T P MUNINARAYANAPPA, Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is filed in the following background:

(2.) THE notice of acquisition is said to have been served on respondents 3 to 7 and 12. They have not filed any objection. They did not participate in the enquiry pursuant to those proceedings. The Special Land Acquisition Officer is said to have submitted his report after holding an enquiry. A final notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act was issued. The said notification attained finality as there was no challenge to the same. But after publication of the final notification, respondent No.12 made a representation seeking withdrawal of the acquisition insofar as the said land is concerned. The representation was rejected. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had issued a notice under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act to interested parties. Respondents 3 to 7 had made representation for grant of compensation in respect of the acquisition of the said land. They had furnished a letter of consent for payment of compensation in favour of respondent No.4. The petitioner, as the Special Land Acquisition Officer verified the documents produced by the respondents which were as follows:

(3.) IT is thereafter that the petitioner having formed an opinion that the land in question was originally allotted to Anjanappa and the same was sold in violation of the conditions of grant in favour of respondent No.12 and the Assistant Commissioner in appropriate proceedings having declared the same to be null and void, has ordered the same for resumption and restoration etc. and disburse the compensation. Accordingly, a cheque was issued in favour of respondents 3 to 7. One year after the disbursement, respondent No.12 is said to have obtained copies of the documents pertaining to the above proceedings and has challenged the same in a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No.25202/2009. Insofar as disbursement of compensation in favour of respondents 4 to 7 is concerned, it was alleged there is that the order of the Assistant Commissioner passed for resumption and restoration was set -aside in an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner and now the matter stood remanded to the Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner was impleaded as a respondent to the said writ petition. The petitioner had filed his statement of objections and the said writ petition is still pending. On the same set of pleadings respondent No.12 had also filed a complaint before the Lokayuktha, which is also said to be pending.