Division Bench sets aside Single Judge order, holds objections were considered and says technical lapses cannot defeat defence project; cross-objection dismissed for gross delay
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has allowed writ appeals filed by the Union of India and the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), restoring land acquisition proceedings for the Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (CAIR), a premier defence laboratory in Bengaluru.
A Division Bench of Justice D.K. Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan held that the acquisition, undertaken for a defence project of national importance, could not be quashed merely on alleged procedural defects in the Section 5-A enquiry under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court set aside the Single Judge’s order dated 30 April 2014, which had annulled the acquisition on the ground that the landowners were not given an effective hearing and their objections were not properly considered.
The dispute concerned lands in Benniganahalli village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, acquired for the establishment and completion of CAIR. The petitioners had challenged the final declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act, arguing that their objections were not meaningfully dealt with and that alternative lands were available.
The Division Bench disagreed. It noted that notices had been issued, objections were filed, and an enquiry was conducted. The court observed that the law does not require any fixed format for a Section 5-A enquiry, and that the mere fact that objections were rejected does not mean they were not considered. In the absence of demonstrated substantial prejudice, the acquisition could not be invalidated on a hyper-technical basis.
The court placed strong emphasis on the nature of the project, observing that CAIR is a vital defence laboratory engaged in advanced research in artificial intelligence, robotics and defence technology. It held that national security must take precedence over individual interests where acquisition is lawfully undertaken for a genuine public purpose.
The Bench also rejected the argument that the availability of alternative lands should have led to dropping the acquisition. It said the suitability, contiguity and security requirements of land for a defence establishment are matters for the acquiring authority, not the court. Judicial review, the court said, cannot be used to substitute the court’s assessment for that of the government in such matters.
The court further held that even if there had been some deficiency in the consideration of objections, the proper course would have been reconsideration rather than quashing the entire acquisition. It found that the petitioners had not shown mala fides, colourable exercise of power or any incurable illegality.
In a separate ruling, the court dismissed Cross Objection No. 2 of 2022 filed by one of the landowners, holding that it suffered from inordinate delay and laches. The cross-objection had been filed after a delay of 1,547 days, excluding Covid-related exemption, leaving an unexplained delay of 2,262 days.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed Writ Appeal No. 2121 of 2015 and connected appeals, dismissed the writ petitions, and directed that further proceedings be carried out strictly in accordance with law, while ensuring that the landowners’ rights to compensation and statutory benefits remain protected.
Bottom Line :
Land Acquisition - Acquisition for Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (CAIR) - National security and defence purpose held to be paramount - Acquisition could not be quashed merely on alleged procedural defects in Section 5-A enquiry when notices were issued, objections were received and considered, no mala fides were shown and no substantial prejudice was established - Order of Single Judge quashing acquisition set aside - Cross objection dismissed on ground of delay and laches.
Statutory provision(s): Section 4(1), Section 5-A, Section 6(1), Section 6(3), Section 17(1), Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Rules 5(2) and 5(3) of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Rules, 1965
