(1.) The lands of the petitioners have been acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections of the Community under the Karnataka, Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 (Karnataka, Act 18 of 1973) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and the Rules framed thereunder. The validity of the acquisition proceedings is called into question in all these petitions.
(2.) The common complaint of the petitioners, to put it shortly, is as follows : The acquisition proceedings in each of these cases were initiated by the local Block Development Officer. Upon the publication of the notifications under S.3(1) of the Act, the petitioners filed their objections within the time allowed to them. But the Assistant Commissioner who received the objections, did not hold the enquiry as required under Rule 6 of the Rules. He did not either send their objections to the Block Development Officer frr his comments, or hear him in the presence of the petitioners. The petitioners have been thus deprived if an opportunity to contradict the opinion of the Block Development Officer and convince the Assistant Commissioner to drop the proceedings. The hearing of the Block Development Officer in the presence of the petitioners was mandatory, or at least affording an opportunity of being heard, by notifying a common date of hearing was a must. The non-observance of these mandatory provisions, has rendered the Acquisition proceedings to be invalid.
(3.) On behalf of the respondents, although no Statement of objections has been filed, it is admitted that the Block Development Officer who initiated the acquisition proceedings was not notified the date of hearing of the objections, and also not heard when the petitioners or their advocates were heard on a particular date. The question is, whether it was obligatory to have afforded an opportunity of being heard to the Block Development Officer and whether the Assistant Commissioner ought to have heard him in the presence of the pelitioners and other objectors. Mr. Puttaswamy, learned High Court Government Advocate contended to the contrary. He said that the omission to follow that procedure would not invalidate the acquisition since the petitioners were not denied of their right of hearing.