R HANUMANTHAPPA AND SON Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claiming to be the owner of the land bearing Survey No. 1306 meansuring 5 acres and 16 guntas situate in Nanjangud Village, Nanjangud Taluk, Mysore District, has challenged the validity of the acquisition proceedings initiated by the authorities both under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act) as also under the Karnataka Acquisition of land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 (in short the House Sites Act). The facts are not in serious controversy and the only controversy is whether the petitioner had delivered possession of the land to respondent-4/Karnataka Housing Board consequent on the proceedings initiated under the Act.

(2.) The proceedings under the Act were initiated in the year 1975 by the issue of the preliminary notification u/s. 4 of the Act. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had filed its objections and those objections were overruled paving way to the final notification u/s. 6(1) of the Act. This declaration was made on 28-4-1977. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was also served with the Award notices under S.9 read with R. 9 of the Rules. But, the petitioner did not file its claim statement against the proposed award on the ground that that notice did not give 15 days' time for it to file its objections and so it called upon the Land Acquisition Officer to issue a fresh notice under S.9 of the Act. But the fact remains that the petitioner was aware of the fact that the Land Acquisition Officer had proposed to make an award in respect of the acquisition of the land in question and he also intimated this fact to the petitioner by issuing a notice u/s. 9 of the Act read with R. 9 of the Rules. The records disclose that the Land Acquisition Officer made an award though without hearing the petitioner, and that award was also approved by the Deputy Commissioner as required under S.12(1) of the Act. It transpires that some time in the year 1979 the notification u/s. 3(1) of the House Sites Act was issued by the Deputy Commissioner in respect of the very same land. But, the proceedings under the House Sites, Act were not completed by the authorities.

(3.) On these undisputed facts, the petitioner's case is firstly that by issuing a preliminary notification u/s. 3(1) of the House Sites Act, the earlier proceedings under the Act were abandoned and, therefore, the authorities could not have acquired the petitioner's land by virtue of the final notification u/s. 6 of the Act and the award made u/s. 12 of the Act. Alternatively, the authorities have not taken possession of the land from the petitioner pursuant to the award u/s. 12 of the Act and respondent-4/Housing Board could not have entered upon the petitioner's land and constructed the houses for the purpose of distribution to weaker Sections of the community.