D V LAKSHMANA RAO Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER claims to be the owner of the following lands situated in udayagiri and bhuvanahalli villages, devanahalli taluk, Bangalore rural district. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_185_KANTLJ4_2001Html1.htm</FRM>

(2.) ACCORDING to petitioner, the said lands along with the surrounding land were declared as an industrial area under Section 3 (1) of the Karnataka industrial areas development Act, 1966 ('kiad act' for short ). Thereafter, the state government issued a preliminary notification dated 7-7-1994 (gazetted on 7-7-1994) under Section 28 (1) of the kiad act giving notice of its intention to acquire such lands, as they were required for the purpose of an industrial establishment by the Karnataka industrial areas development board ('board' for short ). In pursuance of it, a show-cause notice dated 6-1-1995 was issued to the petitioner under Section 28 (2) of the kiad act fixing the hearing on 23-2-1995 and calling upon him to show cause why the said lands should not be acquired. The petitioner filed objections dated 21-2-1995. After enquiry and appropriate orders under Section 28 (3), a final declaration dated 8-8-1996 (gazetted on 8-8-1996) was made under Section 28 (4) of the kiad act stating that the state government was satisfied that the lands stated therein should be acquired for the purpose specified in the notification under Section 28 (1 ). This was followed by a notice dated 28-8-1996 issued under Section 28 (6) of the kiad act by the 4th respondent calling upon the petitioner to deliver possession of the acquired lands.

(3.) PETITIONER claims that he continues in possession of the acquired lands. Petitioner claims that no award has been made even though nearly four years have elapsed after the final notification. The petitioner has therefore filed this petition on 24-7-2000 for a declaration that the entire acquisition proceedings relating to his aforesaid lands have lapsed on account of no award being made on or before 8-8-1998, that is before the expiry of two years from the date of final declaration dated 8-8-1996. He has also sought a consequential direction to respondents 1 to 4 not to proceed with or take any step in pursuance of the notification dated 7-7-1994 and final declaration dated 8-8-1996.