D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY S/O. LATE B.N. NARAYANA REDDY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECY. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are the owners of various properties situated adjoining the State Highway passing through Town Municipality, Bagepalli. They have put up commercial buildings over the said properties adjoining the road. The respondent -State issued Preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' on 16.10.2006 proposing to widen the State Highway which passes through Bagepalli Town. The petitioners have filed their statement of objections to the preliminary notification. Hearing on objections under Section 5A of the Act was conducted on 27.12.2006 and 28.12.2006. Thereafter, the Final Notification, dated 22.2.2007 is issued for acquiring certain properties belonging to the petitioners and others for widening of the State Highway at Bagepalli. Questioning the acquisition notifications, these writ petitions are filed.

(2.) SRI Jayakumar S. Patil and Sri Madhusudan R. Naik, learned Senior Advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the proposed widening of the road is totally unnecessary: that the proposal of the respondents widening the road by 100 feet width may not be necessary having regard to the lesser traffic density; that the statement of objections filed by the petitioners are not considered in proper perspective by the Land Acquisition Officer, inasmuch as, he has merely reiterated the remarks of the concerned Engineer, that the bridge constructed on Chitravathi river which connects the State Highway and the National Highway is having the width of 50 feet only and therefore, the proposal to widen the road to an extent of 100 feet is impracticable; that the respondents should not have acquired 3 mtrs. of land on either side of the road for the purpose of building line; and that another existing by -pass road which connects the State Highway with the National Highway should be developed instead of widening the road in question.

(3.) THE records reveal that the enquiry under {Section 5A of the Act was held by the Land Acquisition Officer on two days i.e., on 27.12.2006 and 28.12.2006. Each of the objections raised by the petitioners is considered independently by the Land Acquisition Officer and is answered to by him. While doing so, the Land Acquisition Officer has taken into consideration the remarks of the concerned Engineer also. The Land Acquisition Officer has not merely relied upon or followed the report of the concerned Engineer. On the other hand, the Land Acquisition Officer has come to his own conclusion after subjective and objective satisfaction. While considering the statement of objections, the Land Acquisition Officer has clearly observed that there is no by -pass road connecting the Stay Highway to National Highway.