NANJUNDA JOIS Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. These petitions are considered and disposed of together having regard to the common issues that arise for consideration.

(2.) While the learned Counsel for the respondents, including the learned Government Pleader, would resist the petition and would point out that there is no dispute as to the purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired is a public purpose. The primary contention that the petitioners have not been heard and their objections have not been considered is misleading. An inquiry held pursuant to the proceedings under Section 5A of the LA Act have addressed several objections raised by the petitioners at length and this is evident from the record that is made available. In any event, the very grievance being urged in the present petitions, it is open for this court examine whether there is any merit in the said contention.

(3.) As already pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the endeavor on the part of the State to set up a Sewage Treatment Plant is since the year 2005 and the land that was identified for the purpose not having been found favour with this court, by virtue of a Public Interest Petition that was filed, the respondents have been extra cautious in identifying an alternative land and it is on the basis of a report of a Technical Committee, consisting of experts drawn not only from the Pollution Control Department, but also from the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board and the Revenue Department. It is on a close study of the lay of the land and the topography and the feasibility of setting up of the plant and keeping all the considerations in view, that the lands of the petitioners has been identified. The present situation being that the sewage water generated in Nanjangud Town is directly fed into the river and there is constant and high pollution of the river body and therefore, the entire underground drainage system has been laid and is complete except for the setting up of the sewage plant, which is held up on account of the interim order granted in these proceedings. Hence, the contention of the petitioners that the setting up of the plant would endanger the nearby river water canal is misleading. On the other hand, it would be possible to avoid further pollution and damage to the water body if the treatment plant is set up forthwith.