P S VENKATANARAYANA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved by the notification issued by the Respondent-State, dated 3-4-1978 by which 1 acre 16 guntas of land in Survey No. 105/1 of Periyapatna Town was acquired pursuant to the earlier notification dated May 4th, 1977 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Exhibit-B).

(2.) Aggrieved by the final notification, dated 3-4-1978, Exhibit-E, Petitioner challenges the same in this Court inter alia contending that the acquisition was politically motivated on account of the petitioner not belonging to the Congress-I party and that in any event there was no proper hearing as contemplated under Section 5A of Act. He has also further contended that there was no intimation sent to him of the report to the Government having been made as contemplated under Section 5A of the Act.

(3.) Learned Government Pleader appearing for Respondents has produced the records pertaining to the case. From the records, it is seen that petitioner had filed his objections to the proposed acquisition from which, it must be neces-sarily be inferred that he had personal notice of the acquisition proceedings. Petitioner was served with a notice on 26-8-1977 by which he was informed that the Assistant Commissioner, Hunsur Sub-Division, Hunsur and the L.A.O., would be visiting the spot on 26-8-77 and that enquiry in that behalf would take place on 28-8-1977. An order came to be made on 2-9-1977 by which the objections of the petitioner were overruled in the light of the reply filed by the Town Municipal Council and the result of the spot inspection. It is thereafter that the L.A.O., submitted his report to the Government recommending the acquisition. That intimation has been sent to the petitioner on or about 30-9-1979 as seen from the records. In the light of the contentions urged for the petitioner, this Court must confess its inability to examine the allegations of mala fide having regard to the general and vague allegations made against the so-called political opponents of the petitioner. Undoubtedly, any governmental act, if it resulted by mala fide intention of some person would be be illegal. But petitioner must point out as to who has acted mala fide. The notification specifies the purpose for which the land is being acquired for the use of the Town Municipality which is to put up the Town Hall. Periyapatna is known to be a very ancient town situated on the High-way between Mysore City and Madikere, Whichever party is in power must necessarily have a Town Hall in the town of Periyapatna. Petitioner cannot say that his land is chosen because he did not belong to the Congress party. Such allegations, apart from their vagueness are themselves in ray opinion motivated and no relief can be granted on such vague and motivated allegations.