LAWS(KAR)-2010-3-43

S H MANJUNATH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On March 11, 2010
S.H. MANJUNATH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject mailer of these writ petitions are the lands bearing Sy. No. 116/3 measuring 1 acre 31 gunius, Sy. No. 116/1 measuring 4 acres. Sy. No. 110/2 measuring 2 acres guntas and Sy. No. 110/3 measuring 2 acres 1 guntas of Gabbur village, Kasaba Hobli, Shikaripur Taluk. Shimoga District. The petitioners are the owners of the said lands. The Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board, Bangalore issued Annexure 'J' notification dated 31.5.2007 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') proposing to acquire the aforesaid lands along with certain other adjacent lands for the establishment of underground drainage system and sewage treatment plant for Shikaripura town. The petitioners filed objections to the said notification. The Land Acquisition Officer has rejected the said objections. Thereafter, the State government has issued a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act in respect of the petiton schedule lands including another item of land measuring 2 guntas in Sy. No. 1/1 of Gabbur village, Kasaba hobli. Shikaripur Taluk. Shimoga District. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid notifications on different grounds. The respondents have sought to justify the acquisition proceedings in their statement of objections.

(2.) Sri. R.S. Hegde, learned Counsel for the petitioners would contend that the lands have been acquired for the benefit of the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board (for short 'the Board'). The beneficiary of the acquisition proceeding is not the Housing Board. The Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board has not been appointed to perform the functions of the Deputy Commissioner for acquiring the said lands. Therefore, the Commissioner of the Karnataka Housing Board could not have issued preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Secondly, it is contended that the Land Acquisition Officer has not considered the objections filed by the petitioner objectively and the enquiry held under 4of the Act is bad in law.

(3.) On the other hand, Sri. K.M. Nataraj learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has sought to justify the acquisition proceedings. It is argued that under Section 3(c) of the Act dated 7.2.1987, a notification has been issued authorising the Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board, Bangalore, to perform the functions of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 4(1) of the Act. It is further argued that the objections filed by the petitioners have been considered in accordance with law. The lands are required for a public purpose, namely, for the establishment of underground drainage system and sewage treatment plant for Shikaripur town. After being satisfied that the lands are required for the said purpose, the State Government has issued a final notification under Section 6(1) of the Act. Sri Basavaraj V. Sabarad, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has also sought to justify the acquisition proceedings.