KUMBARA THIMMAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal had earlier come up for hearing before the Division Bench consisting of the Hon'ble C. J. and myself. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants cited two Division Bench judgments of this Court in Kalappa v. Dy. Commr. , Mandya reported in AIR 1973 Mysore 32 (34) and submitted that in view of these judgment, the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge in the writ petitions cannot be sustained. The Division Bench felt that the above cited judgments require reconsideration by a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement. Since the interpretation given in the aforesaid judgment apparently was found to be contrary to the statutory provisions under the Karnataka Irrigation Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the matter has now been placed before us.

(2.) THE appellants in this writ appeal are the petitioners who filed the writ petition. The petitioners sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the notifications dated 6-1-1989 produced as per Annexure-C in the writ petition and notification dated 23-2-1991 produced as per Annexure-D and also the notice dated 25-7-1991 produced by them as per Annexure-E.

(3.) THE petitioners questioned the proposed acquisition of 9 cents of land from their land bearing Sy. No. 268 situated at Kuruvalli village in Siriguppa Taluk of Bellary District for construction of an irrigation channel under the provisions of the Karnataka Irrigation Act. Admittedly, the petitioners are the owners of the said land. A notification was issued under Section 15 (1) of the Act by the irrigation officer with a corrigendum Annexure-C and latter notice Annexure-D issued to the Assistant Commissioner proposing to acquire 9 cents of land out of the said survey number for construction of irrigation channel. It was contended by them that a notification under Section 15 (2) of the Act which was mandatory was not issued by the authorities before initiating proceedings under Section 16 of the Act. The petitioners further contended that the notification issued under Section 15 (2) of the Act was also not valid since the same did not give the boundaries of the land sought to be acquired. According to them, such a requirement was mandatory in the light of the Division Bench judgments of this Court referred to above. They further submitted that even in the notification issued under Section 15 (1) of the Act no boundaries and alignment of the field channels proposed to be constructed were indicated and further that the proposed acquisition was not for a public purpose but the same was meant to benefit only one owner for whose land alone the proposed construction of the channel was being undertaken.