MUNEGOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case affords the best illustation as to how callous the authorities incharge of the land acquisition would be, which deserves the highest condemnation by us.

(2.) A notification under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued as early as 6-4-1977. When notice was issued to the petitioner herein, he preferred his objections. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner passed an order on 6-2-1980 denotifying these lands. That was gazetted in the Karnataka Gazette dated 21-2-1980. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner issued a notification purporting to be under Section 3(4) of the Act on 9-4-1984 to complete the acquisition. Therefore, under these circumstances rightly it is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that what has been done is not only contrary to all established law but even exhibited thorough ignorance of the proceedings and therefore he prayed that the notification proposing to acquire be quashed.

(3.) The learned Government Advocate though initially put forth a plea that the withdrawal notification dated 6-2-1980 gazetted on 21-2-1980 was not seen in his file, when confronted with the Gazette Notification by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, he is not in a position to controvert the same. Having regard to the above facts we are clearly of the view that the acquisition in this case has proceeded in a casual manner which requires to be condemned out right. This is not the case where the mighty power of eminent domain has to be exercised. There must be caution, circumspection as well as thinking before embarking upon these procedures which have been delineated under the Act. Where, therefore, there was a notification on 6-2-1980 which was gazetted on 21-2-1980 in the following terms: