ARASAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A certain extent of land situate in Archakarahalli village of Ramanagaram Taluk, was notified for acquisition in connection with the construction of a Bus stand. The notified area included land in Sy. No. 136/3 and 136/4, claimed by the petitioners herein. Objections were filed to the proposed acquisition which were rejected culminating in the issue of a final notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act published in the Government Gazette on 11th of June, 1997. Aggrieved the petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the validity of the acquisition proceedings.

(2.) MR. Subbarao, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the petitioners were small land holders dependent entirely upon agriculture for their survival. He submitted that the land in question was not ideally suited for being used as a Bus stand and that the final notification was vitiated by reason of the failure of the authorities to serve a notice upon the petitioners in terms of Section 5-A of the Act informing them about the submission of the Report by the Land Acquisition Officer. Reliance in support was placed by him upon a Single bench decision of this Court in Bhoje Gowda alias Shivananjegowda and Another v State of Karnataka and Others.

(3.) THE question whether a given parcel of land sought to be acquired is suitable for the purpose for which it is being acquired is one that more appropriately falls for consideration of the authorities concerned. This Court while examining the validity of the acquisition proceedings does not sit in appeal over the decision of the authorities as regards the suitability of the land nor does judicial review of the action taken by the competent authorities imply substitution of the view taken by them, by that of the Court in regard to all such questions. This Court would be concerned only with the limited question whether the purpose for which the land is being acquired is a public purpose and if so whether the acquisition proceedings are being conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. That construction of a Bus stand is a public purpose was not disputed by Mr. Subba Rao. If that be so, questions relating to suitability of the land, the wisdom behind the decision for locating the Bus stand at a particular place and even the fact that the petitioner is a small landholder must pale into insignificance, at least for purposes of Judicial review by this Court.