IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNIThKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUN 1998 BEFORE THE HONBLT’ MR.JUSTICE A.J, SADASHIVA WRIT PETITIO No. 332/1998 BETWEEN: 1. Abdul Wajid, s/o Moharrnied Fakhruddin, age: major, 2. Abdul Wahab, s/o Mohammed Fakhruddin, Age: Major. Both r/o Gopala Village, Kasaba Hobli, Shimoga Tq., & Diet., ... Petitioners (By M/s.Jaypee Associates, Advs.,) AND: 14 The State of Karnataka by its Secretary, Housing & Urban Development Dept., M.S.Buildir g, Banga1ore1. 2. The Chairman, Shimoga Urban Development Authority, Shimoga. 3. The Commissionr,Shimoga Urtian Development Authoraty, Shimoga. 4. The Land ?‘cquisition 0 fficr, Shimoga Urban Development Authority, Shimoga. Rcpondents (By Sri K.H.Jagadish, HCGA, for RI; Sri Tajuddin, Adv., for R3 & R4) 2 This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the notification vide Annex.F dt. 11.8.94 by Ri and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following ORDER Even though this petition is listed for Orders on I.A.I, the same is heard on merits arid disposed of by this order, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on both the sides. 2. The petitioiers have filed this petition or quashing the declaration dated August 11, 1994 issued by the first respondent under sub—sectio(i) of section 19 of the Karnataka Urban Deve1oment Authorities Act, 1987 (hereirafter called “the Act), i.iter alia conte ding that the declaration is invalid and inoperative for having been issued in violation of section 17(5) of the Acts 3. There is no dispute that the lard measriflg 3 acres 37 guntas In Sy.No.60/2 stuated in Gopala Village, Kasaba Hobli, Shimoga Taluk, belong to the petitioners. A preliminary notification was also 3 issued under sub—section (1) of section 17 of the Act and published in the gazette under sub section (3) of section 17 of th Act. 4, The contention of the petitioners is that, they have not been served with any notice even though they have been shown as the owners of the land in the revenue records as required under sub—section (5) of section 17 of the Act. It is their further contention that the respondents in order to push through the accuisition proceedings have adopted high-handed procedure in making it appear that the notice has been served on the holders of the land even though they did not serve any notice. 5, It is contended by Srj,H.B.Sandesh, the learned Counsel appearing for te petitioner that notice. though, is directed to be issued as per Annexure—A, it has not been served on the petitioner. Howev r, from the copy issued to th petitioners by the special Land Acquisation Officer it is shown to have bcn served. In this context he brought to notice my notice that the/dated August 28, 1992 will have a reference as to the publication of notice in the 4 newspaper dated September 3, 1992. From the endorsement made on the said notice it is seen that the same has been served on the first petitioner who is stated to have acknowledqed under his signdtur. it is conterdeo that the first petitioner is totdlly an illiterate man who does not know even to nut his signcture In support of their contention the petitioners have procuced a registered sale deed dated May 18, 1989 made between the first petitioner and one H,Abdul Rehaman wherein it is shown that the first petitioner had put his left hand thumb impression. However, Sri.Tajuddin, the learned Counsel appeL ring for the Urban Develorment 14o3 uthort has cortenaed trat, the noticeserved on some adult male member of the fmi1y who must tiave signed in the name of the firt petitIoner and therefore it shoulo not be treated as not having been served on the petitioner. In tbe absence of ny endorse’ent to that effect or any affidavit by the officer who served the rotice, it is not possible to accede to the contention of Sri.Tajuddin that the 5 notice must nave been served on an adult meer the offamily who migit have signed in the name of the petitioner. The submission of the learned Counsel is without any support but appears to be on his imagination. 6. Sub-sectIon (5) of section 17 of the Act requires that, the authority shall serve a notice on every person whose name appears in the assessment list of the local authority or in the land revenue register as being primarily liable to pay property tax or lc.nd revenue assessment on any building or land which is proposed to be acquired in executing the scheme. It is therefore clear that the service name of notice on every person whosappears in the land reveue register or assessment list of the local be authority is mandatory so that they shell/provided L with an against the execution of the scheme, if there is any. The respondents did not produce any material to show for having served the notice on the petitioners who are admittedly the owr rs of the land and whose name appecr in te revenue records. / 6 7. Sri.Tajuddin, the leaLned Counsel for respondents-3 anu 4 has contended that, in view of the decision of this Court in W.Ps. 9362—9365/1995, this petition is liable to be dismissed. The facts and circumstances under which the aforesaid cases are decided are entirely different from the facts of this case including the relief claimed.As both of them are distinguishable from each other, the said decision is of little assistance to the respondents. 8, For the reasons aforesaid, the declaration dated July 30, 1994 published in the Karnataka Gazette dated August 11, 1994 issued as per Annexure—F is hereby quashed only in so far as it relates to the lands bearing Sy.No.60/2 measuring 3 acres 37 guntas belonging to the petitioner and all otheorisequential proceedings in respect of the said land is declared to be irionerative. However, liberty is reserved to the respondnts to issue fresh dOclaration in respect of the said land after complyino with all the statutory provisions of the Act 7 9. In the circumstances of the cases there is no oider as to costs. 10. Sr.K.H.Jagadish, the I arned HCGA is perimitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks. Sdf 3UDGE cki/8698