LAWS(KAR)-2008-10-42

REKHA D SHETTY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On October 22, 2008
REKHA D SHETTY Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful writ petitioner-appellant has preferred the above appeal against the order of the learned single Judge dated 22-7-2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 12556/2007 disposing of the writ petition, wherein the appellant-writ petitioner had sought to quash the preliminary notification dated 3-10-2006 issued under Section 17 read with Section 4 (1)of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act No. 17) as amended by Karnataka Act 33/1991 (for short, the Act) issued by the 2nd Respondent-Deputy commissioner and declaration under Section 17 (1) read with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued by Respondent no. 1, proposing to acquire 61/2 cents in Sy. No. 53/1 A-1 belonging to the appellant for the public purpose of putting up a wet well for pumping the drainage in Mangalore, dakshina Kannada district, under ADB scheme to be implemented by the 4th respondent.

(2.) THE case of the appellant is that she is the owner and in possession of the property situated in Kodialbail village, Mangalore comprised in Sy. No. 53/1a1 measuring 40 cents and she had purchased the same in the year 1987. Appellant having applied for approval of the plan to the 3rd respondent-Corporation, obtained license for the construction of residential house on 18-7-2006 and thereafter she started construing the house. In the meanwhile, the 2nd respondent issued a paper publication dated 3-10-2006 under Section 4 (1)read with Section 17 of the Act proposing to acquire portion of the land belonging to the appellant for the public purpose stated above. 2. 1 Immediately thereafter, the appellant pointed out to the 3rd respondent that the land which is sought to be acquired is in the center of the residential layout and that just at about 200 mts. Government land is available which is more suitable for construction of pump house. According to the appellant, in fact, on the representation made by her, the Mayor of the Corporation has also sent a proposal for acquiring the Government land in Sy. No. 301 instead of the appellant's land. It is also stated that the residents of the locality have also represented to the 2nd respondent not to acquire the impugned land as the entire layout is a residential area and if the pump house is constructed it will affect the health of the residents. However, without considering any of the representations, the respondents have issued the impugned notifications proposing to acquire the land in question. Aggrieved by the said notification, the appellant approached this court in Writ Petition No. 12556/2007.

(3.) THE learned single Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, by order dated 22-7-2008, disposed of the writ petition and the operative portion of the order reads thus :