(1.) In this writ petition, petitioner Shambuvaiah, has challenged the two notifications issued under Ss. 3(1) and 3(4) of the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Notice was issued to respondents to show cause as to why rule should not be issued. Respondents have been served and represented by the Government Pleader.
(2.) According to the notification issued under S. 3(1) of the Act, which is at Ex. A, a total extent of 3 acres 30 guntas were notified for acquisition for formation of house sites for allotment to persons who were without sites. The petitioner and others filed their objections. It is not, disputed that they have been given a hearing in accordance with the procedure prescribed under S.3(4) of the Act. First and foremost Sri B. G. Sridharan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the final notification issued under S.3(4) of the Act, was not a valid one inasmuch as the Deputy Commissioner had not applied his mi the facts of thend to case, considered the report of the Assistant Commissioner on the basis of the objections filed by the petitioner and replies and views of the Block Development Officer who initiated the proceedings.
(3.) Shri C.Shivappa, learned High Court Government Pleader, has produced the records pertaining to the acquisition. The original order is seen and in that there is clear indication that the Deputy Commissioner (1st respondent) has applied his mind to the facts of the case of the petitioner and others. He has written a brief order over-ruling the objections of the petitioner and has acted on the report of the Block Development Officer as to the suitability of the site in question for locating this lay-out for distribution of house sites. On perusal of the order in question, Shri. Sridharan, gave up the challenge to the notifications on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner had not applied his mind in passing the order resulting in the final notification under S. 3(4) of the Act.