KHAZA MUNSOOR AHMED KHAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these writ petitions the petitioners have sought for a declaration that Sections 17, 18 and 19 of the Karnataka Urban Development authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are repugnant to the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 and therefore they are ab initio void, non est and unenforceable and have also sought for quashing of the notifications issued under Sections 17 (1) and 19 (l) (a) of the above said act.

(2.) THE petitioners claiming to be the owners of certain lands have filed these writ petitions challenging the notifications referred to above.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners in all these petitions submit that Sections 17, 18 and 19 of the Act, are liable to be struck down as they are repugnant to the provisions of the L. A. Act) on the ground that no opportunity of hearing as provided under Section 5-A of the L. A. Act has been provided, under this Act. Under the provisions of the L. A. Act, if any landowner objects acquisition on the ground that the acquisition is not for a public purpose, Section 5-A provides for hearing the objector before submitting the report to the State Government. Under the scheme of the provisions of the Urban Development Authorities Act, pursuant to the preliminary notification issued under Section 17 (1) of the Act, all the landowners whose names are found in the revenue records will be served with notice. After the receipt of the said notice, it is open for the landowners to file objections to the preposed acquisition. Thereafter, the Board is required to consider the objections and submit the Scheme to the State Government for sanction of the State Government. The Government after considering the report may accord sanction as required under Section 18 of the Act. Upon such sanction the State government is required to issue a final declaration under Section 19 (1)of the Act, declaring the land proposed for acquisition are required for public purpose. Sections 17 and 19 of the Act are similar to Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Under the L. A. Act, the objector is entitled for hearing as required under Section 5-A of the Act, but under the provisions of the Urban Development Authorities Act, the landowner may object to the acquisition if he is of the view that the land is not required for a public purpose, but he is not entitled for an opportunity of being heard personally. But the Board is conferred with the power to consider the said objections and submit the report to the State Government for sanction. From this it is seen except an opportunity of hearing the landowner is provided with an opportunity to file objections and said objections are required to be considered by the Board.