1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2012 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI WRIT PETITION No.3355/2012 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: Sri Anjanappa, S/o Late Bhimappa, Aged about 60 years, Thumbigere village, Anagod Hobli, Davanagere Taluk, Davanagere District. …Petitioner (By Sri Tharanath Shetty, Advocate) AND: 1. The State of Karnataka, Department of Revenue, Vidhana Soudha, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Bangalore – 560 001. By its Chief Secretary. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere District, Davanagere. 3. The Assistant Commissioner Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Davanagere Sub-Division, Davanagere District. 4. Smt.Bhagyamma, W/o D.M.Manjappa, Aged about 37 years. 2 5. Sri Siddappa, S/o Baramappa, Aged about 50 years. 6. Sri Jayappa, S/o Hanumappa, Aged about 55 years. 7. Sri Honnappa, S/o Hanumappa, Aged about 50 years. Respondent Nos.4 to 7 are Agriculturists, R/o Lingapura Village, Davanagere Taluk, Davanagere District. (Amended vide Court order, dated 30.5.2012) … Respondents (By Sri K.Krishna, AGA for R-1 to R-3; Sri A.C.Balaraj, Advocate for R-4 to R-7) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary notification dated 23.4.10 vide Annex-A and the final notification dated 28.2.11 vide Annex-B issued by the respondents and etc. This writ petition coming on for hearing on I.A. this day, the Court made the following: O R D E R Although this matter is listed for hearing on I.A., I have taken it up for final disposal with the consent of the learned advocates. 2. The petitioner has called into question the preliminary notification, dated 23.4.2010 (Annexure-A) and the final 3 notification, dated 28.2.2011 (Annexure-B) issued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 respectively. The land in question measures 15 guntas. It stands on Survey No.71/P4 of Lingapura Village, Aanagod Hobli, Davanagere Taluk. It is acquired for the formation of road from Lingapura Village to Giriapura Village. 3. Sri Tharanath Shetty, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the acquisition of land is not for any public purpose. It is acquired for the benefit of the respondent No.4, who was the President of Igoor Village Panchayat, as she wants to have a better access to her land. He submits that the petitioner had filed O.S.No.492/2009 against the respondent No.4 and had obtained the temporary injunction. When the revenue officials tried to enter the petitioner’s land next year, he filed O.S.No.260/2010 against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and had obtained the status quo order. 4. Sri Shetty submits that even as per the admission of the respondents, there is already a road from Lingapura to Giriapura running from west to east. Therefore, the formation of the new road is not warranted. The petitioner ekes his livelihood from 4 the land measuring 2 acres 38 guntas. In the said extent, if 15 guntas are taken away, it affects the source of his livelihood adversely. 5. He alleges malafides against the respondent Nos.4 to 7. He submits that no individual notice is served on the petitioner. 6. Sri K.Krishna, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that the individual notice is served on the petitioner on 30.6.2010. He has secured the original records. He brings to my notice that the petitioner has affixed his thumb impression for having received the individual notice. He also submits that the possession of the land is already taken on 7.12.2011 by drawing the mahazar. He submits that the other villagers have offered to voluntarily surrender their lands for the formation of the road in question. 7. Sri A.C.Balaraj, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to 7 submits that this writ petition is not maintainable as the award is already passed. He submits that the formation of the road is a public purpose. 5 8. The submissions of the learned counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. The records reveal that the individual notice is indeed served on the petitioner. Admittedly, when he has not filed the objections, he cannot maintain the challenge to the final notification with any rate of success. 9. The formation of the road is a public purpose. The question as to whether the existing road has to be upgraded or widened or whether a new road has to be formed, fall within the province of the executive. This Court does not propose to substitute its wisdom for the wisdom of the experts in the field. 10. It is not in dispute that the award is already passed on 10.8.2011 and the possession is taken on 7.12.2011. Considering all these aspects of the matter, I do not propose to invalidate the acquisition proceedings. This writ petition is dismissed. 11. However, the petitioner is to be paid a fair and just market value for the loss of his lands on account of their compulsory acquisition. The petitioner is an unlettered villager. He has got this petition filed on receiving the award, but has not 6 made the reference application. I therefore deem it necessary and just to give an opportunity to the petitioner to make the reference application invoking Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for seeking the enhancement of the amounts within three months from today. If one such reference application is filed by the petitioner within three months from today, the respondent No.3 shall send the reference to the Reference Court. Subject to giving of these directions, this petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 12. Now that the main matter itself is dismissed, nothing survives for any consideration of I.A.No.2/2012 for vacating the stay. It is therefore dismissed as having become unnecessary. Sd/- JUDGE MD