Karnataka High Court.
Credit: DH File Photo
Bengaluru: The High Court has quashed the acquisition of about 12 acres of land in the vicinity of Badavilinga and Ugra Narasimha temples in Hampi, by invoking the urgency clause under section 17A of the Land Acquisition Act.
“This is a clear case of forcible acquisition of land by virtually violating all standard procedures. The poor farmer’s land which is a lifeline for his family is snatched under the garb of acquisition for public purpose at large. The acquisition in the present case on hand is not found to be consistent with constitutional ethics,” Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said, while allowing the petitions filed by Nidasheshi Veeranna and other landowners.
The petitioners had challenged the notifications issued to acquire their lands at Krishnapur and Kamalapur villages of Hosapete taluk.
The preliminary notification was issued on May 25, 2005, while the final notification was issued April 5, 2006.
The petitioners contended that the government arbitrarily acquired the lands in the areas surrounding Hampi’s historical monuments without verifying the existence of sculptures and carvings.
They claimed that though a vast extent of land was being acquired under the garb of protection of ancient artifacts, till date, the Archaeology department has not carried out any excavation to identify the existence of any historical monuments underneath.
The court observed that while the proposed acquisition was on the ground that the lands may contain some ancient monuments, during the course of final hearing, the authorities had stressed more on the point that the land blocks access to the ancient temple complex known as Badavilinga and Ugra Narasimha temples.
No ancient monuments
In fact, the state had admitted that no ancient monuments are found in the land belonging to petitioners.
Citing various Apex Court judgements, Justice Magadum said that the state could not have invoked urgency clause by dispensing enquiry under section 5A of Land Acquisition Act.
The court observed that the three grounds under which the urgency clause was pressed into - speculation that lands may have artifacts, lands required for beautification and the lands are blocking access to two temples – are indicative of the fact that there was no application of mind.
“Therefore, the action of respondent No.1-State in acquiring petition lands by dispensing with enquiry under Section 5A of the Act is tainted with malafides. The proposed acquisition of petition land is illegal. The order of acquisition by invoking urgency power under Section 17(4) of the Act and thereby, dispensing enquiry under Section 5A of the Act is found to be totally improper and therefore, the entire acquisition proceedings vitiate and are liable to be quashed by this court,” Justice Magadum said.