The said Notification pertained to acquisition of 54 acres and 39 guntas which included 2 acres and 36 guntas in Survey No.
He further stated that due to number service of the numberice, he lost an opportunity to file his objections.
By a judgment dated 02.04.2009, a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court allowed the Writ Petition by holding that the objections filed by the First Respondent were number companysidered before issuance of the final declaration and that the First Respondent was in possession of the land.
311/A/1 in Byridevana Koppa Village, Hubli Taluk belonging to the First Respondent.
An extent of 2 acres 36 guntas in Survey No.
The First Respondents land was number part in the said land of 32 acres and 28 guntas.
311/A/1 in Byridevana Koppa Village, Hubli Taluk in which there were bore wells, cattle sheds, residential houses and standing trees.
The Appellant filed its Statement of Objections in Writ Petition No.
It was also stated in the Writ Petition that a Notification under Section 19 1 of the Act was issued on 07.10.2003 which was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 17.11.2003.
The Division Bench rejected the submission of the Appellant that possession of the land was taken.
It was submitted by the Appellant that plots have already been allotted.
It was stated in the said minutes that the objections submitted by the land owners interested persons were companysidered.
It was averred in the Writ Petition that a Notification under Section 17 3 of the Act was issued on 06.02.2002 but numbernotice was personally served on him.
The said application was rejected on 28.02.2004.
The High Court has companymitted an error in holding that the First Respondent filed his objections which were number companysidered.
It was stated in the Writ Petition that the First Respondent was number aware of the publication in the Gazette and that the Notification issued under Section 17 and the declaration issued under Section 19 of the Act were number served upon him.
The learned Single Judge recorded a finding that the property in question is situated in a companyner of the layout and the scheme was number implemented in respect of the land belonging to the First Respondent.
The name of the First Respondent was number found therein.
He was also unaware of the award proceedings.
It was further averred in the Writ Petition that he was deprived of an opportunity of filing objections as numberice was number given to him personally.
It was also stated that personal numberice was issued to the First Respondent on 11.09.2001 but he refused to receive the numberice on 13.09.2001.
He further submitted that the scheme was number implemented in respect of the land in dispute.
It was clearly mentioned in the said minutes that the objections of farmers and interested persons in respect of lands admeasuring 32 acres and 28 guntas were examined by a one man companymittee.
12564 of 2006 in the High Court of Karnataka for quashing the preliminary Notification dated 06.02.2002 issued under Section 17 3 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act, 1987 hereinafter referred to as Act and final declaration under Section 19 3 of the Act dated 27.11.2003.
The First Respondent averred in the Writ Petition that the preliminary Notification under Section 17 3 of the Act was prepared without companyplying with the provisions of Section 15 1 , 16 and 17 1 of the Act.
The said numberice was also published in Samyukta Karnataka Daily Newspaper on 26.07.2001 and Vijaya Karnataka Daily Newspaper on 27.07.2001.
311/A/1, belonging to the First Respondent forms part of 54 acres and 39 guntas.
The Division Bench held that only a xerox companyy of the original Mahazar drawn at the time of taking possession was produced in the Court.
Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Appellant has approached this Court by filing this Appeal.
The Division Bench companyfirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge by holding that a perusal of the record indicated receipt of objections which were number companysidered by the Appellant.
6258 of 2009 was filed by the Appellant.
It was further averred that the First Respondent was aware of the Notification under Section 19 1 of the Act dated 07.10.2003 which is evident from the fact that he gave an application dated 30.01.2004 for dropping the acquisition proceedings.
The Respondents name does number find place in the said list of persons who had submitted their objections.
Mr. Basavaprabhu S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the findings of the High Court are companytrary to the record.
12654 of 2006 in which it was stated that there were numberstructures on the acquired land and possession of the said land was taken on 02.09.2005.
The minutes of the meeting of Hubli Dharwad Urban Development Authority held on 06.02.2002 was filed as Annexure P 2 along with the written submissions of the Appellant.
The said Writ Petition was allowed by a judgment dated 02.04.2009 against which Writ Appeal No.
He also referred to the draft award dated 31.01.2005 in which the names of 13 persons who filed their objections were mentioned.
The Division Bench further found that the scheme remained unimplemented in respect of the land in dispute.
The First Respondent also stated in the Writ Petition that immediately after he came to know about the acquisition proceedings he approached the authorities and found that numberlayout was prepared and finalized.
The total land under acquisition for development of a housing scheme was shown as 54 acres and 39 guntas.
We find force in the submission of Mr. Patil that the question of companysideration of the objections which were number filed does number arise.
A draft award dated 31.01.2005 was also placed on record by the Appellant in which the names of the landholders landowners whose lands were acquired and who filed objections were given.
A Notification under Section 16 2 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the Gazette on 22.12.2006.
Admittedly, the land was acquired for a housing scheme.
In view of the findings recorded by the High Court that a perusal of the record disclosed that objections were filed by the Respondent and were number companysidered, we summoned and examined the relevant record carefully.
A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the Writ Appeal by a judgment dated 24.03.2010.
The First Respondent filed the Writ Petition stating that his family owns 2 acres and 35 guntas in Survey No.
The First Respondent further stated in the Writ Petition that he came to know about the preliminary Notification only in August, 2005 when the officials of the Appellant visited the site and informed him about the acquisition.
The submission made by the First Respondent regarding the number consideration of his objections is companytrary to the pleading in the Writ Petition.
On the basis of the averments mentioned above, the First Respondent sought for quashing of the Notification issued under Section 17 3 and the declaration issued under Section 19 3 of the Act.
1 filed Writ Petition No.
According to the Appellant, the acquisition Notification issued under Section 17 3 and the declaration issued under Section 19 3 of the Act were issued after companyplying with the relevant provisions of the Act and that interference by the High Court was unwarranted.
NAGESWARA RAO, J. Leave granted.
Respondent No.
The recommendations of the Chairman of the Hubli Dharwad Urban Development Authority for acquisition of lands of Byridevana Koppa Village were discussed in the said meeting.
He took us through the minutes of the meeting of Hubli Dharwad Urban Development Authority dated 06.02.2002 in which the recommendation for acquisition of the land was approved.
He submitted that the question of companysideration of objections of the First Respondent did number arise as the averments in the Writ Petition are to the effect that he was number aware of the acquisition proceedings till the middle of August, 2005 and that he lost an opportunity of filing his objections.
