Proper notification of land acquisition must include the owner's name and property details to ensure the right to object is upheld, as mandated by the National Highways Act.

ORDER :

(Suraj Govindaraj, J.)

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

“WHEREFORE, the petitioner most respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner and grant him the following reliefs:

a. Issue a writ of mandamus for any other appropriate writ order or directions holding that the action of the respondents in initiating demolition of SCHEDULE PROPERTY BEARING No.10/60/1 KANKANDY VILLAGE process of yours is owned by the petitioner is without process of LAW authority of law and is opposed to the article 14, 21,300 A of the Indian Constitution.

b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, granting all the consequential benefits consequent upon of demolition.

c. GRANT the petitioner costs of these proceedings and pass such other order or orders as deem fit by this Hon’ble Court under the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.”

2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the property bearing No.10/60/1 on Nehru road, Gorigudda, Kankanady 'B' Village, Mangalore, the said property was earlier belonging to Mrs. Rohini Sujatha, the petitioner purchased the same from her vide a registered sale deed dated 02.03.2000 which is registered as document No.3434/1999-2000 at page Nos.23-36 Volume 2304 of book No.1 in the office of Senior Sub-registrar, Mangalore.

3. On purchase of the said property the name of the petitioner came to be entered into in the relevant revenue records vide MR.34/2000-01 as also in the record sheet of the urban property ownership record as UPOR No.S05-1337. The katha of the property also stood transferred in the name of the petitioner in the very same year and the petitioner has been making payment of property tax from the year 2000 onwards.

4. The petitioner came across a public notice issued under Sub-section 3 of Section 3(G) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act’) and it is only then he came to know that the National Highway Authority has sought to acquire a portion of the land of the petitioner, even in the said notification published under Sub-section (3) of Section 3(G) of the Act the name of the petitioner was not indicated. It is in that background the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

5. The submissions of learned counsel Sri. Nova Bethania S, appearing for the petitioner is that neither the details of the property of the petitioner nor the name of the petitioner has been published in the notification issued under Section 3(A) of the Act, nor was any notice issued to the petitioner, no opportunity has been provided to the petitioner to object to the acquisition, a notification under Section 3(D) of the Act has been issued which also does not reflect the name of the petitioner or his property details, except for mentioning the survey number in the notification issued under Sub-section 3 of Section 3(G) of the Act the petitioner has not been made aware of any of the proceedings taken by the Authority as regarding the said acquisition.

6. On notices having been issued and the appearance of the respondents on the earlier occasion learned counsel for the respondent made a categorical submission that there is no requirement to either mention the plot number, sub number or the name of the owner of the property in a notification issued under Section 3(A) of the Act, and what is required to be mentioned is only a brief description of the land which has been mentioned as a survey number. No objection having been received in relation thereto a final declaration under Section 3(D) of the Act has been issued. Notification having been issued under Sub-section (3) of Section 3(G) what is left to be done is the determination of compensation depending on the rights of the Petitioner, which would be so considered on the petitioner submitting his documents.

7. Hence, learned counsel for the respondent –