MUNIYAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE contentions of the parties in nutshell are as under : the writ petitioner claims to be the legal representative of original owner Mr. Munivenkatappa (her father-in-law ). The present writ petition is filed by her, being aggrieved by the notification dated 22-3-2005 at Annexure-K made by the 1st respondent-State in No. Na. Aa. Ee. 30 Bim. Bhu. Swa. 2004. Father-in-law of the present petitioner was the owner of land bearing Sy. Nos. 50, 51 and 52 totally measuring 21 acres and 39 guntas situate at Tavarakere village of Begur Hobli. In this writ petition only survey number 50 measuring 6 acres 20 guntas is the subject-matter (hereinafter referred to as 'the land' ). Petitioner is the wife of one of the sons of munivenkatappa by name Bheemananna alias subbanna who died on 24-1-2005. The State Government in exercise of its eminent d omain power proceeded to acquire the land in question along with other lands for a public purpose, i. e. formation of byrasandra Tavarakere Madivalu layout (B. T. M. ). Accordingly, 4 (1) notification under Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called for short 'the Act'), came to be issued in No. BDA/salao/4. PR (S)/31/1977-78, dated 19-9-1977 and final notification came to be passed vide No. HUD-3-MNJ-1998, dated 7-2-1978. Subsequently, husband of the petitioner and other family members approached the authorities for denotification of land from acquisition in respect of the land in question measuring 6 acres 20 guntas in Sy. No. 50 on the following grounds :

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the same, the petitioner approached this Court in W. P. 37577/2003 and this Court quashed the said notification dated 9-5-2001 as per orders at Annexure-E. Questioning the same, 2nd respondent preferred an appeal before Division Bench in W. A. 8084/2003. The said appeal came to be dismissed on 6-1-2005.

(3.) AS per the directions of this Court respondent No. 1 issued a notice to the petitioner to appear before it and accordingly, this petitioner not only appeared but also filed objections bringing to the notice of the authority several facts including the fact that at no point of time the possession of the land was taken over by any one muchless, the respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, according to her she was neither dispossessed nor divested of ownership of the land in question in any manner. The 2nd respondent-BDA authority contended before the 1st respondent-State that they have taken over possession of the land and auctioned the sites as well. Apparently, the 1st respondent proceeded to issue the notification dated 22-3-2005 (2nd time) as per annexure-K withdrawing the de-notification order dated 12-4-2001.