SUNDARAMMA Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :-THIS writ appeal is filed by the petitioner in W. P. No. 11952 2006 being aggrieved by the order dated 25-9-2008 wherein the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches as well as on merits.

(2.) THE appellant herein filed W. P. No. 11952/2006 seeking for quashing of annexures -D and E preliminary notification dated 13-6-1983 and final notification dated 30-7-1984 issued by the first respondent and also Annexure-C dated 10-7-2006 issued by the third respondent declining to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records and for a direction for quashing the preliminary and final notifications issued by the first respondent respectively.

(3.) IT is averred in the petition that petitioner purchased land bearing Sy. No. 185/ 2a measuring 10 1/2 guntas situated at dakshina Nala village, Kasaba Hobli, holenarasipura Taluk, Hassan District under registered sale deed dated 16-3-2006. Pursuant to the purchase, petitioner applied for change of mutation in RTC and made application in form No. 12 to the Village Accountant and the Village Accountant made a recommendation for entering the name of the petitioner. However, Revenue Inspector made an order referring to the land acquisition dated 30-7-1984 and rejecting the entry of mutation, same was endorsed by the third respondent tahsildar, Holenarasipura Taluk on 10-7-2006 as per Annexure-C to the writ petition. It is further averred that in respect of the said land purchased by him, preliminary notification was issued under Section 3 (1) of the karnataka Acquisition of Land for grant of house sites Act, 1972 (hereinafter called 'the act' ). Final notification was issued on 13-7-1984 as per Annexures -D and E respectively, petitioner and eight others filed W. P. Nos. 19284-19292/1984 questioned Annexures -D and E in respect of lands referred to in the writ petition and acquisition was set aside and thereafter, no steps were taken for completing acquisition and in view of non-completion of the scheme even after lapse of 28 years, the scheme has lapsed, entry had been made in the name of the vendor of the petitioner and therefore, writ petition for the above said reliefs as the name of the petitioner has been wrongly refused to be entered in the revenue records and for quashing of the acquisition proceedings.