GRAMA VIKASA VEDIKE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a public interest petition filed by one Grama Vikasa Vedike, represented by its president. The petitioner in this Writ Petition has challenged several notifications issued by the state Government under Section 4 (1) and 6 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the act'), for the purpose of construction of the Harinala Irrigation Project, in Bailhongal taluk, belgaum District.

(2.) THE Government with a view to construct an Irrigation Project proposed to acquire certain lands for the benefit of the general public in exercise of the power of eminent domain after obtaining the technical opinion and the Report. It appears, in the year 1963 the Government initiated proceedings for acquisition for the purpose of the construction of the above said project. Ultimately, the same was dropped by the State Government and the reasons for the dropping of the said acquisition are not known. Again the State Government initiated the proceedings for acquisition for the above said purpose in the year 1980. That was also dropped by the State government. Thereafter, the Ministers from that area moved the Government to take steps to implement the above said Harinala Project as it is for the public good. Thereafter, the government after obtaining the technical opinion again initiated the proceedings for acquisition with a view to implement the project by issuing the notifications under Section 4 (1) of the Act. This was followed by a final notification under Section 6 (1) of the Act. These notifications are called in question by the petitioners in this Writ Petition.

(3.) IN the case on hand the Land Acquisition Officer after hearing the land owners has submitted his Report recommending to drop the proceedings under Section 5-A of the Act. The State government after considering the Report and that of the proceedings submitted by the L. A. O. , has taken a decision to proceed with the acquisition by declaring that the lands which were proposed for acquisition are required for a public purpose. On these facts, it is contended by Sri channabasappa, learned Counsel for the petitioner that when the Government has not accepted the recommendations made by the L. A. O. , it ought to have afforded an opportunity of hearing to the land owners before taking a decision contrary to the recommendations made by the L. A. O. As the Government has not afforded an opportunity of hearing to the land owners, it is submitted that the declaration made under Section 6 (1) of the Act, is invalid as it is opposed to the principles of natural justice. In order to consider this contention it is useful to refer to the scheme of the Act, under which the proceedings of acquisition have been initiated. When the government is of the opinion that certain lands are required for a public purpose, it may issue a notification proposing to acquire the lands under Section 4 (1) of the Act. Thereafter, the L. A. O. , who has been appointed as a Deputy Commissioner under Section 3 (c) of the Act, has to issue individual and public notices calling upon the persons interested to file their objections, if any, to the proposed acquisition. In reply to the said notice any person interested in the land may file objections objecting the proposed acquisition. The LAO in the event if there are any objections shall hear the objectors and thereafter he is required to submit his recommendations along with the proceedings to the State Government under Section 5a of the Act. The Government after considering the recommendations, if it is, satisfied that the land proposed for acquisition is required for a public purpose may proceed to issue the declaration declaring the said lands are required for a public purpose under Section 6 (1) of the Act. The declaration so issued under section 6 (1) of the Act, is a conclusive proof of the fact that the said land is required for a public purpose as provided under Section 6 (3) of the Act.