VENKATARAMANAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in all these writ petitions have challenged the validity of the acquisition of their lands under the Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the State of Karnataka.

(2.) Petitions own lands at Bommasandra village in Anekal Taluk. Acquisition proceedings were initiated by the State of Karnataka to acquire their lands and various other persons under the Act by a notification dated 28.2.1981 under S. 28(1) published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 5.3.1981 - An. 'A'. The petitioners were served with notices to show cause within 30 days from the date of service of notice as to why their lands should not be acquired. Petitioners in W.P. Nos. 25572, 25573 and 25574 of 1981 were served with notice on 28.3.1981 while the petitioner in W.P.No. 25575 of 1981 was served with notice on 26.3.1981. While the petitioner in W.P.No. 25572 of 1981 filed his objections on 11-5-1981, the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 25573 and 25575 of 1981 filed their objections on 1-9-1981. But the petitioner in W.P.No. 25572 of 1981 did not file any objections. The Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Doddaballapur Sub-Division the second respondent served a notice as per Ext. 'B' on the first petitioner calling upon him to appear before him on 21.8.1981 for consideration of his objections. The second respondent served a notice as per Ext. 'F' on the petitioner in W.P.No. 25573 of 1981 calling upon him also to appear before him on 26.8.1981 for consideration of his objections. But before that hearing date, the L. A.O. taking the view that the objections filed by the Petitioners were beyond the appointed date, did not hear them but submitted his report to Government which being satisfied that the lands should be acquired for the purpose specified in notification Ann. 'A' issued a declaration under S. 28(4) of the Act as per An. 'K' published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 1.10.1981. The second respondent thereafter served notices on the petitioners calling upon them to surrender possession of the lands notified for acquisition. At this stage the petitioners filed these petitions challenging the validity of the acquisition of their lands.

(3.) Sri K. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners made the following submissions. He argued that the petitioners have opposed the acquisition but still the authorities without considering their objections and without affording them an opportunity of being heard, have issued the impugned notification under S. 28(4) and therefore the entire acquisition was illegal. According to him there is a clear disobedience to the mandate of S. 28(3). Alternatively he urged that the prescription objections should be filed within 30 days of service of notice is of no significance and it is always open to the panics to file objections before a notification is issued under S. 28(4). According to him, an owner or a person interested whether or not he has filed objections, has a right to be heard under S. 28(3). It was his further case that the authorities have served notices on the owners of the lands to appear at the enquiry and this service of notices confers a right on the persons served with notices to participate in the enquiry and the authorities have a duty to hear them.