M. SURESH KUMAR S/O A.R. MUTTUKUMAR AND SMT. DHANALAKSHMI W/O MUTTUKUAMA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND THE SECRETARY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these writ petitions the Petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the preliminary notification dated 20.5.2002, the final notification dated 2.8.2003 acquiring the lands belonging to the Petitioners and the award dated 30.01.2005.

(2.) PETITIONERS contend that on 20.5.2002 the second Respondent issued a preliminary notification proposing to acquire the lands belonging to the Petitioners for the benefit of third Respondent -Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee (for short 'APMC'). To this preliminary notification Petitioners filed their objections opposing the acquisition of lands. Petitioners contend that they have developed nursery in their lands, vacant lands are available in the APMC Yard, Government land is available and there is no need for acquiring the lands belonging to the Petitioners. Without considering the objections the Respondents issued the impugned final notification dated 02.08.2003.

(3.) SRI V. Lakshminarayan, learned Counsel for some of the Petitioners contend that in the existing market yard more than 25% of the land remained vacant and therefore there is no need to acquire the lands in question. Adjacent to the existing market yard, vacant government land is available and the Respondents without utilising the same proceeded to issue the impugned notification acquiring the lands belonging to the Petitioners and as such the same is bad in law. The paper publication in Kannada daily evening newspaper 'EE SANJE' and non publication of the substance of notification in the Chavdi of the village is non -compliance of mandatory requirement under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'Act'). No personal hearing was provided to the Petitioners by the Land Acquisition Officer and as such the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act is bad in law. Sri G.D. Aswathnarayana, learned Counsel for some of the Petitioners contend that the final notification under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued beyond statutory period of one year and as such the impugned notifications are liable to be quashed.