JOSPEH EDWIN PINTO Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in all these petitions are assailing the preliminary notification dated 25.09.2012 passed under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act ('the Act' for short) and also the final notification dated 29.08.2013 passed under Section 6(1) of the Act.

(2.) FOR the purpose of narration of facts, the case as pleaded in W.P. No.44481/2013 is referred. The petitioner therein claims to be the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.474/16 situate at Vitla Kasaba village, Bantwal Taluk, D.K. District measuring 0.01 acres consisting of commercial building. The property is situate within the jurisdiction of the fourth respondent herein. The manner in which the petitioner has purchased the property and has been enjoying the same has been referred to in the petition. In the connected petitions, the petitioners therein have also referred to the property enjoyed by them which is the subject matter herein and the manner of their ownership. Since the question for consideration would appear more in the nature of the legal contention, the averment on facts in the connected petitions are not adverted to herein as the ultimate consideration is with regard to the manner in which Section 5A enquiry was held and the order passed therein, which would be a common consideration to all these petitions.

(3.) THOUGH the objections in all the three cases have been filed on different dates and a vehement contention has been raised by the learned counsel for the fourth respondent that as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and ors. : (2000 Supp(2) SCR 496), the grievance can be made only by a person who had filed objections prior to the date of the hearing, what cannot be lost sight in the instant case is that the order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 16.11.2012 is a common order in respect of all the petitions involved herein. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the objection in W.P. No.44481/2013 was filed after the date of hearing, the consideration would be similar in all these petitions more particularly in a circumstance where the petitioner therein has stated the circumstance under which he was forced to file objection on the next day. Therefore, if this aspect of the matter is kept in view and the objections as filed by the respondents in these petitions are taken note of, the petitioners had filed detailed objections indicating as to why their properties should not be included for the purpose of acquisition. The important aspect that they had raised for consideration is that the petitioners themselves had voluntarily given up the portion of their properties for a public cause as recent as in the year 2008 and had thereafter renovated their buildings by incurring huge expenses. They have further contended that the reason for which the acquisition is now proposed would not serve the purpose since the demolition of these three buildings alone would not achieve the need as contemplated by the respondents. The said objections which had been raised by the petitioners certainly required application of mind by the Land Acquisition Officer and thereafter a decision ought to have been taken.