KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD BANGALORE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CLAIMING to be the owner of land bearing Sy. Nos. 202 and 204 of Kengeri Village, Sri S. Jugaraj S/o Sheshmal filed a petition in this Court praying for quashing of the notification dated 12th October, 1990 published in the Karnataka Gazette, on 22-10-1990. It was submitted by the writ petitioner that claiming to be the tenants of the land, some persons had filed applications for the grant of occupancy rights under the provisions of the Kamataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The Land tribunal vide its order dated 23rd December, 1977 granted occupancy rights in favour of the aforesaid applicants. The order of the Land Tribunal was challenged by the writ petitioner in a writ Petition No. 4131 of 1983. As during the pendency of the writ petition, the Land Reforms Act was amended and an appellate Authority was constituted, the papers of the aforesaid writ petition were trnsmitted to the Appellate Authority with a direction to treat the same as an appeal and dispose of it according to law. During the pendency of the said appeal, some of the respondents therein died and their legal representatives were brought on record. However, by a notification dated 31st of october, 1989, the State Government notified acquisition of the aforesaid land together with other lands for the purposes of karnataka Housing Board. The writ petitioner alleged that he had not been notified of the proposed acquisition and that he was deprived of an opportunity of being heard with respect to the aforesaid acquisition proceedings. It was alleged that despite the writ petitioner being the owner of the land, his name had not been shown either in the notification issued under Section 4 or section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act' ). It was further contended that after the amendment of the Land acquisition Act, 1984, issuance of the notification under Section 6 was not permissible after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. It may not be out of place to mention that while issuing notification under Section 4, the Government had decided to invoke powers conferred upon it under Section 17 of the Act.

(2.) AFTER perusing the record and hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the learned Single Judge concluded that the notification under Section 6 had been issued within the statutory period of one year. He, however, found that the government was not justified in invoking the powers vesting in it under Section 17 (4) of the Act as there did not exist any urgency requiring such a recourse. While upholding the notification issued under Section 4, the final notification issued under Section 6 of the Act, insofar as it related to the writ petitioner's was quashed on the ground that the provisions of section 5-A of the Act had not been complied with. The liberty was reserved in favour of the authorities to proceed with the acquisition proceedings from the date of the preliminary notification.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the learned Single Judge, both, the Karnataka Housing Board as also the writ petitioner, have filed these writ appeals submitting that the impugned order, insofar as it adversely affects their interest, was liable to be quashed.