SRI. MAHADEVASWAMY, SON OF LATE MAHANTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT LALTHADRIPURA GRAMA, VARNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT, MYSORE Vs. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MUDA, MYSORE,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions are heard and disposed of by this common order as the grounds urged in these petitions are identical, as are the facts and circumstances. Each of the petitioners have furnished particulars of the lands and the manner in which the same have been acquired. The lands in question are various parcels of agricultural land of Lalithadripura village, Varuna hobli, Mysore Taluk and District.

(2.) IT is contended on behalf of the respondent - authority that the several grounds raised in the petitions are not tenable. It is contended that though the petitioners claim to be absolute owners of the respective properties, in so far as the authority is concerned, it is pointed out that Section 17(5) of the KUDA Act contemplates service of notice on every person, whose name appears in the assessment list of the local authority or in the land revenue register as being primarily liable to pay the property tax or land revenue on any building or land, which is proposed to be acquired. It is settled law that in such circumstances, the acquiring authority is not obliged to conduct a roving enquiry to ascertain the particulars of any and all persons who may seek to claim a interest in the property, other than the person who is shown as the Khatedar at the relevant point of time. It is asserted that the authority has strictly followed the procedure in issuing notices to all such persons whose names were reflected in the available and relevant records of the local authorities.

(3.) FURTHER , it is contended that the grant of approval of the Government was sought on 23.08.2007 to split up the civil work for formation of the layout into eight components. The Government on 23.06.2008 had directed the Mysore Urban Development Authority to furnish the revised proposals and accordingly, the revised proposal was sent on 30.07.2008 for taking up of the First Stage of Lalithadripura and one package excluding the electrification work. It is claimed that the Government had accorded approval to the proposal on 29.08.2008. On the basis of the approval accorded by the Government, tender was called on 06.09.2008. Since there was only one bidder, the tender was cancelled. Fresh tender was called for on 25.02.2009. Since this tender process was challenged before this Court in W.P.No. 1556/2009, the same was cancelled and a fresh tender was ordered to be called on 14.09.2009. The fresh tender was called on 16.12.2009. Tendering process have been completed and the work order had been issued to the Contractor with a direction to complete the work within 11 months from 12.4.2010. For the tendering process alone, the authority had spent Rs. 12.17 lakh. In addition, the compensation amount paid is indicated by the respondents in tabular form thus: