D R KODANDARAMA REDDY Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing the preliminary notification issued by the first respondent so far as it relates to the land belonging to the petitioner, bearing Sy. No. 52/2-A of Puttenahalli Village, South Taluk, Bangalore, measuring 1 acre 6 guntas, by the Land Acquisition Notification No. LAQ(l) SR-14/86-87, dated 24-10-86, copy of the which is Annexure-B to the writ petition. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the final Notification issued by the respondent 2, vide Notification No. RD. 164/AQB/83, dated 23-1-1988, so far as it relates to the land bearing Sy. No. 52/2-A of Puttenahalli measuring 1 acre 6 guntas, copy of which is Annexure-D to the writ petition. The petitioner has also prayed for grant or issuance of such other and further writ order or direction as this Hon'ble court deems fit.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are:That the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with the allegation to the effect that the petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Sy. No. 52/2-A of Puttenahalli Village, South Taluk, Bangalore, measuring approximately 1 acre 6 guntas, which the petitioner claims to have purchased from one Lingappa under a registered sale deed dated 18-2-1970. According to the petitioner's case, on the above land in dispute there is a farm house and a watchman shed. The petitioner's case is that the land is located within the Gramatana and the same is surrounded by residential houses. The petitioner's further case is that petitioner's other lands than the land in dispute has already been acquired by B.W.S. & S.B., Bangalore, Bangalore Development Authority, Aeronautical Department, Bangalore, Defence Department, Bangalore from 1962 onwards. The petitioner's case is that the present land in question, namely, Sy. No. 52/2-A is an agricultural land consisting a farm house and a shed for watchman and has not been suitable for acquisition. According to the allegations made in the writ petition, the respondent No. 1, issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called as 'the Act') notifying that the lands mentioned therein along with the above mentioned disputed land has been required by respondent No. 3 for the formation of the house sites. The petitioner has annexed that notification dated 24-10-1986 published in the Karnataka Gazette on 6-11-1986 as Annexure-B to the writ petition. The petitioner states that he was not served the notice under Section 4(1) of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Act. On having come to know about the publication of the preliminary notification from the owners of the neighbouring lands, the petitioner has filed his objections to the preliminary notification before the 4th respondent on 26th December, 1986, stating therein that the land in question has not been a fit one for acquisition. He further states that the other lands belonging to the petitioner in all measuring 31 acres has already been acquired and it was prayed therein that the preliminary notification in such circumstances be withdrawn. The petitioner has further submitted that no inquiry was held by the opposite parties in pursuance of the objections filed by the petitioner, though that is a material requisite to be performed before proceeding further, in view of the provisions of Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act read with Rule 5 of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Rules, 1965. The petitioner's case is that without holding an enquiry and without giving the petitioner any opportunity of hearing and that having his say in the matter, respondent 2 issued the final notification under Section 6(1) of the Act on 23-1-1988, which is numbered as RD. 164/AQB/83, dated 23-1-1988. Having felt aggrieved with the notification - preliminary and final, the copies of which having annexed as Annexures-B and D to this petition, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) No counter affidavit or statement of objections appears to have been filed in this particular writ petition. The appearance have been put in on behalf of the opposite party No. 3 by Sri V.N. Satyanarayana, Advocate assisted by Smt. Veena Antin and on behalf of opposite parties 1, 2 and 4 appearance has been put by Smt. Bharathi Nagesh, learned Government counsel.