H G KULKARNI Vs. ASST COMMISSIONER BELGAUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four petitions have been brought up before us by way of a reference made by a learned single judge. Since some of the questions of fact and law are common to all of them, they are disposed of by a common judgment. We have, therefore, referred to the facts with regard to W.P. No. 590 of 1973 in some detail for the purpose of disposal of the common questions of law. But the special facts and contentions arising in connection with the other petitions have been noticed at the appropriate context.

(2.) The material facts in W.P. No. 590 of 1973, briefly are as follows: The petitioner, along with some others, is the owner of S. No. 115 situated in Yamanapur and some others in Kakti village. This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution has been preferred on behalf of himself and as power of attorney holder of such other owners. The said lands along with some others were proposed to be acquired for development of industries under the Mysore (now Karnataka) Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), by the Government of Mysore (now Karnataka) pursuant to S. 28(1) of the Act. The relevant notification so proposing to acquire is dated 19-8-1969 and is produced and marked as Ext. C. Earlier to this there was another notification which however came to be quashed by this court at the instance of the petitioner in W P. No. 9 of 1968. This circumstance however is not of any materiality for our present purpose.

(3.) Pursuant to the notification dated 19-8-1969, the petitioner was served with notices under sub-sec. (2) of S. 28 calling upon hare sutmit his objections, if any, to the proposed acquisition, 'ihe said notices have been produced and annexed as Ext. 'D' series to the petition. It is seen from the said notices that the date of their issue had been left blank and the names of the villages wherein the lands are situate had not been mentioned. But there is a clear reference therein to the notification under S. 28(1) of the Act, in which all particulars necessary had been furnished. The petitioner did not prefer any objections as invited, but the reason for such an attitude has baen stated in the petition thus: "We did not file objections as we felt that no useful purpose would be served because they have stated that the objections were overruled without giving any reasons on the first occasion when we urged the objections and they have acted in such a care-tree manner without even signing and dating the notices. But I reliably learn that other persons, who are my neighbours, have filed their objections."