GREGORY PATRAO Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject matter of these writ petitions are lands bearing Sy. Nos. 58/1 measuring 1 acre 30 cents, 92/1 measuring 1 acre 18 cents and 92/2 measuring 42 cents of Kalavaru village, Mangalore Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. Thomas Patrao, the father of Petitioner Nos. 1, 3 to 10 and husband of Petitioner No. 2 was the owner of the said lands. The 2nd Respondent had issued a Notification at Annexure 'B' dated 2.12.1996 under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short 'the Act') proposing to acquire the lands bearing Sy. Nos. 58/1 measuring 3 acres 50 cents, 92/1 measuring 51 cents, 92/2 measuring 30 cents and 58/3 measuring 7 cents of Kalavaru village, Mangalore Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District along with certain other lands in the same village. Notice was issued to Thomas Patrao under Section 28(2) of the Act. Thomas Patrao had filed objections opposing the proposal for acquisition of the lands. The objections were over ruled and the declaration under Section 28(4) was issued on 7.12.1998. Thereafter, the 2nd Respondent issued an endorsement as per Annexure-D dated 12.7.2000 informing him that a resolution has been passed dropping the lands from acquisition. Along with the said endorsement, a copy of the resolution passed by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (for short 'the Board') dated 18.5.2000 resolving to re-grant the land in his favour was also enclosed.

(2.) Thomas Patrao challenged the said endorsement and the resolution in W.P. No. 9146/2001. He died on 18.10.2004. Therefore, his son, the 1st Petitioner herein was brought on record as his legal representative. The said writ petition was disposed of on 27.6.2005 holding that though possession of the lands was not taken, title vested with the State Government absolutely on publication of the declaration dated 7.12.1998. The land owner is not entitled for compensation on publication of declaration. He is entitled for compensation only after taking possession of the land as provided under Sections 28(6) and (7) of the Act. The 1st Petitioner filed a writ appeal challenging the said order in W.A. No. 3097/2005 and the same has been withdrawn on 4.11.2009.

(3.) The 2nd Respondent again issued a Notification under Section 28(1) of the Act as per Annexure 'G' dated 3.3.2006 proposing to acquire large extent of lands in Permude and Kalavaru villages of Mangalore Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District for the purpose of the Act in furtherance of its objects. Sy. Nos. 58/1 measuring 4.80 acres, 92/1 measuring 1.69 acres, 92/2 measuring 0.72 acres (the subject matter of these writ petitions and W.P. No. 9146/2001) was also included in the said Notification. This was followed by a notice under Section 28(2) of the Act. The Petitioners filed objections to the notice opposing the acquisition. It is the case of the Petitioners that the 2nd Respondent has favourably considered the objections. Therefore, the aforesaid lands were not included in the final Notification at Annexure-H dated 18.12.2006. In respect of the subject matter of W.P. No. 9146/2001, the Petitioners received notices dated 24.8.2009 under Sections 9 and 10 of the LA Act. The Petitioners challenged the said notices before this Court in W.P. Nos. 35148-35157/2009. This Court has dismissed the said writ petitions on 9.3.2010 holding that in W.P. No. 9146/2001 disposed of on 27.6.2005, this Court has held that the lands were vested with the State Government on publication of the declaration dated 7.12.1998. The State Government has not withdrawn the lands from acquisition under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act. Therefore, they were justified in issuing notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the LA Act.