N SHIVANNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the notification dated 2-1-1978 published in the official gazette dated 12th January 1978 issued under sub-sec- (4) of S. 3 of the Karnataka Acquisition of land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') acquiring an extent of 2 acres of land out of S,y. No. 125 of Prabhuvanahalli, Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur District, belonging to the petitioner.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that he has purchased the land in question to an extent of one acre 20 guntas under two registered sal deeds dated 8-10-1971 and 16.8-1972 and inspiie of this neither his name was shown- in the notifications issued under sub-sections (1) and (4) of S. 3 of the Act, non he was served with any notice, as such, he was not aware of the acquisition proceeding in question, It was also contended that the petitioner being the owner in occupation of the land in question, was entitled to be afforded an opportunity in the matter of acquisition of the same. Sub-section (2) of Sec. 3 of the Act, provides for service of notice upon the owner or where the owner is not the occupier, on the occupier of the land and on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein to show cause within thirty days from the date of service of notice. The petitioner having acquired the title to the land in question under the aforesaid registered deeds long prior to the commencement of the acquisition proceeding in question, even though his name was not entered in the record of rights he was entitled for a notice and was entitled to be afforded an opportunity of oral hearing. However, it was contended on behalf of the respondents that as the name of the petitioner was not entered in the record of rights, therefore, the respondents could not show the name of the petitioner in the notifications issued under sub-sections (1) and (4) of S. 3 of the Act. Consequently, they could not also issue notice to the petitioner. It was also contended that the names in the notifications have been shown as found in the record of rights and the notices also have been issued to the persons named in the notifications Hence it was contended that the acquisition proceeding in question is not vitiated.

(3.) The aforesaid contention of the respondents cannot be accepted. Chapter XI of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (Kar. Act 12 of 1964) consisting of Ss. 127 to 136, deals with record of rights,. S. 128 thereof, provides for reporting of the rights acquired. Sub-section (1) of Section 128 provides that any person acquiring by sucession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, purchase, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise, any right as holder, occupant, owner, mortgagee, landlord or tenant of the land or easignee of the rent or revenue theraor, shall report orally or in writing his acquisition, of such right to the, prescribed officer of the village within three months from the date of such acquisition and the said officer shall at once -ive a written acknowledgment of the receipt of the report to the person making it.