BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No. 19938/ 07 and other connected Writ Petitions dt.21.7.2010 is called in question in these appeals.

(2.) The subject-matter of the Writ Petition is pertaining to 12 guntas of land in Sy.No.34 of Kengeri in Bangalore South Taluk which was notified under the preliminary notification dt.16.12.1999 published on 20.1.2000 in the Official Gazette. Along with the aforesaid landSy.Nos.37/1 and 37/2 were also notified which lands were acquired by the BWSS'B, later sold it to BMTC for a sum of Rs.1201lakhs. In addition to that three more Sy.Nps. 35, 36/1 and 36/2 in all measuring 3 acres 15 guntas were also notified which were denotified later at the instance of the landlords of those Survey Numbers. The petitioners who have purchased the property as sites and the legal heirs of the owners filed the Writ Petitions contending that the real Khatedars were not notified in the preliminary notification as well as in the final notification and notification is made in the name of Sanjeeva S/o Sanjeeva who died about 50 years back who was the great grand father of Lokesh and Srinivas and the notification issued in the name of a dead person is a nullity and it was also contended within a period of 2 years from the date of preliminary notification, no award has been passed and within one year from the date of preliminary notification, final notification as required under Sec.6(1) of the Act was not issued. The learned single Judge after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that khatedars were not notified and acquisition proceedings were initiated in the name of a dead person which is a nullity. In addition to that BWSSB having deleted major extent of Mand measuring 3 acres 15 guntas in Sy.N6s.35, 36/1 and 36/2 and later selling Sy.No.37/1 and 37/2 in favour of BMTC for a sum of Rs.120 lakhs cannot contend that there is a need for 12 guntas to construct a Sewerage Treatment plant which land has been converted into sites and developed. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions came to be allowed.,Preliminary notification dt. 16.12.1999 and so also the final notification so far as it relates to 12 guntas of land in Sy. No.34, Kengeri were quashed. Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge these appeals are filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned single Judge has committed an error in holding that Khatedars were not notified properly. According t6 the learned counsel for the appellant the Khatedar is shown in the notification as Sanjeeva s/o Sanjeeva and notice has been served on the S/o Sanjeeva by name Lokesh and though an attempt is made to convince the court from the date of final notification, it was well within the time and thereafter award was passed from the date of prelirni-nary notification, she is unable to corivince the court. The counsel for the appellant,further admits that as per notifications, Khatedars name is shown as Sanjeeva S/o Sanjeeva.