MUNIVEERAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the Notification bearing No. A-6 HR. S.L.A.O(S) 201/1982-83, dated 15-7-1982 published in the Official Gazette of 26-8-1982 issued under sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') notifying that the lands stated in the schedule to the notification are proposed for acquisition for the purpose of Nagarabhavi Lay out. The petitioner has also sought for quashing the Notification bearing No. HUD 249 MNX 85, dated 16-8-1985 published in the Official Gazette of 7-11-1985 issued under Section 19(1) of the Act.

(2.) Under the aforesaid notifications the lands in question bearing S. No. 103 measuring 4 acres 13 guntas of Nagarabhavi Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, along with several other lands are acquired for the aforesaid purpose. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land in question.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the notification Annexure-A was not published in three consecutive issues of the Official Gazette and was not affixed in some conspicuous places in the offices of the B.D.A, the Deputy Commissioner, the Corporation and in other places as considered necessary by the B.D.A.; that the petitioner was not served with notice as required by sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 17 of the Act; that even if it is held that there was service of notice as required by sub-section (5) of Section 17 of the Act, the said notice was not served within 30 days from the date of publication of the Notification produced as Annexure-A; lhat the alternative mode of service adopted by the authority was not in accordance with subsection (6) of Section 17 of the Act. It is also contended that sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 17 of the Act are mandatory and non-compliance with them has vitiated the acquisition. Lastly, it is contended that sub-section (5) of Section 17 of the Act which is in pari materia with sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Karnataka Improvement Boards Act, 1976 has been interpreted by this Court in W.P. No. 9277/1984, K. Halappa S/o Late Mahadevappa v State of Karnataka, as mandatory, therefore, non-compliance with sub-section (5) of Section 17 of the Act must be held to have vitiated the acquisition.