M. RAMAKRISHNAPPA S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners have impugned the preliminary notification dated 09.01.2007 (Annexure R) and the final notification dated 15.05.2007 (Annexure -S) issued under Sections 28(1) and 28(4) respectively of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966.

(2.) SRI Ranjan Kumar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are the legal representatives of Munivenkatamma. He submits that the said Munivenkatamma is the owner of the said acquired land. On her death in 1996, the mutation entry in respect of the land in question was in the name of the first Petitioner Ramakrishnappa. In this regard, he brings to my notice the record of rights (Annexure -E) for the year 2006 -2007. It is his specific grievance that the name of the first, Petitioner is not shown in the preliminary and the final notifications. When the record of rights shows the name of the first Petitioner, the subsequent acquisition notifications have to necessarily contain the name of the first Petitioner. On this short ground alone, the acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed, so submits Sri Ranjan Kumar.

(3.) SRI Raikote, the learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that the issuance of impugned acquisition notifications, mutation entry and the record of rights (Annexure -E) are more or less around the same time. He submits that it is possible that the earlier record of rights did not contain the name of the first Petitioner. He further submits that the second Respondent - KIADB has already allotted the land to the third parties.