SHANKAR PUNDALIK GIRAP Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. In all these petitions the petitioners who are some of the land owners whose lands are being acquired in accordance with the Notification published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act Read with Section 17 thereof (hereinafter called the Act). They are aggrieved by the fact that the respondent/State of Karnataka common to all the petitions have invoked the power under Section 17 of the Act to dispense with a hearing required to be given to a land owner in accordance with the provisions contained in Sec 5A of the Act normally. The purpose disclosed in the notification which is at Annexure-A in Writ Petition No. 18264/87 is that the notified lands are required for the rehabilitation of shelterless people (Nirashritara Punarvasathi). The text of the notification does not indicate who the people are who are required to be rehabilitated although in the statement of objections filed on beha!f of the respondents State of Karnataka and in the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate General it is made out that the rehabilitation is of the people who are liable to be displaced on account of the acquisition of the land on the southern side of the Karwar town for the purpose of what is known as "Sea Bird" Project of the Indian Navy. The lands sought to be acquired as per the notification at Annexure-A afore mentioned are situate in two villages, Chittakula and Majali in Karwar Taluk. The total extent of land required is 132 acres.

(2.) The short questions which fall for determination in this writ petition are: Whether the Government was justified in exercising its power under Section 17 and if so whether that has been exercised in accordance with the requirements of law ?

(3.) The grievance of the petitioners is that right to be heard while being deprived of the lands owned by them is an invaluable right conferred on them by the statute and the right cannot be taken away or treated lightly by the Government by invoking its power under Section 17(4) of the Act. Therefore, they contend that the notification is vitiated on account of legal mala fides as there is no proper application of mind muchless any urgency for invoking the power under Section 1 7 of the Act.