R. P. SETHI, C. J.

( 1 ) LAND measuring 5 acres 39 guntas in Survey No. 25 of Kotanur D. Village owned by the appellant was proposed to be acquired for the purposes of the Karnataka Housing Board vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the 'act') published in the Karnataka Gazette on 29-10-1987. Objections filed by the appellant were rejected and final notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued which was published in the gazette on 9-6-1988. It was submitted that as the Assistant Commissioner had failed to consider the objections filed by the appellant before submission of his report in terms of Section 5-A of the Act, the final notification issued by the respondents was liable to be quashed. It was submitted that the appellant raised other objections to the acquisition on the ground that the land in question had earlier sought to be acquired in the year 1982 by the City Improvement Trust board and the same was dropped on the representation made by him. Such an objection was allegedly not properly considered by the Assistant Commissioner before submitting the report.

( 2 ) IN the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it was submitted that the land in dispute was being acquired for the public purpose. It was contended that after issuing statutory notice, the respondents conducted an enquiry in terms of Section 5-A of the Act, but despite service the appellant did not produce any record to substantiate his claim that the land in Sy. No. 25 along with Sy. Nos. 24/1 and 24/2 had been dropped from acquisition proceedings by the City improvement Trust Board, Gulbarga. Even otherwise the dropping of proceedings did not prevent the respondents from acquiring the lands for the benefit of the Karnataka Housing Board. The notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were claimed to be legal, valid and according to law.

( 3 ) THE writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge holding: "the main grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the objection filed by the petitioner has not been considered by the Assistant Commissioner. From the records it is seen that the petitioner was heard by the Assistant Commissioner and thereafter submitted the report under Section 5-A considering each of the objections filed by the petitioner. Therefore, there is no illegality in the procedure adopted by the authorities. The other contentions raised by the petitioner, have not been urged at the time of arguments".

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has now vehemently argued that as the acquisition proceedings had not been initiated by the competent authority, the same was liable to be quashed. It is submitted that after coming into force of the Central Act vide Act 68 of 1984, the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to issue the notification under Section 4 of the land Acquisition Act as he could not be held to be either Collector or Appropriate Government within the meaning of the Central Act. In support of his contention the learned Counsel has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kanaka Gruha Nirmana Sahakara sangha, Avalahalli, Bangalore South Taluk v Kota Srinivasa Murthy (since deceased) by L. Rs and Others.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the respondents rightly argued that the submissions made on behalf of the appellant are afterthought and apparently alleged to make grounds for filing the appeal. A perusal of the writ petition and the record produced before the learned Single Judge would clearly show that no such plea was raised by or on behalf of the appellant. The plea as to whether the action had been initiated by the Appropriate Authority within the meaning of the Act was a plea of fact which could be decided only on the basis of the pleadings. In the absence of specific pleadings the appellant cannot raise new pleas at this belated stage. In the cases relied upon by the learned Counsel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document