NAVEEN JAYAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS in W. P. nos. 3539 to 3542 of 1996, who are the sons and daughter of one Sri p. b. jayakumar, have prayed for quashing the preliminary notification issued under Section 4 (1) and final notification issued under Section 6 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act' ). They have also prayed for quashing of the notices issued under sections 9 and 10 of the said act. It is prayed that the award made in the case on 28-12-1995 also be set aside. The action of the respondents is challenged on various grounds including non-issuance of notice to the petitioners under sections 4 (1), 5-a, 6, 9 and 10 of the act. It is further contended that as no enquiry has been held in terms of Section 5-a of the Act, the acquisition proceedings were liable to be quashed.

(2.) IN their statement of objections, the respondents have submitted that the land belonging to Sri p. b. jayakumar was sought to be acquired for constructing the office and staff quarters of 2nd respondent. Notice issued under Section 4 (1) of the act dated 11-6-1993 was published in the Karnataka gazette on 24-6-1993 and in 'sanje vani' and 'samyukta karnataka' on 6-7-1993 and 9-8-1993 respectively. Public notice was published on the property on 19-8-1993. After issue of notice under Section 4, an enquiry as contemplated under Section 5-a of the act was conducted in which the owner, namely, Sri p. b. jayakumar, appeared and gave his consent for acquisition of the property in question on 22-9-1993. declaration in terms of Section 6 of the act was issued on 30-11-1993 and was published in 'samyukta karnataka' on 18-12-1993. It is contended that as per the revenue record, the khatha of the property stood in the name of Sri p. b. jayakumar only. The partition alleged to have been made amongst the said Sri p. b. jayakumar and the petitioners were neither registered nor reflected in the revenue record. All other allegations made by the petitioners have been denied being false.

(3.) THE learned single judge, who earlier heard the petitions, referred the matter to this court vide his order dated 28-10-1997 observing: