LAWS(KAR)-1997-9-30

VIJAYAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On September 09, 1997
VIJAYAKUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LAND measuring 5 acres 39 guntas in Survey No. 25 of Kotanur D. Village owned by the appellant was proposed to be acquired for the purposes of the Karnataka Housing Board vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the 'act')published in the Karnataka Gazette on 29-10-1987. Objections filed by the appellant were rejected and final notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued which was published in the gazette on 9-6-1988. It was submitted that as the Assistant Commissioner had failed to consider the objections filed by the appellant before submission of his report in terms of Section 5-A of the Act, the final notification issued by the respondents was liable to be quashed. It was submitted that the appellant raised other objections to the acquisition on the ground that the land in question had earlier sought to be acquired in the year 1982 by the City Improvement Trust board and the same was dropped on the representation made by him. Such an objection was allegedly not properly considered by the Assistant Commissioner before submitting the report.

(2.) IN the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it was submitted that the land in dispute was being acquired for the public purpose. It was contended that after issuing statutory notice, the respondents conducted an enquiry in terms of Section 5-A of the Act, but despite service the appellant did not produce any record to substantiate his claim that the land in Sy. No. 25 along with Sy. Nos. 24/1 and 24/2 had been dropped from acquisition proceedings by the City improvement Trust Board, Gulbarga. Even otherwise the dropping of proceedings did not prevent the respondents from acquiring the lands for the benefit of the Karnataka Housing Board. The notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were claimed to be legal, valid and according to law.

(3.) THE writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge holding: "the main grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the objection filed by the petitioner has not been considered by the Assistant Commissioner. From the records it is seen that the petitioner was heard by the Assistant Commissioner and thereafter submitted the report under Section 5-A considering each of the objections filed by the petitioner. Therefore, there is no illegality in the procedure adopted by the authorities. The other contentions raised by the petitioner, have not been urged at the time of arguments".