P. Parthasarathy vs State Of Karnataka & Ors

2. By the aforesaid order, the High Court where the legality and validity of the final notification dated 6.2.09 issued under sub-

4. The learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated 13.01.2009 allowed the said writ petition filed by the petitioner herein and quashed the final notification issued and also the consequential corrigendum. The learned Single Judge also gave a liberty to the respondents to identify the land which they Page 2 of 15 propose to acquire. It was also held therein by the learned Single Judge that the petitioner as also the respondent no. 4 would take the proceeding before the High Court as the notice in the matter of identification of the land in question and file their objections within a period of four weeks. Subsequent thereto, a notice was issued to the petitioner by the Board on 6.2.2009. In the said notice, the Board informed the petitioner that the land described in the notice is required for the development of the Karnataka Industrial Development Board and that the Government of Karnataka had issued a notification under sub-

5. After the receipt of the aforesaid objection filed by the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. A report was also prepared, which is placed on record.

6. It is also disclosed from the record that as per the date fixed i.e. on 18.4.2009, the concerned officers visited the spot and on Page 4 of 15 that day, the concerned persons including the petitioner and others were present. In the said survey, the previous phoded numbers were cancelled and thereafter the mahazar was drawn in the presence of the parties and they were also given sketch copies with available records in terms of their requests. The officer, thereafter, heard the arguments and after referring to the order of the Karnataka High Court dated 13.01.2009 it was held that the land measuring 2.33 acres is required for the project. Thereafter the said Land Acquisition Officer passed an order that the land bearing survey no. 154/10 of Kengeri village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South taluk is required for the proposed reasons of acquisition and that the same is suitable and required as per the joint measurement and schedule and, therefore, the said land measuring 2.33 acres was ordered to be acquired. Consequent thereupon a notification under Section 28(4) was issued whereby the land of the petitioner was acquired by putting the name of the petitioner in the schedule annexed to the said notification.

7. The validity of the aforesaid notification was challenged by filing a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court. The learned Single Page 5 of 15 Judge who heard the writ petition, after hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, dismissed the writ petition by his order dated 11.9.2009 holding that the order of the learned Single Judge in the earlier writ petition no. 24867/2005 directing the Land Acquisition Officer to provide opportunity to the petitioner and also to identify the land and thereafter to proceed with the matter having become final and binding and since subsequent to the said order, the land having been identified and his objections having been considered and the actual portion of the land required for formation of the road having been notified, there could be no further grievance of the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

8. Being aggrieved by the said order, a writ appeal was filed before the High Court, which is the impugned judgment and order. By the said judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal holding that any defect in the preliminary notification would not prove fatal to the acquisition proceedings.

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.

25.We find no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench. The petition has no merit and is dismissed, but leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

26.Since we have dismissed this petition, any interim order passed by the High Court shall also stand vacated by this order.

J (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA) Page 14 of 15 ............................................J (ANIL R. DAVE) NEW DELHI, AUGUST 24, 2011.