IM ThE HI II COURT OF AR! AT AA AT BA!. GALORE ated the p6th day of a, 1998 -n —n r- fl DI f rO91E Mr. t TJTIC A.J. 3ADAHIVA o896 BT WrEN: N. Bsavaraj, since deceases by his L.RS 1. Purushotharna ?rabhu, S/o late N. Basavaraj, aged abut years. 2, TJdya Prabirn, S/o late N. 3savaraj, a ed ahcut 26 years. 3. Yogesh prabhi, /O late ‘ BSaar aged about 23 years. 4 N hen, S/o 1ae !‘.Basaiaxel aged about 21 !eers, 3 Ms. B, unitha Dcvi, P/o late , aSaVaN aged about 19 years. t.ore rs are resients of Gandanahalli, !.B. Nagar talui, My5 ie Distri t PTTIT 0 (By Sri . Nagesbwraopa, Advocate) AD 1. State of arnstaa, re r ee .e3 h Its e e r Dept. of evenue, . .Bldg., banjore 4C I in , Jo t F 2- 3. Asst,conriissioner, Hunsar Ba —Division, Hunsur, Mysox Dist RESPOIrmTS (Sri .H. J 5 gadeesh, G.A. ) Writ petition filed uer Arts, 226 ,x 22? of the constit tion of Indiapraying to tiash Anri.C datea 9—2—94 and Ann,t dated 17-3—95 as illegal and to declare that all further proceed ings in pursuance of AnnL is illegal. This petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ greup this day, the Court made the following :— ORDER The petitioners have filed this ottition °r quashing the notification issued under Sec.4(1) and Sec,6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) in so far as it relates to 10 guntas of land in SyJIo.70/4 of lianuganaha’li, c 5 saba Hobli, iC..Nagar lath., o - Diet ict, The learned counsel appearing for the cut ones co tende t at t mp ned not - fications are liable to be qunohed on t e ground that the; have not applied their mind t teavainbi ; falterna lnia the e’eclaration having been issued after the expiry of one year fm the date of publicatIon o ntii o ne3e,( f a for want of enqiiry uner Sec.A of the Act, The isponden in teir taement of 4’ 3e of objections Mn disputed all the eontenticns. They contend that there is no alternative land available to form a it for the ATtIC yard fa’san-iC.R. ‘Cagar roW’. It is specifically contended that the petitioners dic’ not file their objections to Sec.4CL) notification even after senice of notice on then am’ toerefore, there was no occasion to hold an enquiry under Sec.5A of the Act in so far as it relates to the land of the petitioners. They tan further pleadW’ thet the pre1tm4nry notification was published not only in the Gazttte, bat also publishe!3 in two daily ‘ien pns or 14-4-9 and 13.4. re3pefrizejy and also in the vifla 5 e chavadi on 20-7-94. Declaration unee: Sec.6(l) was wede an 17- —1936, .ittin one ear rot tao date of publi ation of t e prelimin2ry notiricition TM petitioners diC not ilace any material on re otd 4o the cant ry. For be reasons aforesaid, his petition fails and accordingly iiamissed • In the ire eta so he se arei no 6cr ito 0* Sri .11. Sega”eesh, Oon4dvo”ate is peititted -4- permittec to file remo of appearance for the responden within four eas I I a mu- 030698