CHICKRANGAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is challenging the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, in respect of his land. In the amended writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner is the owner and in actual possession of about 2 acres and 13 guntas of land in Survey No. 7/1 situated at Shettihalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumkur Taluk, Tumkur District. The second respondent-the Special Land Acquisition Officer issued a preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of this land and other lands on 30-12-1991. It was published in the Karnataka Gazette only on 20-2-1992 and the copy of the gazette notification is produced as Annexure-A. The notification has also been published in the Kannada Daily Newspaper 'Prajavani' dated 28-6-1992. In pursuance to the above notification, the petitioner filed his objections dated 20-6-1992 contending among other things that he is a poor agriculturist and there is no other place for him to construct a residential house for his family members. The true copy of the objections is produced as Annexure-B. Notwithstanding the objections filed by the petitioner, a final notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made on 14-10-1993 and it was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 4-11-1993. A true copy of which is produced as Annexure-C. The petitioner is challenging the two notifications Annexures-A and C published under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, on the ground that it is beyond the period specified in Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner alleges that the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 20-2-1992 and also in the newspaper dated 28-6-1992 as is evident from Annexure-B. Section 6 declaration has been published in the Karnataka Gazette only on 14-10-1993 which is beyond one year as contemplated under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and accordingly, the acquisition is lapsed. It is also alleged that, from among the lands notified under Section 4 certain lands which lie in the middle of the lands which were sought to be acquired, were excluded and that it is mala fide exercise of power. It is further submitted that the acquisition is for the purpose of the Karnataka Housing Board and that, before the acquisition proceedings are initiated, a Housing Scheme has to be prepared in Chapter III of the Karnataka Housing Board Act. Under Section 20 of the Karnataka Housing Board Act, the Housing Scheme has to be sanctioned by the State Government and Section 24 of the said Act deals with the implementation of the sanctioned scheme. There is a clear prohibition under the Act that the Board shall not execute the scheme unless the same has been sanctioned by the Government. It is alleged by the petitioner that no Housing Scheme has been sanctioned under Section 20 of the Act and that the same has not been published in the Karnataka Gazette in accordance with law. The petitioner alleges that the acquisition proceedings can be initiated only after the Housing Scheme has been sanctioned by the State Government by virtue of the provisions contained under Section 24(2) of the Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962.

(2.) Respondents 2 and 3 have filed a statement of objections, in which, it is submitted that, Section 4(1) notification was published in the Gazette dated 20-3-1992 and that it was also published in the 'Prajavani' daily on 28-6-1992. The petitioner submitted his objections against the acquisition which was duly considered and thereafter, Section 6(1) notification was issued. It was further submitted that the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 20-2-1992 and in the Trajavani' daily on 28-6-1992. It was published in another daily by name 'Tumkur Varthe' on 16-10-1992. The period of one year provided for under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, has accordingly to be calculated only from 16-10-1992 when the publication was made in the 'Tumkur Varthe' and accordingly, Section 6(1) declaration is within time as specified under Section 6 of the Act. The allegation of mala fides was also reputed by them. In regard to the contention that the acquisition can be made only after the scheme is sanctioned by the State Government, it is submitted that the sanction of housing programme and scheme will be accorded only after the acquisition of land by the Karnataka Housing Board. The Karnataka Housing Board prepares the scheme and send it to the Government for sanction only after the acquisition of land and thereafter, alone, scheme has to be sanctioned. It is their case that no prior approval or sanction is necessary under any of the provisions of the Karnataka Housing Board Act for acquiring the land under the Land Acquisition Act. It is further submitted that, for the execution of the scheme, sanction of the Government is necessary and that for acquiring lands, no such sanction is necessary. It is further submitted that, a scheme can be prepared under the Act only after the lands are acquired, when alone, the Karnataka Housing Board will be in a position to form a scheme and submit it to the Government for sanction.

(3.) In the light of the pleadings, two questions arise for consideration in this, writ petition, viz., (i) Whether Section 6 declaration made in this case is within the time prescribed under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act; and (ii) Whether acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act can be initiated before the scheme is sanctioned by the Government?