Case: P. Parthasarathy Vs. State Of Karnataka

acquired is proposed to be a part of the peripheral road being a part of the aforesaid developmental infrastructure. 14. The issue that arises for our consideration is whether there was any inaccuracy with regard to the description of the boundaries of the land which is sought to be acquired by the respondents. In fact, in the earlier round of litigation wherein validity of sub- section (1) of Section 28 was not challenged, what was done was to quash the notification issued under sub-section (4) of Section 28, which was in fact under challenge. Even thereafter and pursuant to the orders of the High Court which had become final and binding, a re-survey was done after going through the objection filed by the petitioner. In the said re-survey where the petitioner was also personally present, the land proposed to be taken and acquired was identified, sketch map was prepared and thereafter only the final notification under sub-section (4) of Section 28 was issued. 15. That the petitioner could file his objection and he was fully heard and was also given an opportunity regarding identification of the land indicates that the petitioner had ample opportunity to place his case, which was considered but decided against him. In our considered opinion full opportunity having been given to the petitioner to place his case and to oppose the acquisition process, there could be no further grievance of the petitioner in that regard.16. We are also of the opinion that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner in any manner for the land was re-surveyed and thereafter the land sought to be acquired was identified, which included the land of the petitioner and, therefore, the entire pre- conditions and formalities as laid down under Section 28 of the Act were duly complied with and were adhered to and followed and, therefore, there cannot be any further cause of grievance for the petitioner. 17. In this connection, we may appropriately refer to a decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Babu Barkya Thakur Vs. State of Bombay and Others, reported in AIR 1960 SC 1203 . In paragraph 12 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court has held that the purpose of the notification under Section 4 is to carry on a preliminary investigation with a view to finding out after necessary survey and taking of levels and if necessary digging or boring into the sub-soil whether the land was adapted for the purpose for which it was sought to be acquired. It was further held in that decision that it is only under Section 6 that a firm declaration has to be made by the Government that the land with proper description and area so as to identifiable is needed for a public purpose or for a company. The aforesaid observation was made after holding that what was a mere proposal under Section 4 becomes a subject matter of a definite proceeding for acquisition on issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act. 18. We feel that the law laid down in the said decision applies in full force to this case also. In the present case also there were some errors and mistakes in the notification issued under sub- section (1) of Section 28 of the Act but the same did not, in any manner, prevent the petitioner from submitting an effective objection and also from getting an opportunity of effective hearing for him. A re-survey was done in his presence and, therefore, the purpose for which the provision of sub-section (1), (2) and (3) have been enacted, have been fully carried out in the present case.19. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that although there was some discrepancy in the description of the property proposed to be acquired and the description given although might not have been exactly accurate, but the same did not in any manner misled the petitioner regarding the identity of the land which is corroborated by the fact of the detailed enquiry which was conducted in his presence. The petitioner was also able to file a detailed and effective reply to the show cause notice issued to him. 20. The decisions which are relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are clearly distinguishable on facts. So far the decision in case of Narendrajit Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of U.P. and Anr. reported in (1970) 1 SCC 125 (supra) is concerned, in the said case we find that this Court interfered with the declaration because there was no particulars given in the notification. In the said case, there was no mention of any locality at all and in that context, this Court interfered with the proposed acquisition. 21. So far the next case, namely, Madhya Pradesh Housing Board Vs. Mohd. Shafi and Others reported in (1992) 2 SCC 168 (supra) is concerned, in that case also details and particulars of the land were not given and a wrong public purpose was mentioned and in that view of the matter, this Court interfered with the acquisition proceeding. 22. As regards the case of Om Prakash Sharma and Others Vs. M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam and Others reported in (2005) 10 SCC 306 (supra) which was relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is concerned, in that case neither any survey number was given nor any khasra number was given. Even the name of the persons were not mentioned and in that context the declaration was quashed with a liberty by way of giving a fresh opportunity for initiation of a fresh acquisition proceeding. 23. The aforesaid cases are clearly distinguishable on facts and, therefore, they have no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case.24. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge as also the learned Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court did not commit any mistake or error in dismissing the writ petition.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]In our considered opinion full opportunity having been given to the petitioner to place his case and to oppose the acquisition process, there could be no further grievance of the petitioner in that regard.16. We are also of the opinion that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner in any manner for the land was re-surveyed and thereafter the land sought to be acquired was identified, which included the land of the petitioner and, therefore, the entire pre- conditions and formalities as laid down under Section 28 of the Act were duly complied with and were adhered to and followed and, therefore, there cannot be any further cause of grievance for the petitioner.We feel that the law laid down in the said decision applies in full force to this case also. In the present case also there were some errors and mistakes in the notification issued under sub- section (1) of Section 28 of the Act but the same did not, in any manner, prevent the petitioner from submitting an effective objection and also from getting an opportunity of effective hearing for him. A re-survey was done in his presence and, therefore, the purpose for which the provision of sub-section (1), (2) and (3) have been enacted, have been fully carried out in the present case.19. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that although there was some discrepancy in the description of the property proposed to be acquired and the description given although might not have been exactly accurate, but the same did not in any manner misled the petitioner regarding the identity of the land which is corroborated by the fact of the detailed enquiry which was conducted in his presence. The petitioner was also able to file a detailed and effective reply to the show cause notice issued to him.The aforesaid cases are clearly distinguishable on facts and, therefore, they have no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case.24. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge as also the learned Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court did not commit any mistake or error in dismissing the writ petition.