KASHINATH Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An area of 20 acres of land in Sy. No, 29 totally measuring 30 acres, 24 guntas, situate at village Yernalli (D), Janavada Hobli, Bidar Taluk, was proposed for acquisition for rehabilitation of villagers of Bampally village. The notification-Annexure-A, dated 2-2-1991 issued under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 21-2-1991. The petitioner in this writ petition has questioned the said notification-Annexure-A and has prayed for quashing it contending that there was a land dispute between himself and one Sidramappa Anna of the same village; they both belong to two different political groups; the said Sidramappa Anna had challenged to see that the only land of the petitioner would be deprived by acquisition, purporting to exercise powers under Section 17 of the Act Respondent No. 1 has issued the impugned combined notification; in response to the notice-Annexure-B received, the petitioner filed detailed objections to the second respondent contending that there is no public policy involved and that there are number of other suitable lands available, which have hard soil and rock foundation and whereas the land in question is not at all suitable for the purpose. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings.

(2.) The respondents have filed detailed statement of objections denying the contention sraised by the petitioner. It is useful to extract the following portions from the statement of objections filed by the respondents in order to appreciate the respective contentions:

(3.) Although several grounds are raised in the writ petition Sri S.P. Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged only one ground before me, which is not raised in the writ petition. His submission was that in the impugned combined notification-Annexure-A it is not spelt out that the land in question is an arable or waste land. That being so, the impugned combined notification issued under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) of the Act cannot be sustained so as to invoke urgency clause for the acquisition and to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. In support of his submission the learned counsel strongly relied on the decisions in the case of Dora Phalauli v Slate of Punjab and Others, AIR 1979 SC 1594; Raja Anand Brahma Shah v Slate of Uttar Pradesh and Others, AIR 1967 SC 1081 and Shankar Pundalik Girap & Others v State of Kamataka and Others, 1988(1) Karnataka Law Journal 585.