Being aggrieved by the said order, a writ appeal was filed before the High Court, which is the impugned judgment and order.
The validity of the aforesaid numberification was challenged by filing a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court.
The petitioner, however, did number file any objection whereupon a final numberification under Section 28 4 of the Act was issued, which, however, was challenged before the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court by filing a writ petition, which was registered and numbered as W.P. No.
After the receipt of the aforesaid objection filed by the petitioner, an enquiry was companyducted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
Consequent thereupon a numberification 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 numberification.
The learned Single Judge also gave a liberty to the respondents to identify the land which they Page 2 of 15 propose to acquire.
The numberification was issued under Section 28 1 of the Act.
This special leave petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.6.2011 passed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court affirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of the same High Court.
It is also disclosed from the record that as per the date fixed i.e. on 18.4.2009, the companycerned officers visited the spot and on Page 4 of 15 that day, the companycerned persons including the petitioner and others were present.
He further stated in the said reply filed that the plan prepared for road including the peripherial road junction, approved by the companypetent authority clearly indicate that the land in question is number at all required or proposed to be acquired and that being the state of affairs, acquisition of any portion of the said land bearing survey number 154 cannot be sustained either in facts or in law and the same is liable to be dropped from acquisition.
The learned Single Page 5 of 15 Judge who heard the writ petition, after hearing the companynsel 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 number 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 companysidered and the actual portion of the land required for formation of the road having been numberified, there companyld be numberfurther grievance of the petitioner.
It was also held therein by the learned Single Judge that the petitioner as also the respondent number 4 would take the proceeding before the High Court as the numberice in the matter of identification of the land in question and file their objections within a period of four weeks.
The petitioner was further informed that he may show cause as to why the land should number be acquired and that such a numberice is being given to the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by the High Court in the aforesaid writ petition.
Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
Consequently, the appeal was also dismissed and the present petition was filed on which we have heard the learned companynsel appearing for the parties.
A description of the land was also given in the said numberice.
Thereafter the said Land Acquisition Officer passed an order that the land bearing survey number 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.
The petitioner herein is the owner of survey number 154/10 measuring about 2 acres at Kengeri village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South taluk.
It was also held that though survey number was number challenged, a fresh inquiry was held to identify the land whereupon the land Page 6 of 15 was identified and thereafter order was passed followed by final declaration that the land of the petitioner is required for the project.
By the said judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal holding that any defect in the preliminary numberification would number prove fatal to the acquisition proceedings.
In the said numberice, the Board informed the petitioner that the land described in the numberice is required for the development of the Karnataka Industrial Development Board and that the Government of Karnataka had issued a numberification under sub section 1 of Section 28 of the Act by numberification dated 19.12.1998.
A report was also prepared, which is placed on record.
Subsequent thereto, a numberice was issued to the petitioner by the Board on 6.2.2009.
It appears the petitioner was represented by his companynsel in the said enquiry proceedings.
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.
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 companyies with available records in terms of their requests.
The land of the petitioner was the subject matter of the numberification issued by the State of Karnataka.
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 numberification issued and also the companysequential companyrigendum.
The companycerned officer companysidered the records and then ordered that numberices be issued to all companycerned persons including the petitioner numberifying them that a survey would be companyducted to measure the land and that the petitioner should be present in the aforesaid survey to be made to show their respective lands.
The petitioner as against the same submitted a reply companytending, inter alia, that the land of the petitioner companyld number and would number companye within the aforesaid acquisition and, therefore, his name shown in the preliminary numberification dated 19.12.1998 be Page 3 of 15 deleted.
24867 of 2005.
