BASAVARAJ MALLESHAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Basawaraj Malleshappa Tippakkalawar was the tenant of S. No. 2361/A/1B measuring 2 acres 19 guntas situate in Hirekerur of Dharwar District, of which certain Krishna Govind Dixit and his brother Ramesh Govind Dixit were the joint owners. The petitioner was conferred with occupancy right in respect of the said land by the Land Tribunal, Hirekerur as per its order dated 23-4-76 under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 3961. In the meanwhile, the State of Karnataka intended to acquire the said land for the purpose of constructing office building and staff quarters for the Taluk Development Board, Hirekerur. Action was taken in that connection to acquire the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by Karnataka Act No. 17/1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and a preliminary notification dated 17-1-75 under S. 4(1) of the Act was published in the official Gazette, Thereafter the Assistant Commissioner caused a copy of the Preliminary Notifications served upon the petitioner calling for objections if any, to the proposed acquisition of the land. The petitioner, in response to the notice, filed his objections within the stipulated time opposing the proposed acquisition. The State Government, rejecting 'the objections raised by the petitioner, made a declaration dated 29-9-76 that the land was needed for the public purpose and caused that declaration published in the official gazette dated 23-10-1976 as required under sub-section (2) of S.6 of the Act. According to the petitioner, he was afforded no opportunity to substantiate his objections as required under law. It is also his case that the acquisition proceedings are wholly illegal and contrary to law. Hence he filed this writ petition under Arts 226 and 227 of the Constitution to quash the entire acquisition proceedings .

(2.) The respondents filed their statement of objections denying the various allegations made in the petition and supporting the validity of the acquisition proceedings.

(3.) Sri R. H.Chandanagoudar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, adduced four main contentions in the course of his arguments to assail the validity of the impugned proceedings.