( 1 ) IN this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner who is the owner of the lands bearing S. Nos. 71/5, 71/4 andnd 73/7 of Kaikere village, Virajpet Taluk, has challenged the validity of the notifications issued under S. 4 (1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894), as amended by Karnataka Act 17 of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act' ).

( 2 ) BY the preliminary notification dated 6. 8. 1975, the lands bearing s. Nos. 71/1, 71/3,'73/1 and 73/6 belonging to the petitioner were proposed to be acquired for the purpose of opening a road from Gonikoppal virajpet main road deviating near Cauvery College and reading to vokkaligar gadde. The petitioner filed his objections, and after enquiring into the objections and after hearing the petitioner, the Asst. Commr. Mercara Sub-Dn. made a report under S. 5a of the, Act, Therefore the final notification dated nil, under S. 6 of the "act came to be published in the official Gazette containing S. Nos. 71/5, 71/4 and 73/1.

( 3 ) ONE of the contention urged by Sri Mohandas Hegde, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the acquisition proceedings are vitiated because of the malafides alleged in the petition. It is aileged that the then Minister for Revenue was responsible for the acquisition in question and as a result of the acquisition the proposed road passes through the coffice Estate thereby causing irreparable loss and damage to the Coffee estate. The other contention, is that the lands proposed to be acquired under the preliminary notification were quite different from those notified, in the final notification issued under S. 6 of the Act. Lastly it is contended that if the final notification were to go, the preliminary notificaition also cannot be retained because of the fact that from the date of preliminary notification more than three years have elapsed; therefore no final notification can be issued on the basis of such a preliminary notification in view of the provisions contained in S. 6 (1a) of the Act.

( 4 ) IT is not necessary to examine the truth or otherwise of the allegations of malafides made in this petition since, the petitioner succeeds on the other two grounds. A perusal of the schedule to the two notifications issued under S. 4 (1) and 6 of the Act makes it clear that the lands proposed to be acquired under the notification issued under s. 4 (1) of the Act are quite different from the lands notified in the final notification issued undeir S. 6 of the Act. The boundaries differ and the extent propored to be acquired differs and it is not the case of the State government in the statement of objections filed in this writ petition that though the survey numbers differ, the area proposed to be acquired under the preliminary notification covers the area notified under the final notification, The only contention put forth by Sri Puranik, the learned high Court Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent is that a mere slight variation in the survey members in the final notification when the lands notified under the final notification also belong to the petitioner, cannot vitiate the acquisition proceeding. It is of importance to note that the enquiry under S. 5a of the Act was held with reference to the lands notified in the preliminary notification. With reference to those lands only the objector, namely the petitioner filed his objections and the enquiry was held only with reference to the lands mentioned in the preliminary notification. That being so, it is not at all open for the state Government to include the lands in the final notification which were not included in the preliminary notification. Though it is open for the State Government to propose a larger area for acquisition and reduce the area in the final notification, it is not open to the State, government to notify a different land in the final notification not covered by the preliminary notification. That will be contravening the provisions of S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document