Case: M/S Girias Invest.Pvt.Ltd Vs. State Of Karnataka

3 SCC 752 , Om Prakash & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (1998) 6 SCC 1 , Union of India & Ors. vs. Mukesh Hans (2004) 8 SCC 14 , Union of India & Ors. vs. Krishan Lal & Ors. (2004) 8 SCC 453 , Hindustan Petroleum Cor. Ltd. vs. Darius Shapur Chennai & Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 627 and P.Naranayyapa & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka (2006) 7 SCC 578 . Concededly, Section 28 (3) of the Act gives a right of personal hearing to the owner of the land or any other interested person and the judgments cited by the learned counsel therefore eminently support the appellants case. The question as to whether an effective personal hearing was given or not, however is a question of fact and we notice from a perusal of the record that such hearing was indeed given and that the appellant had exercised his rights thereunder and it was only after the procedure under section 28(3) had been followed, that the final Notification had been issued. We find that the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court have given categorical findings against the appellant on this score and we have no reason to differ therefrom. We have nevertheless examined the record to re-assure ourselves as to the correctness of the High Courts decision. After the objections/documents had been filed, the file was taken up by the Collector on 16th January, 2006 on which date Shri N.R. Prakash representing the land owners was not present. The Collector, after examining the facts of the case, adjourned the case to 24th January 2006 for orders in accordance with Section 28(3) of the Act and the final orders on the proceedings under section 28(3) of the Act were, in fact, made on the 2nd February 2006. Mr. Dave has emphasized that as the matter had been adjourned on 16th January 2006 for orders there was absolutely no justification in finalizing the proceedings on 2nd February 2006 without giving a hearing to the appellants. We observe, however, that merely because the word orders has been recorded in the proceedings of 16th January 2006, it does not imply that the matter remained incohate or that it envisaged a further hearing. The record shows that comprehensive objections alongwith documents had been filed by the appellants on 16th January 2006 wherein after stating the history as to how they had become owners of the land they had given their objections to its acquisition and in paragraphs 19 and 21 stated as under: In the event of your requiring any clarification, we also request you to offer us a personal hearing in the above matter for us to place the above facts for your kind consideration. We do hope that justice would be done and valuable investment in the land would be protected and we are permitted to carry on the construction of the Shopping Complex as planned towards which the necessary finance have been made available to us by Andhra Bank. We have to request you to provide us with a personal hearing in the matter, as also permit us to file any other documents or additional statements as may be required. 20. The aforesaid paragraphs clearly reveal that the request for a personal hearing was conditional in that if a clarification or additional documents were required, time for that purpose be given. It is also significant that the objections filed by the appellants form (almost exclusively) the basis for the present writ petition inasmuch the fact that there was no need for the change of the alignment of the trumpet interchange and the access road or that alternative land was available for that purpose, had been spelt out therein. The Collector in dealing with the objections had observed that several objections/documents had been filed by the appellants but were liable to rejection as the acquisition was necessary for the Bangalore Airport. We are also not mindful of the fact that though the rights of an individual whose property is sought to be acquired must be scrupulously respected, an acquisition for the benefit of the public at large is not to be lightly quashed and extraordinary reasons must exist for doing so. This is the ratio of the judgment of this Court in Ramniklal N.Bhutta & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (1997) 1 SCC 134 wherein it has been held as under: 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. They are very often one and the same. Even in a civil suit, granting of injunction or other similar orders, more particularly of an interlocutory nature, is equally discretionary. The courts have to weigh the public interest vis-à-vis the private interest while exercising the power under Article 226 - indeed any of their discretionary powers. It may even be open to the High Court to direct, in case it finds finally that the acquisition was vitiated on account of non-compliance with some legal requirement that the person interested shall also be entitled to a particular amount of damages to be awarded as a lump sum or calculated at a certain percentage of compensation payable. There are many ways of affording appropriate relief and redressing a wrong; quashing the acquisition proceedings is not the only mode of redress. To wit, it is ultimately a matter of balancing the competing interests. Beyond this, it is neither possible nor advisable to say. We hope and trust that these considerations will be duly borne in mind by the courts while dealing with challenges to acquisition proceedings.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]are unable to accept this argument as the facts depict quite a different picture. From the statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondent No.1, the State of Karnataka before the Karnataka High Court, we notice that the lands covered by the Notification dated 6th April 2004 were proposed to be acquired based on the tentative requirements indicated by the Airport Authority in its letter dated 2nd December 2002. After issuance of the aforesaid Notification a letter was addressed to the Airport Authority to reappraise the matter keeping in view the technical needs and requirements on which a team of the Chief Executive Officer and Head Technical of the Airport Authority, a representative of the KSIIDC and other local revenue officials visited the site on 1st September 2004 and noticed that there were some adverse ground conditions and difficulties such as the existence of a large pond which necessitated the change. It also appears that there was a great deal of correspondence between all concerned and the final decision was taken to change the location of the trumpet interchange and access road after due deliberation, as has been revealed from the letters dated 22nd April 2005, 14th July 2005 and 19th July 2005.8. Mr. Daves peripheral argument that the change had been made on account of the objections raised by the prospective land losers of the first acquisition is also unacceptable as this objection had been made only with respect to the land proposed for the special runway, a fact which had also figured in the letter dated 19th July 2005. It is the admitted position that the land had been purchased by the appellants vide sale deeds dated 23rd November 2005 and 26th November 2005 i.e. long after the final decision had been taken to acquire the land in the light of the revised proposal. It is also significant that in the objections filed before the Land Acquisition Collector, no malafide against any person has been alleged. We also find that malafides have been alleged in paragraph 4.9 of