STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. NARASIMHAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) By our order dated July 27, 1995 we had noted that the 1st respondent after becoming major was duly served and was not represented by any counsel nor did he appear in person. We adjourned the matter to enable the State to remove the defect of having discharged the second respondent-father from guardianship of the first respondent. To-day, we have passed an order discharging the second respondent as guardian of the first respondent.

(3.) The notification under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Acquistion of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 (for short, 'the Act') was published in the Gazette on February 3, 1975. When measurement of the land was being taken, Venktappa, the second respondent, appeared before the authorities concerned and represented that the first respondent, his minor son had purchased the property from its owner, viz., Houlabi, wife of Khaja Sab. Subsequently, he recommended to the Government to issue final notification under Section 3(4) of the Act. The first respondent, through his father, challenged the notification in Writ Petition No. 12705 / 84. Learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court quashed the notification on the ground that the name of the first respondent was not mentioned in the notification as required by Section 3(1) and that, therefore, the notification is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of record. Thus, this appeal by special leave against the Division Bench order dated Feburary 19, 1986 passed in Writ Appeal No. 332 of 1986.