IN THE HIGH COHHT CF KAIATAKA AT BAr;GALoE DATED T I3 THE 18TH DAY OF JI3W’ 1998 BEFORE THE HOU’BLE HR. JUSTICE CHDRAEYARAI C/v BEEETc: mt.Indu Jagadish Jaju, age: major, 0cc: Business, F/o Bijapir. ,. Petitioner, (By Sri Asbok R.Halyanshetty for Petr,) AND: 1. The State of Karnataka, by its Secretary to Govt., Revenue Dpt, M.3Pui2ding, Bangalore — 1. 2. The Deputy Comiissioner, Pijapur Dist., Biapur, 3 The Asgt, Coimnissioner, B1apux Sub Dlvii, and Land Acquisition Officer, Bijap’ir. -2— 4, The Agrienitural Prodvce Harket Coomittee, Bijapur, by its Secretary, At: Bijapur. ..• Respondents. (By Sri K.Nagaraja, HCGP, for fl-i to R-4.) This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India with an affi davit praying to: quash anneure A dt.17-i-Oi No.flI’.LAQ.SR.8/88-89 and tc. Jflç4: BETTE: Sri Basetteppa, S/o Dundappa Anneppanavar, Age: Major, 0cc: AgrIculturIst, R/o Bijapur, Taliil & Dist: Bijaur. Petitioner, (By Sri Rarne ski B,Aneppanavar for Petr,) AND: 1. The $tate of Karnataka by if 5 Secretary, flevenue Dept., Sachivalaya-2, Bongalere 1. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur, Bijapur Dist, 3. The Asst. Commissioner, Bijapur, Bijapur Dlst. . 3— 4, The Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bijapur by its Secretary, Bijapur, Taluk C. Dist: japur •. Respordents. (By Sri K.agaraja, HCGF, for R—i to R-3, Drj Path & PrtiI for R-4) Thjg Writ Petition filed under Art 4 cles 226 tc 227 of the Constitution of india with an affi davit praying to: Quash Annexure-A dt.17.l.91 bearing No.BB.LAQ.SR.8/88-89 issued by R—1 & etc. These WrIt PetitIons coming on for hearing this day, the Court made the following: bsr(ct.) b r. y. c,by: LW. 14520/ k. Q.s_a_E_s 18e6a1998 4190/91. The petitioners have challenged the notifications issued under Sec.4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, in these petitions. . The Division Bench of this Court in WP.3539 to I. T 4W. ..L. —- 7% :4f %f’- 4 9E• and other connected petitions, dated •;157fr4998 has held that the Karnataka Land Acquisition Act, 1961was non—existent being impliedly repealed with iA.:,. -\ .•ttt qgmmencement of Central Act 1/1894 and further’ held k:.f’i’ ½,:f’ . . . that the Deputy Commissioner who issued the notification 4 jt . lrnár.:eec.4( 1) of the Act, subsequent to Central Actt4 of 1894 as amended by Act 68 of 1984 came into force is wttliout authority of law. 1 I 1* I. C . n the case on hand also, tho notification is dated 17-1—91 ,that is. subsequent to the .?.. Central Amendment Act 68/1984 came into foräe. 4flkg4 the said decision and for the reasons stated therein, this petition is allowed; the impugned nottfiba4iont issued u/s.4(1) and 6(1) of the L.A. Act, are quashed insofar as the petitioner’ lands are concerned. However, this order will not come in the way of the State Government to initiate fresh proceedings. I I Sd,’.. JtJDjg