V PRABHAKAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are all owners of different bits of lands having purchased the same under the registered sale deeds of even dated 5-12-1996. The petitioners made applications to the Corporation to transfer katha to their names on the strength of the sale deeds referred to above. As the Corporation had not taken any steps to consider their applications they had filed writ petition before this Court seeking certain direction. This Court directed the Corporation to consider the applications for transfer of katha.

(2.) AT the instance of the Corporation the Special Deputy Commissioner issued a notification dated 18-6-1998 proposing to acquire the lands of the petitioners for the benefit of the Corporation to construct hospital, school and playground showing the name of the vendors of the petitioners as the owners of the land in question. The fact that the petitioners have purchased the property under registered sale deeds was well-within the knowledge of the Corporation since by that time the petitioners had made the applications along with the sale deeds for transfer of katha. If that is so, the Corporation, for whose benefit the land was proposed for acquisition, could have brought this fact to the notice to the Special Deputy Commissioner before issuing notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. But, ultimately this preliminary notification was followed by the final notification dated 19-8-1999 under Section 6 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire acquisition proceedings are vitiated since the said proceedings have been initiated at the instance of the local MLA and local Corporator, as the petitioners refused to part with a portion of the land. The petitioners have also impleaded the local MLA and local Corporator as respondents 4 and 5 in these writ petitions. Respondent 4 though served remained absent. Respondent 5 is represented by the Counsel but he has not filed any counter disputing or denying the allegations made by the petitioners against him in the writ petitions. In the absence of any dispute or denial of the allegations made against respondents 4 and 5, the normal course is to accept the averments made by the petitioners regarding mala fides as the said allegations are deemed to have been admitted. The Corporation also has not filed any statement of objections disputing the said averment in these writ petitions. Even in the absence of statement of objections either by the Corporation or by respondents 4 and 5, I called upon the learned High Court Government Pleader to produce the records in order to satisfy myself regarding the above said allegations.