P. NIRMALA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL, SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL, SECRETARY TO HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. The petitioner claims as the absolute owner of land bearing survey No. 259, measuring 36 guntas of Hiremagalur, village, Chikmagalur Taluk. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the same. The said land was proposed for acquisition by issuance of a notification under Section 4(1) of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'LA Act', for brevity) dated 8.5.2011, for the purpose of construction of a Pravasi Soudha. The petitioner's claim is that a public notice dated 4.10.2011 is said to have been published in the Official Gazette on 18.8.2011, inviting objections, which was served on the petitioner only as on 26.10.2011. The endorsement is made on a copy of the public notice, which is at Annexure -C. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner had filed objections through her counsel on the ground that the acquisition proceedings are mala fide and there is no provision to acquire a single parcel of land without sufficient and alternative land being available and that the petitioner was entitled to a personal hearing to produce the documents and to establish that the acquisition proceedings proposed as against the petitioner's land could be dropped. This was filed within 30 days as directed by the respondent.

(2.) THE petitioner has also obtained material under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The list of villages also included Hiremagalur Village where the petitioner's land is situated and unless there was a change of land use obtained from the planning authority, the petitioner's lands could not be utilised for the purposes as aforesaid and without considering the objections so raised by the petitioner and without affording an opportunity of personal hearing, final declaration under Section 6(1) of the LA Act has been issued.

(3.) SHRI V. Lakshminarayana, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would reiterate these contentions and would point out that this court, at the very first instance, Jihad granted an interim order, wherein it was held that the proceedings can proceed further, but it shall not be implemented and the matter has been at that stage.