1. This is an appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act filed by the Hubli-Dharwad Urban Development Authority, an authority within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority act (for short ‘Act’) to get over the order dated 02.04.2009 passed in writ petition No. 12654/2006 by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Under the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition that has been filed by the present 1st respondent and has quashed acquisition notifications, one dated 06.02.2002, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-E and another dated 27.11.2003, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-F published in the Karnataka Official Gazette dated 27.11.2003 in so far as they relate to the land of the writ petitioner in Sy. No. 311.A/1 of Byridevarkoppa Village, Hubli Taluk, measuring an extent of 2 acres and 35 guntas.
2. It is aggrieved by this order the Hubli-Dharwad Development Authority is before us inter alia contending that the subject land was part of a total extent of 55 acres of land sought to be acquired for development purpose for allotting plots for construction of residential units under a comprehensive scheme. The subject land though was at one corner of the total extent of 55 acres of land earmarked for civic amenities, the learned Single Judge has without understanding the scope of the acquisition proceedings, the factual state of affairs as to the implications of quashing a part of the notification has allowed the writ petition holding that the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside etc.
3. The 1 respondent-owner of the land had entered caveat through counsel Sri. K.L Patil and the 2nd respondent-State is represented by Sri. C.S Patil, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State.
4. Sri. Mallikarjun B. Hiremath, learned counsel for the appellant-Authority would vehemently urge that the learned Single Judge has committed a grave error in recording three specific findings that the Authority has not considered the objections filed by the writ petitioner to the notification proposing acquisition of the lands; the learned Single Judge has also gone by erroneous understanding and by drawing incorrect inferences to hold that the appellant-Authority had not taken possession of the subject land from the land owner and the learned Single Judge has committed an error in holding that the Authority had not implemented the scheme in its entirety, at any rate so far as the subject land is concerned merely for the reason that the appellant-Authority had put on hold the utilisation of the said land for civic amenities.
5. It is submitted by Sri. Mallikarjun Hiremath, that as all the three findings mentioned above for allowing the writ petitions are incorrect, not sustainable on facts and law, the order of the learned Single Judge requires to be set aside and writ petition has to be dismissed.
6. On the other hand, Sri. K.L Patil, learned counsel for 1 respondent-land owner submits that the learned Single Judge has recorded not only correct findings but very just findings and that the findings are very obvious on a perusal of the record which the learned Single Judge had scrutinised in some detail. That the learned Single Judge only after looking into the original records and on consideration of factual and legal position has allowed the writ petition. There are absolutely no grounds for disturbing the order passed by the learned Single Judge and therefore, urges for dismissal of the writ appeal.
7. Sri. C.S Patil, learned Addl. Government Advocate submits that the appellant has gone on with its activities in a proper manner, there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to interfere with the notification and therefore, the impugned order warrants correction in appeal though Government by itself has not filed any appeal, the State Government would nevertheless support the stand of the appellant in this appeal.
8. We have looked into the records as produced by Sri. Mallikarjun Hiremath, learned counsel for the appellant-Developmem Authority and considered the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the findings recorded therein and bestowed our attention to the submissions made at the Bar. Even a cursory glance at the records indicates that all the three findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are inferences drawn based on the material on record and not de horse the records.
9. The manner in which the Authority has gone about its business of acquiring land for a development purpose leaves much to be desired. The power has been exercised in an indiscriminate and quixotic manner. Statutory power is sought to be exercised by persons and authorities not statutorily recognised or vested. A power vested in one statutory authority is sought to be delegated to the other though there is no enabling power of delegation or sub-delegation and above all the record is conspicuously silent about the consideration of any objections of the land owner.
10. Though Sri. Hiremath has contended that the appellant-Authority the land owner had never filed any objections at all and there was nothing for the appellant-Authority to consider, a resolution of the Authority passed on 22.05.2001 and minutes recorded in the resolutions book of the Authority at page 143 would indicate that the Authority had received the objections from the land owner and as it is required to be considered. The consideration aspect was delegated to the Chairman of the Authority instead of the Authority itself considering the same.
11. Whether a delegation of this nature is right or wrong, is a debatable question. What is sufficient for our purpose, is that the record fortifies the stand of the land owner as urged by the learned counsel for the land owner, that the land owner had in fact filed his objections. The record does not indicate as to further manner of consideration of the petition and obviously there appears to be no consideration at all after the particular resolution we have referred to above, would justify the first finding of the learned Single Judge.
12. With regard to the attack on the second finding that the Authority had not taken possession, we invited Sri. Hiremath to place before us the record to justify the taking possession of the land from the land owner. Though a certain mahazar is sought to be placed before the Court purporting to be one drawn at the time of taking over possession of the land, we find it was neither preceded by a valid notice apprising the land owner of the intention of appellant to take possession of the land on a given date nor subsequent developments are available on record. Even this so called mahazar evidencing taking of possession is only through a xerox copy of the original mahazar as certified by the Secretary of the Authority.
13. When a public Authority produces any record or places any record before this Court, we expect the Authority to produce the original records and not some xerox loose sheets which are assembled in thin dockets. The production of loose leaflets and that too xerox copies virtually negates the sanctity of a public authority producing the original records before a writ Court whose duty is to review the administrative action of public authorities. What is placed before us neither inspires our confidence to accept it as a trile depiction of the original record nor does it in any way sustain the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-Authorty that the authorities had in fact taken possession. The signature of the land owner is conspicuously absent and in the wake of the stand throughout taken by the land owner that he had never received notice of the acquisition proceedings while such stand is only supported by this record placed by the learned counsel for the appellant-Authority, but also belies the stand that a portion of the land had been taken over. A mahazar of this nature is not good in law to support a claim that the Authority had taken physical possession of the subject land from the land owner.
14. So far as the third point sought to be urged by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the implementation of the scheme it appears that is the subject land has remained with the land owner and it is not in the possession of the Authority.
15. While the Authority does not dispute and on the other hand concedes that in so far as the subject land is concerned, it has not implemented the scheme, the explanation why it did not do so was for the reason that it was reserved for civic amenities and the appellant was awaiting the outcome of the litigation. This reserved part of the scheme could have been implemented at any future point of time during pendency of the litigation. The explanation of the appellant it was officially awaiting the outcome appears to be only a cover up explanation to sustain their false claim of having taken possession of the land. The learned Single Judge in this sorry state of affairs was left with no choice but to record a finding that the scheme is not implemented in its entirety and at any rate in so far as it relates to the subject land of the writ petitioner. The finding is very proper and inevitable.
16. A perusal of the record has only opened our eyes to more irregularities and possible illegalities on the part of the authorities in the process of acquisition of the lands and we find more grounds to sustain the order of the learned Single Judge than to allow the writ petition and quash the notification in so far as the subject land is concerned. There is absolutely no merit in the appeal and accordingly it is dismissed. Application for stay is consequently dismissed.