K RAGHAVACHAR Vs. CHAIRMAN KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition arises from the order of the Karnataka appellate tribunal. Urban land ceiling, Bangalore agglomeration, Bangalore. The petitioner in this petition has sought the setting aside of Annexures-a and b, namely, orders dated 18-1-1985 passed in case No. U. l. c. (1) 56/83- 84; and also quashing of order dated 13-5-1992 in appeal No. 41 of 1986, passed by the Karnataka appellate tribunal/appellate authority, urban land ceiling, Bangalore agglomeration, Bangalore, under the urban land ceiling act.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that in proceedings of u. l. c. (1) 56/83-84, an order was passed by the special deputy commissioner, urban land ceiling, Bangalore, (vide, its order dated 18-1-1985) declaring the extent of 27,108. 59 sq. metres of land in survey No. 6 of uttarahalli village, uttarahalli hobli, Bangalore south taluk, to be held in excess of the ceiling limits by the declarant and the authority directed the publication of notification under Section 10 (1) of the land acquisition act. Section 10 (1) of the act provides that after the service of the statement under Section 9, notification under Section 10 (1) is to be published, giving the particulars of the vacant land held by such person in excess of the ceiling limits and that such vacant land is to be acquired by the state government. It shall also state that the claims of all persons interested in the vacant land may be, made by them personally or through their agents, giving the nature of their interest in such land, within the prescribed period. No doubt Section 10 (2) of the act also requires that when claims have been made before the competent authority by persons interested in the vacant land, the authority shall determine, the nature, extent of interest and claim and pass such order as it thinks fit and thereafter notification under Section 10 (3) is to be published. The notification under Section 10 (1) has been directed to be published. If it had been published and when it had been published, it is thereafter it may be said that the petitioner could have filed objection in pursuance of that notification. He had not filed any objection, instead he had filed an appeal from the order under Section 8 (4) of the act and after dismissal of the appeal he has sought the quashing of the order dated 18-1-1985 and that of the appellate order dated 13th may, 1992 by this petition.

(3.) I have heard Shri M. Raghavendra achar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri M. H. Ibrahim, learned government pleader for the respondents.