MADAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these writ petitions have challenged the validity of the proceedings initiated under sub-sec (1) of S.3 of the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 (Karnataka Act 18/73) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') to acquire a piece of land in Belur village, of Mandya Taluk bearing Sy No.5 and measuring two acres.

(2.) The proceedings were initiated by the publication of a, notification under sub-sec(1) of S.3 of the Act by the State Govt in the Karnataka Gazette Extra-ordinary, dt.July 24th, 1974. Under that Notfn the Govt proposed to acquire an extent of 3 acres and 20 guntas of land in the said Survey number. After the publication of the said notification the Assistant Commissioner issued notices under sub-sec(2) of S.3 of the Act to the petitioners, who were found to be the owners of the land, to show cause within 30 days from the date of service of the notice, why the land should not be acquired. The petitioners lodged objections before him protesting against the acquisition proceedings. There after the Asst Commr heard the Counsel for the petitioners in the presence of the Block Development Officer. On receipt of the report of the Asst Commr, the Divl Commr published a notification under sub-sec(4) of S.3 of the Act declaring that an extent of two acres of the land out of three acres and twenty guntas notified earlier was required for the prupose of providing house sites for the weaker sections of the Society.

(3.) The contentions urged by Sri H.K.Vasudeva Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners in support of these petitions are : (i) that since the Asst Commr was not competent to hear the petitioners under sub-sec(3) of S.3 of the Act, the acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed, (ii) that since the Blook Development Officer was not notified by the Asst Commr to be present at the time of the hearing before the Asst Commissioner, Rule 6 of the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Rules 1973 had been violated; and (iii) that the description of the land given in the notification issued under Sub-sec. (4) of S.3 is insufficient to identify the land that has been acquired.