SURESHCHANDRA C MEHTA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The appellant claimed that after he purchased the property on 14/07/1965 under a registered conveyance it was converted for urban use. Notification issued under Section 17 (1 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 for short 'the Act' was published in the State Gazette. Under Section 17 (5, it is enjoined that every person whose name appears in the assessment list of the local authority or land revenue record shall be served with a notice so that he should make necessary objections to the notification published under Section 17 (1 of the Act. Though his name has been entered in the revenue record, he has not been served with the notice under Section 17 (5. On the other hand when he approached the High court and filed Writ Petition No. 131812 of 1984 questioning the validity of the notification published under Section 17 (1, a direction was issued on 24/08/1984 staying further proceedings yet the declaration under Section 19 was published on 8/01/1985 without hearing him. Thus the declaration is void. The High court, therefore, was wrong in dismissing the appellant's writ petition and also the Writ Appeal No. 1721 of 1987 under the impugned order dated 25/11/1987. Shri P. S. Poti, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, contended that once his name was entered in the revenue records, the appellant has a right to notice under Section 17 (5 and should be heard before declaration under Section 19 was published. The absence thereof renders the notification under Section 17 (1 void.

(3.) We do not find any force in this contention. It is true that the central Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 as amended in 1984 has no application to the acquisition under this Act. The procedure prescribed under S. 4 (1 and 6 (2 is not attracted. Therefore, we are concerned only with the procedure prescribed under the Act. Section 17 (5 provides thus: