BHARAT EARTH MOVERS LIMITED BANGALORE Vs. Y KRISHNAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the Notification No. LAQ (1) SR. 16 : 85-86, dated 7-4-1986 issued under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, ('the Act' for short) Annexure-A and the Notification no. RD. 53. AOB. 87, dated 12-6-1987 issued under Section 6 of the Act, Annexure-E, respondent 1 herein, filed W. P. No. 15912 of 1987 with prayer for setting aside the same alleging it to be against the provisions of law and the result of extraneous consideration. It was further submitted that no enquiry within the meaning of Section 5-A of the Act was held and no reasonable opportunity was provided of being heard before passing the final notification. The learned Single Judge found that there was no substance in the submission of the respondent 1 herein insofar as he complained of non-holding of enquiry under Section 5-A or made grievance regarding not providing adequate opportunity. However the writ petition was allowed on the ground of action of the respondent-authorities being the consequence of extraneous considerations. It was found that along with the land belonging to the writ petitioner bearing survey No. 83 another piece of land bearing Survey No. 86 had been earlier acquired but proceedings with respect to Survey No. 86 were dropped without assigning any reason.

(2.) IT was submitted by the petitioner that he and the other members of his joint family were cultivating 14. 30 acres of land in Survey Nos. 57, 58, 69 and 83 of Byrasandra Village. Survey no. 83 measures 7. 14 acres. In the year 1942 Survey No. 69 was acquired leaving the petitioner and his family with only Survey Nos. 57, 58 and 83. In the year 1968 land measuring 1. 20 acres was acquired out of Survey No. 83. In the year 1973 vide notification dated 23-6-1973 issued under Section 6 of the Act, Survey Nos. 57 and 58 comprising an area of 2. 16 acres was again acquired for the purposes of the appellant. In the aforesaid notification an area of 4. 20 acres of survey No. 83 had also been notified for acquisition. . However on the representation of the petitioner the acquisition proceedings were dropped under Section 48 of the Act. After the karnataka Land Reforms Act came into force an application was filed before the Tribunal, bangalore, claiming occupancy rights in respect of remaining area in Survey No. 83. On this application the Land Tribunal registered the writ petitioner as an occupant of 4. 24 acres in survey No. 83 in LRF Nos. 2074 and 2049 of 1974-75. The petitioner claimed that his family consisted of three brothers having a family strength of 20 persons. It was claimed that a dairy farm had been established in Survey No. 83. Second respondent, vide the notification impugned in the writ petition, again initiated action for acquisition of the land comprising Survey No. 83. In response to the notice issued under Section 4 of the Act, the writ petitioner preferred objection statement on 18-7-1986 vide Annexure-C. But the third respondent, allegedly without giving any opportunity of being heard, adjourned the case from time to time and ultimately sent the report under Section 5-A of the Act. In pursuance of the report submitted by the third respondent the final notification was issued with respect to Survey No. 83. It is submitted that along with the petitioner's land in Survey No. 83 proposal was made for acquisition of Survey No. 86. The proposal for acquisition of Survey No. 86 was also made in the preliminary notification. The owner of the Survey No. 86 made submissions that he has no objection for the acquisition of the land provided he was paid a compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs per acre, as is evident from annexure-F. The objections filed by the writ petitioner are stated to have been overruled before issuance of the final declaration Annexure-E. It was submitted that the respondents had initiated and concluded the action of acquisition in a casual manner, no reason was assigned for dropping the proceedings with respect to Survey No. 86 and acquiring the land comprising Survey No. 83 though both the survey numbers were sought to be acquired vide Annexure-A. It was further submitted that the order sheet maintained by the 3rd respondent clearly showed that the writ petitioner was not afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard before the submission of the report under Section 5-A of the Act. It was contended that non-compliance of the amended provisions vitiated the acquisition proceedings. The third respondent was alleged to have failed to communicate the writ petitioner the submission of the report to the Government, as was the mandate of law. It was contended that the respondents had declined to drop the acquisition proceedings in respect of Survey No. 83 on the ground that it came in the middle of the project which was stated to be incorrect. The petitioner presumed that the action of the respondent was for extraneous reasons and discriminatory. It was further submitted that as impugned notifications were issued after Act 68 of 1984 came into force, the same were without jurisdiction as the expression, 'public purpose', excluded acquisition of the land for the company as the appellant is. It was pleaded that the respondents should have followed the procedure prescribed under Chapter VII of the Act which govern the procedure for the acquisition of the land for the Company. It was further contended that the impugned notifications were not published either in any newspaper or in Byrasandra Village or in surrounding villages of byrasandra. The acquisition of the land was apprehended to deprive the writ petitioner of his right of livelihood as he had claimed to have established a dairy farm in the land, the subject-matter of the litigation.

(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.