N H ANJANAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these Writ Petitions the petitioners have challenged the notifications dated 30.5.1988 and 18.3.1989 issued under Section 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) The Petitioners claim to be the owners of certain lands which were proposed for acquisition under Section 4(1) of Act, in favour of the 4th respondent-Trinity House Building Co-operative Society, to provide sites to its members. Pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, the petitioners have filed their objections objecting the proposed acquisition on several grounds. The Land Acquisition Officer overruled all the objections and submitted the Report recommending for acquisition of the lands. On the basis of the said Report, the Government has issued a final notification under Section 6(1) of the Act. These notifications are called in question in these petitions.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are:That one Sri S. Rangarajan informed the petitioners that he would himself personally buy the lands in question as per the market value and according the petitioners have executed a power of attorney in his favour to have the matters cleared before the appropriate authorities. Further the petitioners relying upon the false and fraudulent representation of the said S. Rangarajan have subscribed their LTM marks on some blank papers. By virtue of the said Power of Attorney Holder and LTM impressions obtained on blank papers the said S. Rangarajan has requested the State Government to acquire the lands in question in favour of the 4th respondent society for his personal aggrandisement. The petitioners being illiterates, not aware of the worldly affairs, did not know the purpose for which S. Rangarajan obtained the LTM Marks on the blank papers; the petitioners came to know that the Power of Attorney and the LTM marks obtained on the blank papers were made use of by the said Sri Rangarajan only to get their lands acquired by the Government, when they received notices pursuant to the preliminary notification. Immediately after the receipt of the notice issued by the Land Acquisition Officer, the petitioners have filed their objections stating that there is no public purpose involved in the acquisition of the lands belonging to petitioners. Petitioners further contended the lack of bona fides on the part of the 4th respondent which was only the brain child of the imagination of the said S. Rangarajan. The Land Acquisition Officer after hearing the petitioners has submitted his Report to the State Government. On the basis of the Report, the State Government has issued a notification under Section 6(1) of the Act.