N. UMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is assailing the notifications dated 13.05.2011 and 09.04 2012 issued under section 4(1) and 6(1)of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the LA Act' for short) whereunder the property belonging to the petitioner has been acquired by the respondents No. 2 and 3 for formation of a road connecting the SEZ area.

(2.) THE petitioner claims to be the owner of the property bearing Assessment No. 50/1A, Khatha No. 177/1A carved out of Sy. No. 50/1A, Nagawara village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk which is presently within the jurisdiction of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike ('BBMP for short). The manner in which the petitioner acquired title to the said property and the subsequent enjoyment thereof is referred to in the petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents No. 2 and 3 without notifying the name of the petitioner in the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the LA Act and without conducting an enquiry as provided under Section 5Aof the LA Act has deprived the petitioner the benefit of the property by including the same in the declaration issued under Section 6(1) of the LA Act. The contention is also that the acquisition is not for public purpose as it would only benefit the SEZ project of L.T. Karle company. The acquisition is bad for not obtaining the approval of the Corporation and the State Government as required under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (the 'KMC Act' for short) is the further contention.

(3.) BASED on the said averments, I have heard Sri S.P. Shankar, learned senior counsel on behalf of Sri K.H. Thimmaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.R. Naik, learned senior counsel on behalf of Sri I.G. Gachchinamath, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3 and Sri S.V. Girikumar, Additional Government Advocate for respondent No. 1 and perused the petition papers.