The land acquisition for infrastructure in Ugra Narasimha and Badavlinga Temples of Hampi has been quashed by the Karnataka High Court.

Title: Nidasheshi Veeranna & others vs State of Karnataka.

Court: High Court of Karnataka

Case No. : Writ Petition No. 7954 of 2007 C/W Writ Petition No. 5574 of 2007.

Decided on: 11^th October, 2023.

Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum.

Introduction:

A single Bench headed by Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum awarded the petitions filed by Nidsheshi Veeranna and others in 2007 challenging the acquisition of land in various survey numbers of Krishnapura and Kamalapur vilages of Hosapet Taluk.

Facts:

The State Government had arbitrarily acquired land belonging to the petitioners under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the areas surrounding the Hampi Historical monuments. The petitioners were relied on that agricultural land for their livelihood. The petitioners claim that these acquisitions are made without verifying the existence of sculptures and cravings. Feeling aggrieved by the acquisition, the petitioners filed petition in W.P.No.5574/2007. But the petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by this the petitioners approached the Hon’ble Apex Court and the petition was allowed and the matters are remitted back to the court to decide the validity of acquisition dehors reference proceedings pending before the Reference Court.

Arguments by the appellant: The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that there was no public purpose for such acquisition. Therefore, acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed by the court. To better his arguments he relied on the judgment in the case of Darshan Lal Nagpal (dead) by LRs. vs Government of NCT of Delhi and others (2012) 2 SCC 327. He further pointed out that petitioners were still in possession of the lands and no compensation was paid and therefore, acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Arguments by Respondent: The learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the lands notified and acquired fall within the protected area. He further contended that the State Government was of the opinion that those areas contain ancient monuments or antiquities of National interest and value. He further contended that the State had to acquire those lands as Government of India was of the opinion that the petitioners land contains ancient monuments and antiquities of National interest.

Issue:

1) Whether the respondent (State) was justified in invoking urgency clause to acquire the petition lands and therefore, was justified in dispensing the right of opportunity conferred on the land under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?

2) Whether the petition lands can be acquired on a mere speculation that the petition lands may contain ancient monuments, or on the ground that petition lands is blocking access to the monumental temples namely Badavilinga Temple and Ugra Narasimha Temple?

Court Analysis and Decision:

The court observed that the state had miserably failed to substantiate its action under Section 17(14) of the Act. The burden rests upon the State to show by evidence or some circumstances which insisted on elimination of enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act. The court also observed that there were no materials to substantiate the action of the State in invoking urgency clause. After examining the materials on record, the court was satisfied that the power conferred on the State under Section 17 of the Act was not validly exercised. The court stated that it was the duty of the State to place on record relevant materials before the Court for scrutiny as to the reasonableness of decision.

After observing all the facts the court quashed the decision to acquire around seven acres of land for beautification near the protected monuments of Ugra Narasimha and Badavilinga Temples in Hampi.

WRITTEN BY:Nireesha Rao