The High Court of Karnataka has quashed the acquisition of around seven acres of land for beautification and infrastructure improvement near protected monuments of Ugra Narasimha and Badavilinga temples at Hampi.
The court held that the action of the State government in acquiring the land by dispensing with Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which mandates hearing of objections, by invoking the urgency provision under Section 17 of the Act, was tainted with mala fides, and hence, the acquisition was illegal.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum passed the order while allowing the petitions filed by Nidasheshi Veeranna and others back in 2007 questioning the acquisition of land in various survey numbers of Krishnapur and Kamalapur villages in Hosapete taluk. The petitions were referred back to the High Court for fresh consideration after the first round of litigation, in which the High Court had refused to interfere with the acquisition notifications of 2005-06.
‘No material to substantiate’
“For invoking such jurisdiction, the authorities are required to adhere strictly to the requirements of the statute. In the present case on hand, there are absolutely no materials to substantiate the action of the State in invoking urgency clause,” the court observed.
On examining the materials on record, the court said that “this court is more than satisfied that the power conferred on the government under Section 17 of the Act has not been validly exercised... The material placed by the State is not found to be satisfactory to justify their action under Section 17(4) of the Act.”
What govt. said
While the Archaeology Department of the Union government had claimed that these parcels of land were required for verifying the existence of sculptures and carvings, and for beautification and infrastructure improvement around these monuments, the State government had said that the land was needed to provide proper access to the monuments as the parcels of land of the petitioners were blocking access.
The petitioners are entitled to be heard by filing their objection as the parcels of land are being acquired for the beautification of national monuments for which they cannot be acquired by invoking urgency clause, the court said.
