STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. B.R. MURALIDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Karnataka is questioning the legality and correctness of the order passed in W.P.Nos. 22611/05, 20955/05 and 21192/05 passed on 20th September 2007 by the learned Single Judge, wherein the learned Single Judge while upholding the acquisition of the properties of the Writ Petitioners as valid has striked down Sec. 20 of the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, as unconstitutional and in further directing the Government the manner in which compensation has to be paid by following the provisions of sections- 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act. Heard Sri. Vijay Shankar, learned Advocate General for the State, Sri. Nanjunda Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for one of the respondent and Sri. V.Y. Kumar, learned counsel for the Slum Clearance Board.

(2.) Under section 17 of the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') the lands of the Writ Petitioners were acquired under a preliminary notification dt. 14.10.1982. Final notification was issued 23 years later on 23rd June 2005. The final notification was questioned by the Land owners. While questioning the legality and correctness of the preliminary and final notification, they also sought for a declaration to declare Sec. 20 of the Act as ultra vires on the ground that the amount payable for acquisition of their lands u/s. 20 of the Act, is illusory and virtually it is a nil compensation. The learned Single Judge considering the case put forth by both the parties held that the acquisition of the property was for public purpose and he declined to interfere with the acquisition proceedings. However, considering the provisions of Sec. 20 of the Act, he came to the conclusion that the amount payable u/s. 20 is illusory and depriving of a person to receive compensation, if the same property had been acquired under any other provision of law and in such an event the land owners were entitled to receive the compensation under Sections- 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act which is equivalent to market value. Therefore, he has declared Sec. 20 as unconstitutional.

(3.) The learned Advocate General taking us through the provisions of the Act and various provisions of the Constitution of India and several Judgments contends that the order of the learned Single Judge in striking down Section- 20 of the Act is arbitrary and that the amount payable u/s. 20 need not be a prevailing market value and the question of determining the market value based on the provisions of sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, is erroneous because the learned Single Judge did not consider the very intention and object of bringing a legislation to improve and clear the slums in the State. According to him, the Act was enacted by the State for the removal of un-hygienic and un-sanitary conditions prevailing in the slums for better accommodation and improve the living conditions for slum dwellers for the promotion of public health and for the acquisition of land for the purpose of improving, developing or re-developing slum areas, clearance of slums and rehabilitation of slum dwellers. According to him, as per the Directive Principles of the State Policy, in order to improve the public health, the State has enacted the Act in question. In furtherance thereof, Sec. 20 has been enacted to pay the amount in lieu of the compensation payable on account of the acquisition of the property.