THOMAS PATRAO Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case, the petitioner has sought for quashing the Endorsement dt 12. 7. 2000 (Annexure-A) and the resolution dated 18. 5. 2000 (Annexure-B) passed by the second respondent, resolving to re-grant the land in question to the petitioner.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are as follows; petitioner was the owner of about 10 acres of land at Sy. No. 58/1 of Kalavar Village, Mangalore taluk, out of which certain extent of land was acquired by the State Government in the year 1992 for the benefit of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (for short 'board' ). The 4th respondent again proposed to acquire additional extent of 4 acres 38 cents of lands of the petitioner in the same survey number for the similar purpose. A Notification under Section 28 (2)of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act, 1966 (for short 'the Act), was issued to that effect. A Notice under Section 28 (2) of the Act was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to file objections as per Annexure-C. Petitioner filed his objections to the said notice vide annexure-D objecting to the acquisition of the said land. The objections were over-ruled and a declaration was issued as per Section 28 (4) of the Act in the official gazette. Thereafter the petitioner requested for payment of compensation in respect of the said land. Respondent No. 4 has issued an endorsement as per Annexure-F stating therein that the compensation will be paid in due course. It is the case of the petitioner that though acquisition proceedings started in the year 1996-97, till this day compensation has not been paid. On account of this process, petitioner was deprived of the enjoyment of the schedule property and was prevented from making any improvement in the land. At this stage, the respondents have decided to drop the acquisition proceedings as per Annexure 'a' and re-grant the land to the petitioner as per Annexure 'b'. The petitioner has challenged the said action of the 4th and 2nd respondents respectively in this petition.

(3.) THE second respondent has filed its objections. It is contended that after issuance of the declaration, the respondents have not taken possession of the land in question. The petitioner continues to be in possession of the said land. It is further contended that by the letter dated 3. 3. 1999 the petitioner had sought for deletion of some portion of the land from acquisition. Therefore, he is estopped from demanding the acquisition of the land. It is further contended that there are certain other legal heirs of late Alex Patrao, the Kathedar. They have filed a suit in O. S. No. 285/99 for adjudication of their claims in respect of the land, which is pending before the V additional Civil Judge, Jr. Dn. , Mangalore. The land in question was proposed to be acquired for the benefit of 3rd respondent-Company. The 3rd respondent has intimated that it does not require the land because the shape of the land will not serve its purpose and that the unauthorised construction on the land will raise the liability to pay compensation and further that the ownership of the land is in dispute. Similar objections are filed by the 3rd respondent.