PATEL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, the appellants have challenged the order passed by the learned single Judge in WP Nos. 10630/1986 and 10631/86 disposed of on 10-4-1996 whereby the writ petitions filed by them challenging the notifications issued for acquisition of the lands in dispute have been dismissed.

(2.) PETITIONERS are the owners of the lands bearing Sy. No. 23/2 measuring 36 guntas and Sy. No. 23/4 measuring 23 guntas situated at Nayandahalli village, Kengeri Hobli, bangalore South Taluk. The Special Deputy commissioner, Bangalore proposed to acquire the lands in question along with certain other lands for the purpose of forma-tion of house sites by ITI Employees Housing co-operative Society Limited-4th respondent herein (for short 'the society' ). The preliminary Notification was published in the gazette in LAQ. (l) CR681 of 1983/84 dated 25-2-1985. Consequent upon the issue of preliminary Notification, the petitioners filed their objections on 4-4-1985 inter alia contending that the acquisition of the lands in question is not for a public purpose and that the acquisition is not in accordance with Sec. 3 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the 'act' ). Thereafter, the State Government has issued a declaration under Sec. 6 (1) of the Act on 27-2-1986 published in the gazette on 29-2-1986. The petitioners have challenged the said notification in the writ petitions before the learned single Judge.

(3.) RESPONDENT Nos. 1 to 3 have filed their counter to the writ petitions. It was contended that the land owners/petitioners were afforded an opportunity to file their objections and that their objections were considered and that they were heard. Thereafter the Final Notification was issued under Sec. 6 (1)of the Act. It was further contended that the acquisition is for a public purpose and that the State Government has paid Rs. 100/- as a token contribution for acquisition of the lands. It is further contended that the land owners have also participated in the award proceedings and that they have no locus standi to question the acquisition.