MAHADEVAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two petitioners in the above petitions were owners of land bearing By. Nos. 53/4, 70/3B, 75/1 and 75/2B in Byrasandra village, Tumkur Tlk. and District. They were notified for acquisition for construction of a tank for Byrasandra village under the Karnataka Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') at the instance of the Public Works Department. The notification dt. 12th March, 1981. bearing No LAQ - SR 51/80-81 was published in the Karnataka Gazette of March 26, 1981. As many as 18 persons were affected: by the proposed acquisition as evidenced by the gazette notification, a copy of which is at Annexure-A to the petition. That notification was issued under sub-sec. (1) of S. 4 of the Act. The 3rd respondent herein was appointed the Land Acquisition Officer and from the certified copy of the order-sheet produced by the petitioner, it is clear that on 13.4.1981 individual and public notices were issued to the parties concerned to prefer their objections on or before 21.5.1981 and that the same will be heard on 30.5.1981. Again en 10.7.1981 the case was called after issue of notice and parties were absent. The case came to be adjourned to 25.7.1981. Fresh notice to the objectors were also ordered on that date. On 25.7.1981 the case was again called and one KNR appeared tor objectors represented by S.R.L. Government Pleader also filed his memo of appearance for the Department. On that date the case was adjourned to 1.8.1981 and from 1.8.81 to 19.12.1981 several adjournments took place as evidenced by the order sheet on! the request of one or other party or on account of pre-occupation of the Land Acquisition Officer with other work. The order sheet of 19.12.1981 reads as follows :

(2.) Thereafter, the 3rd respondent appears to have submitted his report as per annexure-D which is said to be a true copy of the report (how the petitioners obained this true copy is not made known to the Court) . The report recommended acquisition overruling the objections. Later, in the course of this order, the relevant portion of the report will be extracted to meet the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Thereafter, declaration under S. 6 of the Act was made by the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner declaring that the lands are required for the public purpose mentioned therein. Respondent 4 and 5 are the Executive Engineer and the Assistant Executive Engineer with whom we are not really concerned with in these proceedigns.

(3.) The main ground of attack by the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the statement of facts urged on behalf of the petitioners is that the notification issued under S. 6 of the Act, which is at annexure-E, should be struck down as it is violative of the mandatory requirement of the procedure provided for in S. 5-A (2) of the Act and Rule 5 of the Rules made under the Act. The thrust of the argument is that the order sheet does not anywhere disclose that the case was set-down for hearing arguments. In other words, from that it is sought to be made out that the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer never gave a oral hearing to the petitioners.