CHANDRASENA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though this writ petition was posted for consideration of application for vacating stay filed by the Respondent-State, with the consent of the learned Counsel on both sides, the main writ petition has been heard finally.

(2.) In this writ petition, the Petitioner has sought the following reliefs:

(3.) According to the Petitioner, he is the absolute owner of agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 332, Hoskote Village, Doddaballapur Sub-Division, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, measuring 5 acres 13 guntas. The said property originally belonged to his father and he submits that he succeeded to the same in the year 1975 after the demise of his father and that he has been cultivating the land by growing paddy, coconuts, pulses, corn and other seasonal crops. That when the matter stood thus, the Petitioner became aware that 2 acres of land (hereinafter referred to as the land in question) was sought to be acquired by the first Respondent for the purpose of construction of a court complex and on enquiry he came to know that the second Respondent had issued preliminary notification dated 3.9.1998 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') notifying the acquisition of 2 acres of the said land which was published in the official gazette on 15.10.1998. That the said notification was also published in two regional daily newspapers on 8.10.1998. It is the case of the Petitioner that the second Respondent has not caused any public notice of the said notification in the locality as envisaged under Section 4(1) of the Act. Hence, the Petitioner addressed a letter dated 29.7.1999 to the Respondents stating that he had no notice of the proposed acquisition and had also sought denotification of the said land from acquisition. Since the Respondents did not reply to the said letter, the Petitioner addressed another letter dated 4.12.1999 addressed to the Revenue Minister of the State seeking denotification. The Petitioner learnt that in the interregnum the Respondents had proceeded to make the declaration as required under Section 6(1) of the Act, a copy of which was published in the Kannada daily newspaper on 14.12.1999. According to the Petitioner no public notice of the said declaration had been given as per Section 6(2) of the Act. Under the circumstances, the Petitioner had filed W.P. Nos. 12211-12/2000 challenging the acquisition proceedings, this Court had granted interim order of stay of further proceedings for a period of two weeks on 3.4.2000. Subsequently, this Court dismissed the writ petition on 12.4.2000 on the ground that there had been publication in the village chawadi and also In the newspaper on 26.11.1998 and 8.10.1998 and that the question of personal service of notice did not arise. According to the Petitioner, after the dismissal of the writ petition, no action was initiated by the Respondents for over two years. Therefore, by operation of law, the acquisition proceedings have lapsed by virtue of Section 11A of the Act.