GOPAL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsels appearing on both sides and perused the material on record. The petitioners have sought for quashing the acquisition notifications issued U/s. 17 and 19 of the karnataka Urban Development Authorities act 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "kuda Act' for short ). Since the common acquisition notifications are assailed and as the common questions of facts and law arise for consideration, these writ petitions are taken up for final hearing together and are disposed of by this order.

(2.) THE petitioner's lands are acquired by the State by issuing impugned notifications for the benefit of Belgaum Urban Development authority ('authority' in short) which is constituted under the provisions of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities act 1987 ("kuda Act') in short ). By passing the resolution dated 9. 6. 2000, the 'authority' proposed to acquire lands to the extent of about 50 acres for formation of residential layout for its proposed scheme no. 56 and submitted its proposal to the Government U/s. 15 (b) of the 'kuda Act' and the government by its letter dated 21. 10. 2000 has accorded its permission to the scheme No. 56 U/s. 15 (b) of the 'kuda Act'. The Authority issued notification U/s. 17 (1) of the 'kuda Act', which is published in the official Gazette on 8. 11. 2000. Thereafter, individual notices were issued to the interested persons including the petitioners herein as provided U/s. 17 (5) of the KUDA Act. The Authority, in its meeting held on 29. 5. 2002 has considered the objections received by it and overruled the same. Thereafter, the authority submitted the proposal to the State Government for its final approval of the scheme No. 56 u/s. 18 of the 'kuda Act'. The State Government by the order dated 6. 1. 2005 accorded the approval finally u/s. 18 (3) of the 'kuda act'. Thereafter, the Notification U/s. 19 (1)of KUDA Act came to be published in the official gazette on 14. 07. 2005. As aforesaid, the notifications issued U/s. 17 (1)and 19 (1) of the 'kuda Act' are questioned in these writ petitions.

(3.) SRI. S. N. Hatti learned Advocate appearing on behalf of certain of the petitioners vehemently argued that scheme No. 56 for formation of new residential layout at Belgaum city itself was not required inasmuch as, the house sites already formed by the authority under other schemes are still lying vacant because there are no adequate takers for the same; that notification issued u/s. 17 (1)and 19 (1)of the Act are not acquisition notifications but are only notifications issued during the course of the finalisation of the scheme; that actual acquisition of lands shall be done by issuing notifications separately under the provisions of the land acquisition Act; that the authority has not personally heard the interested persons and objections filed by the interested persons including the petitioners herein are rejected without considering the same in accordance with law; that since there is no specific bar for oral hearing under the 'kuda Act', the rules of natural justice require that the petitioners should be heard before proceeding to acquire the petitioners' lands; ]n other words, the principles of section-5-A of the land Acquisition Act should have been followed by the authority; that the notification issued U/s. 19 of the 'kuda act', about five (05) years after the notification issued U/s. 17 of the act is illegal; that since there is a bar for issuing final notification after one year from the date of preliminary notification. U/s. 6 of the Land acquisition Act, the same principle should be followed in the matters pertaining to the acquisition proceedings initiated under the provisions of 'kuda Act'; that while passing the resolution on 9. 6. 2000, the authority intended to acquire only 50 acres of land and whereas the authority has finally acquired 60 acres of land; that since the notifications issued U/s. 17and 19 of the Act rum contrary to the resolution passed by the authority at the first instance, they should be declared as illegal. Lastly he submitted that survey No. 216, which is the subject matter of writ petition No. 6796/2006 is not found in the resolution passed by the authority on 9. 6. 2000 for forming the new scheme and consequently, the authority did not imtend to acquire the said land. On these amongst other grounds, he prayed for quashing the notifications impugned in these writ petitions.