on applying the urgency clause if the Government is of the opinion that it is necessary to acquire immediate possession of the land for the purpose of widening the road; that the fact that there is a gap of about 9 months between the publication of the Notification under subsection (1) of Section 4 of the Act and the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act by itself is not sufficient to vitiate the decision of the State Government to apply the urgency clause, as long as it is not the case of the petitioner that there are mala fides on the part of the State Government in invoking the urgency clause; that the acquisition is for public purpose and the properties in question are required for widening the roads.