While setting aside an order of the Single Bench quashing the land acquisition proceedings in favour of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) for the establishment of a Defence Research Laboratory, the Karnataka High Court has held that national security must always take precedence over individual interests or personal rights.

The High Court was considering the writ petitions challenging the acquisition of lands initiated for the purpose of the Defence Projects of the Union of India.

The Bench comprising Justice D K Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan held, “National security is paramount and must always take precedence over individual interests or personal rights. While personal rights are undoubtedly precious, they cannot be asserted in a manner that compromises the safety and security of the nation. The nation must come first, for the protection of the country is the foundation upon which all individual rights and freedoms securely rest. Institutions such as the Defence Research and Development Organisation (‘DRDO’), through their continuous research, technological innovation and development of advanced defence systems, work tirelessly to safeguard the nation and strengthen its security.”

Senior Counsel Aravind Kamath represented the Appellant while Additional Govt. Advocate N. Byre Gowda represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The State Government had issued a preliminary notification under Section 4(1) read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act, proposing to acquire a larger extent of land for the establishment and completion of a Defence Research Laboratory. These acquisition proceedings were questioned before the Court in various writ petitions. The Court had partly allowed the petitions and directed the authorities to conduct an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, after affording an opportunity to the landowners to submit their objections.

The Single Judge held that the enquiry under Section 5-A had not been conducted in the manner required by law and that the recommendation of the Special Land Acquisition Officer did not satisfy the statutory requirements. The Court allowed the connected writ petitions and quashed the acquisition proceedings challenged therein. The Court also clarified that the quashing of the acquisition proceedings would not prevent the State from initiating fresh acquisition proceedings, if the lands were genuinely required for a public purpose. It was in such circumstances that the intra-Court appeal came to be filed assailing the findings recorded by the Single Judge.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the acquisition in question was not for a private purpose or for the benefit of any individual and the lands were sought to be acquired for the Defence Department for the establishment and completion of the CAIR, which is stated to be one of the premier Defence Laboratories of the country.

“The records indicate that the acquisition forms part of a larger Defence project, that a substantial extent of land had already been acquired and handed over, and that the lands in question are surrounded by the lands already placed at the disposal of the Defence authorities. The project work had commenced and the area had been protected by a compound wall for security reasons. The schedule lands, therefore, cannot be considered in isolation, divorced from the larger project and the purpose for which the acquisition is undertaken”, it stated.

The Bench was of the view that dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A is sustainable when the Government’s subjective satisfaction regarding urgency is founded on sufficient material. “The decision is particularly relevant where the acquisition is for a public purpose requiring immediate action and the record discloses material justifying the invocation of the urgency provisions”, it added.

The Bench further held that the authorities were required to balance the right of the landowners to a fair hearing with the necessity of bringing the long-pending Defence project to completion. It was further noticed that the petitioners had not demonstrated any specific or substantial prejudice caused to them by the manner in which the enquiry was conducted.

The Bench further found no material to establish that the acquisition was actuated by mala fides, colourable exercise of power or an oblique purpose. Thus, observing that the Single Judge was not justified in quashing the entire acquisition proceedings, the Bench allowed the appeal.

Cause Title: The Defence Research v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (Case No.: Writ Appeal No. 2123 OF 2015 (LA-RES)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Counsel Aravind Kamath, Advocate Jayakara Shetty H.

Respondent: Additional Govt. Advocate N. Byre Gowda, Senior Advocate M.S. Bhagwat, Advocate Muniyappa

Click here to read/download Order


Justice D K SinghJustice H. Shanthi Bhushan

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.