RAMAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioners being aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 23rd June, 2005 passed in W. P. No. 43345 of 2002 have preferred this writ appeal. In the writ petition, the land acquisition proceedings were assailed. The two grounds urged before the learned single Judge while assailing the validity of the land acquisition proceedings were the following.- (i) the purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired is not a 'public purpose and (ii) that there was no warrant or urgency to invoke the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act' ). The learned Single Judge having not found merit in either of the two contentions has dismissed the writ petition by the order under appeal.

(2.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellants would reiterate the above two contentions which were urged before the Single Judge, before us also. A Division Bench of this Court in Rajendrababu and Another v state of Karnataka and Others dealing with the meaning of the term public purpose has opined that the definition of the term 'public purpose' is inclusive definition, it is illustrative and not exhaustive and takes in other purposes also for public benefit. The Court has also opined that great discretion and elasticity vested in the State Government in the matter of invocation of its eminent domain power in acquiring the land for public purposes.