STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. S B NANJAPPA GOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the State being aggrieved by the order dated 9-2-1998 in W. P. No. 682/1989 and w. P. Nos. 12574 and 12575/1988, wherein the learned single Judge has set aside the final notification under Section 6 (1) of the Land acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'act') in so far as it relates to the writ petitioners reserving liberty to the respondents to proceed with the acquisition proceedings from the stage of hearing the petitioners on their objections as required under Section 5a of the Act and the order dated 27-6-2005 missing Review Petition No. 379/2005 on the ground of delay and laches.

(2.) RESPONDENTS herein filed W. P. No. 682/1989 and W. P. Nos. 12574 and 12575/1988 seeking for quashing of the notification dated 27-2-1987 a s per Annexure-A to writ petitions and notification dated 27-4-1988 as per Annexure-B to writ petitions. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioners are the owners of Sy. No. 80/1 in Subhash Moidan, which was purchased in the year 1987 and the said land with structures measures 26 guntas, is situated in the heart of city of Sakaleshpur and is a very valuable property. The said land is commercial and industrial land as per the town Planning authority. The petitioners were planning to put up a brick factory, furniture works, godown to store building materials like cement, steel, timber etc. and office accommodation. However, by notification dated 212-1987 published in Karnataka Gazette dated 25-6-1987, this land was proposed to be acquired for the purpose of Jathra in Shandy maidan. The petitioners filed their objection statement within the stipulated time. However, final notification dated 27-4-1988 was published in Karnataka Gazette dated 21-7-1988 without affording an opportunity to the peti-tioners to substantiate their contentions. Therefore, the writ petitions were filed for quashing of the above preliminary and final notifications.

(3.) THE learned single Judge, after considering the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, held that no ground has been made out for quashing the preliminary notification. However, so far as the final notification impugned in the writ petitions is concerned, the objections filed by the petitioners have not been onsidered in accordance with law. Therefore, the learned single judge has quashed the final notification issued under Section 6 (1) of the Act and remitted the matter to respondents with a liberty to proceed with the acquisition proceedings from the stage of hearing the petitioners on their objections as required under Section 5a of the Act. The appellants herein filed Review petition No. 379/2005 seeking review of the said order. Since thereqwas a delay of 2590 days in filing the review petition, the learned single Judge by order dated 27-6-2005 dis-missed the review petition on the ground of delay and laches. Being aggrieved by the said order passed in the writ petitions and review petition, the respondents in the writ petition have preferred this appeal.