NARASIMHALU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS are brothers. They are joint owners of Survey No. 72/1/2 of Gangavathi in Raichur district measuring 3 acres 12 guntas. The said land was proposed to be acquired for the purpose of 4th respondent, namely the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Gangavathi. Preliminary notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the Gazette dated 24-1-1985. Declaration under Section 6 (1) of the Act was made on 28-8-1986. Appellants questioned the preliminary notification under Section 4 (1) and the declaration under Section 6 (1)of the Act under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in Writ Petition No. 18532 of 1986. Learned Single Judge, by his order dated 28-11-1995 having dismissed the said petition, appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961.

(2.) APPELLANTS questioned the acquisition on the ground of mala fides. They further questioned the validity of declaration under Section 6 (1) on the ground that it is made beyond one year period contemplated by clause (ii) of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act. Learned single Judge has negatived the contentions of the appellants on both the grounds.

(3.) SO far as the mala fide aspect is concerned, it is true that for several years, the fourth respondent-the Agricultural Produce Market Committee of Gangavathi and the appellants' father fought out the litigation right upto this Court culminating in a decision of this Court in Writ petition No. 5458 of 1974 disposed of on 31-10-1975. It so happened that after the land had been granted in favour of the appellants' father Venkatappa in respect of Survey No. 72/1, some more portion of the same survey number was granted in favour of the APMC. To protect the grant in his favour, appellants' father had thus to fight out the earlier litigation. There is no dispute that after the earlier litigation culminated in his favour, lands so granted had been got converted into non-agricultural use and even a layout has been formed by the appellants. It is at this stage that the appellants' lands once again came to be notified for acquisition for the purpose of the fourth respondent-APMC. It is in this background that the appellants attributed mala fides in the matter of acquisition of the land. As rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge, no mala fides are attributed against the Acquiring Authorities-respondents 1 to 3. Fourth respondent is a statutory authority. Large extent of land has been formed as layout for the market use of the fourth respondent. Appellants' land is adjacent to the market yard. In the circumstances, therefore, there is hardly any scope to attribute mala fides to respondents 1 to 3 in the matter of acquisition of the appellants' land for the purpose of market yard of the fourth respondent-APMC.