M N LAXMINATHAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the petitioners in Writ petition No. 15636/81 challenging the order of the learned single Judge only to the extent the learned single Judge has declined to quash the preliminary notification.

(2.) The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal may briefly be stated as follows :- The Government of Karnataka issued a preliminary notification dated 28-2-1981 under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), to the effect that the six lands mentioned therein are required for the purpose of development of industries by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, and that it intends to acquire the said lands. Narasegouda who was admittedly the owner of the said lands was presumed to be the owner and his name was mentioned in the said notification published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 12-3-1981. But the said Narasegouda died on 7-3-1981 a few days before the actual publication of the notification in the Gazette. Notice as required by Sec. 28(2) of the Act was also sought to be served on Narasegouda on the assumption that he is the owner of the lands. But the records indicate that the notice was actually served on one Kambaiah the Chairman of the village Panchayat though admittedly he had no interest whatsoever in any one of the said lands. The authorities proceeded to issue the final notification under Sec.28(4) of the Act and the same was published in the Gazette dated 25-6-1981. The appellants who have succeeded to the estate of Narasegouda came to know of the acquisition of these lands when they were served with notice by the authorities on 17-7-1981 calling upon them to hand over possession of the lands in pursuance of the acquisition proceedings taken under Sec.28 of the Act. Immediately thereafter, the appellants challenged the entire-acquisition proceedings by presenting Writ Petition No. 15638/81, on 3-8-1981. The learned single Judge has, by his order dated 15-9-1982, partly allowed the writ petition and quashcd the final notification. The learned single Judge declined to quash the preliminary notification and gave liberty to the authorities to proceed with the acquisition from the stage at which the infirmity pointed out in the order had occured. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Sri T.S.Ramachandra, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that the learned single Judge was not justified in declining to quash the preliminary notification issued under Sec.28(1) of the Act. He submitted that having regard to the relevant provisions of the Act and the admitted facts, law does not permit the authorities to proceed to take further action on the basis of the preliminary notification issued under S.28(l) of the Act in this case. It is his contention that sub-sec. (2) of the Sec.28 of the Act requires that notice should be issued among others to the owner of the lands or where the owner is not the occupier on the occupier of the lands requiring them to show cause within thirty days from the date of service of notice as to why the lands should not be acquired. He submitted that the notice contemplated by sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 28..............is required to be served simultaneously with the publication of the preliminary notification contemplated by sub-sec.(1). He further submitted that it is impossible now for the authorities to comply with the mandatory requirement of serving notice on the appellants simultaneously with the publication of the preliminary notification as the publication has been effected long back i.e. on 12.3.1981. and that therefore no useful purpose would be served by reserving liberty to the authorities to issue a fresh notice under sub-sec.(2) of sec.28 of the Act and to proceed with the acquisition proceedings. In other words, his contention is that what is really permitted by the learned single Judge is an impossibility and that therefore we should interfere in this case and quash the preliminary notification as well.