the pleadings filed before the Karnataka High Court.11. It is obvious from a reading of the pleadings quoted above that only vague allegations of malafides have been leveled and that too without any basis. There can be two ways by which a case of malafides can be made out; one that the action which is impugned has been taken with the specific object of damaging the interest of the party and, secondly, such action is aimed at helping some party which results in damage to the party alleging malafides. It would be seen that there is no allegation whatsoever in the pleadings that the case falls within the first category but an inference of malafide has been sought to be drawn in the course of a vague pleading that the change had been made to help certain important persons who would have lost their land under the original acquisition. These allegations have been replied to in the paragraph quoted above and reveal that the land which had been denotified belonged to those who had absolutely no position or power. In this view of the matter, the judgments cited by Mr. Dave have absolutely no bearing of the facts of the case19. Mr. Dave has argued with emphasis, that the personal hearing envisaged to an interested person under section 28(3) of the Act had in fact not been given to the appellants and that the proceedings held by the Collector pursuant to the notice dated 12th December 2005 were a mere eye wash. He has pointed out that as per the written objections filed by the petitioner on 16th January 2006, a specific request had been made for a personal hearing, but notwithstanding the request the Collector gave his decision on the objections on 2nd February 2006 and the final Notification was issued on 2nd June 2006. To supplement his argument that in the absence of a personal hearing under section 5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, or section 28(3) of the Act stand vitiated, Mr. Dave has placed reliance on Shri Farid Ahmad Abdul Samad & Anr. Vs. The Municipal Corporation of City of Ahmedabad & Anr. (1976) 3 SCC 719 ,  Rambhai Lakhabai Bhakt vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. (1995) 3 SCC 752 ,  Om Prakash & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (1998) 6 SCC 1 ,  Union of India & Ors. vs. Mukesh Hans (2004) 8 SCC 14 ,  Union of India & Ors. vs. Krishan Lal & Ors. (2004) 8 SCC 453 ,  Hindustan Petroleum Cor. Ltd. vs. Darius Shapur Chennai & Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 627 and P.Naranayyapa & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka (2006) 7 SCC 578 . Concededly, Section 28 (3) of the Act gives a right of personal hearing to the owner of the land or any other interested person and the judgments cited by the learned counsel therefore eminently support the appellants case. The question as to whether an effective personal hearing was given or not, however is a question of fact and we notice from a perusal of the record that such hearing was indeed given and that the appellant had exercised his rights thereunder and it was only after the procedure under section 28(3) had been followed, that the final Notification had been issued. We find that the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court have given categorical findings against the appellant on this score and we have no reason to differ therefrom. We have nevertheless examined the record to re-assure ourselves as to the correctness of the High Courts decision. After the objections/documents had been filed, the file was taken up by the Collector on 16th January, 2006 on which date Shri N.R. Prakash representing the land owners was not present. The Collector, after examining the facts of the case, adjourned the case to 24th January 2006 for orders in accordance with Section 28(3) of the Act and the final orders on the proceedings under section 28(3) of the Act were, in fact, made on the 2nd February 2006. Mr. Dave has emphasized that as the matter had been adjourned on 16th January 2006 for orders there was absolutely no justification in finalizing the proceedings on 2nd February 2006 without giving a hearing to the appellants. We observe, however, that merely because the word orders has been recorded in the proceedings of 16th January 2006, it does not imply that the matter remained incohate or that it envisaged a further hearing. The record shows that comprehensive objections alongwith documents had been filed by the appellants on 16th January 2006 wherein after stating the history as to how they had become owners of the land they had given their objections to its acquisition and in paragraphs 19 and 21 stated as under:In the event of your requiring any clarification, we also request you to offer us a personal hearing in the above matter for us to place the above facts for your kind considerationWe do hope that justice would be done and valuable investment in the land would be protected and we are permitted to carry on the construction of the Shopping Complex as planned towards which the necessary finance have been made available to us by Andhra BankWe have to request you to provide us with a personal hearing in the matter, as also permit us to file any other documents or additional statements as may be required20. The aforesaid paragraphs clearly reveal that the request for a personal hearing was conditional in that if a clarification or additional documents were required, time for that purpose be given. It is also significant that the objections filed by the appellants form (almost exclusively) the basis for the present writ petition inasmuch the fact that there was no need for the change of the alignment of the trumpet interchange and the access road or that alternative land was available for that purpose, had been spelt out therein. The Collector in dealing with the objections had observed that several objections/documents had been filed by the appellants but were liable to rejection as the acquisition was necessary for the Bangalore Airport. We are also not mindful of the fact that though the rights of an individual whose property is sought to be acquired must be scrupulously respected, an acquisition for the benefit of the public at large is not to be lightly quashed and extraordinary reasons must exist for doing so. This is the ratio of the judgment of this Court in Ramniklal N.Bhutta & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (1997) 1 SCC 134 wherein it has been held as under: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. They are very often one and the same. Even in a civil suit, granting of injunction or other similar orders, more particularly of an interlocutory nature, is equally discretionary. The courts have to weigh the public interest vis-à-vis the private interest while exercising the power under Article 226 - indeed any of their discretionary powers. It may even be open to the High Court to direct, in case it finds finally that the acquisition was vitiated on account of non-compliance with some legal requirement that the person interested shall also be entitled to a particular amount of damages to be awarded as a lump sum or calculated at a certain percentage of compensation payable. There are many ways of affording appropriate relief and redressing a wrong; quashing the acquisition proceedings is not the only mode of redress. To wit, it is ultimately a matter of balancing the competing interests. Beyond this, it is neither possible nor advisable to say. We hope and trust that these considerations will be duly borne in mind by the courts while dealing with challenges to acquisition proceedings