MALIAPPA BASAPPA THOTAD Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is preferred against the acquisition proceedings under Notification No. LAQ.II.HS.CR-59/82-83 dated 22-3-1983 vide Annexure-A and the Notification of even number dated 12-10-1983 vide Annexure-B and also notice dated nil vide Annexure-C praying for quashing of the same as illegal.

(2.) The petitioners are the owners of land bearing Sy.No. 243/1 measuring an extent of 8 acres 13 guntas situated at Halageri Village, Ranebennur Taluk, Dharwar District. The petitioners are brothers and jointly own the said land and have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. In the year 1979, the land to an extent of 1 acre 32 guntas belonging to the petitioners in the very same survey number was acquired for the purpose of construction of office building and staff quarters of the Karnataka Electricity Board, Halageri under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Again the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwar, who is respondent-1 in this Writ Petition, caused the issue of preliminary notification dated 22-3-83 under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Karnataka Acquisition of Lands for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 (Karnataka Act No. 18 of 1973) (hereinafter called 'the Act') to the effect that the Government of Karnataka is of the opinion that the land in question is needed for the purpose of granting house sites to the weaker sections of the people. Objections were preferred by the petitioners to the effect that except the above land they do not have any other land and that all the petitioners are married and that each petitioner's family will get hardly 2 acres of land and the land in question is not suitable for house sites and that since the petitioners being small holders their land cannot be acquired under the Act and further that there are other lands in the village belonging to the Government which are suitable for providing house sites etc. However, according to the petitioners, the Deputy Commissioner directed the Assistant Commissioner to hold an enquiry and to submit his recommendation as required by the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Before the Assistant Commissioner who is respondent-2 in the Writ Petition, the petitioners are stated to have opposed the acquisition. However, respondent-3 recommended for acquisition of the land without giving personal hearing to the petitioners as alleged by them. Objections are stated to have been filed on 27-6-1983 in response to the notice served on the petitioners on 10-3-1983. It is further alleged that the report of the Block Development Officer was not considered and that in the absence of the Block Development Officer, the Assistant Commissioner, in his report, recommended to the Deputy Commissioner to acquire the land in question.

(3.) Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner, relying on the report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner, issued the final notification in exercise of powers conferred on him under Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act declaring the intention to acquire an extent of 4 acres 30 guntas of land out of Sy.No. 243/1 in all measuring an area of 8 acres 13 guntas belonging to these petitioners under notification dated 12-10-1983. Thereafter, the petitioners were served with a notice calling upon them to deliver possession of the land. On 28-9-1984, the petitioners state that they filed objections to the notice and the copy of the objections is Annexure-D. The petitioners are aggrieved by the acquisition proceedings and have questioned the validity of the acquisition on several grounds.