ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SUB-DIVISION, BIDAR, THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, BIDAR AND THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE Vs. MOHAMMED MAHABOOB ALI S/O WAHEED ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the respondents in writ petition assailing the correctness of the order dated 03.06.2006 passed in W.P. No. 21826/2001, by the learned Single Judge, wherein the petitioner therein had questioned the correctness of the endorsement issued by the first respondent vide Annexure -'M' dated 03.03.2001 produced thereto. Further petitioner therein had sought for a direction, directing the appellants and the second respondent herein to acquire the schedule lands in accordance with law and pay the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 1/2 situated at Imampur village, Janawada Hobali, Bidar District measuring an extent of 08 acres. The brief facts of the case are that, the land in Sy. No. 1/2 totally measured an extent of 22 acres 35 guntas situated at Imampur village, Janawada Hobali, Bidar District. Out of which, the first, appellant herein through third respondent notified and acquired the land along with other survey numbers, for the purpose of establishment of Naranja Co -operative Sugar Factory Limited vide preliminary notification dated 07.01.1991, issued under Section );">4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, which was published in the Karnataka Gazzette on 10.09.1991 followed by the final declaration dated 04.09.1992, issued under Section );">6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, which was published in the Karnataka Gazzette on 01.10.1992. The land in question is found at Sl. No. 18 of the preliminary notification an extent of 08 acres. It is to be noted here itself that Sl. No. 17 Sy. No. 1/2 measuring 14 acres 35 guntas has been notified. The notified Khatedar is shown as Babu S/o Manik Rao and Lagu S/o Manik Rao. At Sl. No. 18 inadvertently it has been shown as Sy. No. 1/1 instead of Sy. No. 1/2 measuring an extent of 08 acres. The same error has been repeated in 6(1) notification also. But it is significant to note that the total extent of land in Sy. No. 1/2 is 22 acres 35 guntas, out of which at Sl. No. 17 notified is 14 acres 35 guntas and at Sl. No. 18 extent of land notified is 08 acres. The boundaries of Sy. No. 1/1 in the final notification issued under Section );">6(1) is - East 20/1/1, West Sy. No. 77, North Sy. No. 1/2 and South road and extent of land shown as 8 acres. The 6(1) notification is a conclusive proof.

(2.) FURTHER one more aspect to be noted is that, there is a typographical error to the effect that instead of mentioning Sy. No. 1/2, it has been typed as Sy. No. 1/1. The boundaries of Sy. No. 1/2 to an extent of 14 acres 35 guntas is East Sy. No. 1/1. West shown as Sy. No. 77, North shown as Sy. No. 24 and South shown as Sy. No. 1/2. The total extent is shown as 14 acres 35 guntas, which proves beyond reasonable doubt. The boundaries are crystal clear. But there is only a typographical error shown in Sy. No. 1/2 which has been typed as Sy. No. 1/1. It is further crystal clear that the extent of survey numbers shown differently as Sy. No. 1/2 at Sl. No. 17 is 14 acres 35 guntas and at Sl. No. 18 8 acres and further this aspect of the matter has not been brought to the notice, when the matter was taken up by this Court and it appears, they have not made available the entire original records. Today learned AGA has made available the entire original records.

(3.) FURTHER one more aspect to be noted here itself is, the extent shown is 8 acres and the counsel who represented the petitioner has received the amount through cheques bearing Nos. 3497317 and 3497318 dated 04.02.1992. Another aspect brought to the notice of learned Single Judge is that, in the plaint presented by respondent No. 1 petitioner in O.S. No. 261/1997 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bidar it is stated that, it is a fact that, the plaintiff/petitioner/first respondent herein, long back had purchased the portion of 8 acres out of Sy. No. 1/2 from late Manohar Rao, under the registered sale deed in 1982 and for that, he has also received the compensation from the Government. These three clinching material available on file has been not brought before this Court when the matter was taken up for consideration. Keeping these relevant facts and circumstances of the case as referred above, the appellants felt necessitated to present this appeal seeking appropriate relief as stated supra.