VEERABHADRESHWARA INDUSTRIAL TRAINING COLLEGE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has called into question the proceedings initiated by the respondents - authorities for the compulsory acquisition of his/its land measuring 1 acre 15 guntas out of the total extent of 2 acres 10 guntas standing at Sy.No.74/1 of Alanahalli Village, Mysore Taluk, for the formation of the Ring Road in Mysore. The preliminary and final notifications came to be issued on 03.10.2006 and 27.02.2008 respectively. Though the petitioner has made as many as seven prayers, it proposes to confine itself to only one prayer - declaring that the Government Order, dated 10.06.2008 (Annexure-V) as illegal and for a consequential direction to the first respondent to approve the resolution passed by the second respondent on 16.02.2008 agreeing to give the alternative land to the petitioner In exchange for the land acquired from the petitioner.

(2.) Sri Subbanna, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is agreeable to surrender its land measuring 1 acre 15 guntas which is the subject matter of acquisition notifications without any resistance, provided the respondents give the alternative land of the same dimension and in the same locality. He brings to my notice that on the petitioner's representation, the respondent No.2 has already passed the resolution to give 1 acre 15 guntas of the adjoining land standing at Sy.No.75/2. It is not in dispute that the proposed alternative land belongs to the respondent No.2 only. He submits that the proposed allotment of the land is in lieu of the compensation. He undertakes that the petitioner would not claim any compensation for the compulsory acquisition of its land.

(3.) He submits that the respondent No.2 placed its resolution before the Government seeking its approval. However, it is the Government which has disapproved the second respondent's resolution by a communication dated 10.06.2008 (Annexure-V). He submits that the Government has accorded its approval to the similarly placed land-losers. He specifically cites the precedent of the alternative land given to the APMC for acquiring its land for the very same purpose of the road formation. He submits that the denial of the same treatment to the petitioner is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.