S M KANNAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts leading to this reference are as follows:

(2.) The aforestated notification dated 23.03.2009 has been assailed by the Petitioner through the instant writ petition. One among the several contentions urged by the Petitioner to assail the notification dated 23.03.2009 and thereby sustain the earlier notification dated 05.10.2007 is that the possession of the lands in question had not been taken in accordance with law. The Respondent BDA however relied on the mahazar and possession certificate dated 12.07.2002 to contend that possession had been taken. The contention on behalf of the Petitioner was that the alleged mahazar drawn and possession taken by the Revenue Inspector cannot be recognised in law since Section 16(1) of the L.A. Act provides that the Deputy Commissioner should take possession. In support, of the said contention, reliance was placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of BDA v. Muniyamma (W.A. No. 936/2007 disposed on 11.12.2008) wherein it was held that, the land being revenue land, the Deputy Commissioner should take possession and he cannot delegate his power to any other Officer. The learned Counsel for the BDA however pointed out before the learned Single Judge that another Division Bench of this Court by its subsequent decision in the case of M. Maridev and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. W.A. No. 1979/2007 disposed on 25.05.2009 has arrived at a contrary decision. The learned Single Judge on noticing the said conflict of opinion and also by referring to another decision of the Division Bench of this Court, as also the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, had directed the Registry to place the matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice so as to place before a larger Bench in order to resolve the conflict. Accordingly, the matter is before us. The narration of the sequence would indicate that the questions that would arise for consideration and opinion are as hereunder:

(3.) In the backdrop of the above, we have heard Sri. K. Suman, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri. Udaya Holla, learned senior Counsel along with Sri. G. Shankar Goud, learned Counsel and Sri. K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional Advocate General for the respective Respondents.