KEMPAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two short, but important questions which arise for my consideration and decision in this writ petition are:

(2.) The facts, which have given rise to the aforetsaid questions are, in brief, the following: One acre and 29 guntas of agricultural lana comprised in Sy. No 169/1 of Ramwnagaram village, Bangalore Dt., was Jormerly in the ownership and oceupation of one Channamimas son Sidda. On the death of the said person in the year 1967, entries in the revenue records pertaining to the land are mutated as per the order of the tahsildar of the taluk rendered in Case No. IWH 38/68-69. The mutated entries disclose that petitioner-1 being the eldest son of deceased Channamma's son Sidda, has become the owner (khathedar) on the latter-'s death. Further, the entries in the records of rights and pahanies pertaining to the aforesaid land relating to the agricultural years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75 disclose that petitioner-1 as also his younger brother, petitioner-2 had cultivated the land in those years and they were on the land as its occupiers.

(3.) S. 4(1) notification under the Act, by which the said land has been proposed for acquisition, has been published in the Karnataka, Gazette dated February 13, 1975. In this notification, Channamma's son Sidda is shown as the owner and occupier of the land proposed for acquisition, even though the said, person had died in the year 1967 and it was clearly disclosed from the entries; in the revenue records and pahanies relating to the land, that petitioner-1 had become the owner (khathedar) of the land and petitioners-1 and 2 were occupiers of the same Again, in the notification under S. 6 of the Act published in the official Gazette dated July 31, 1975, the very particulars relating to the owner/occupier as contained in the earlier notification are found repeated, making it obvious that even on the date of publication of the latter notification, the persons concerned, with the acquisition had not bothered to look into the entries in the revenue records and pahanies for coming to know or realise that petitioner-1 had become the owner (khathedar) and petitioners-1 and 2 had become the occupiers of the land proposed for acquisition. In this state of admitted facts, while the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were not served with the copy of the notification published under S. 4 (1) of the Act, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State and the Land Acquisition Officer, relying upon a mahazar and report of the revenue inspector wherein a mention is made that the owners/occupiers have been served with, the copy of S. 4(1) notification, submitted that the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners that they were not served with the copy of the notification under S. 4(1) should not bq accepted.