‘Petitioner provided an opportunity to air his grievances’
‘His contention is too technical and not acceptable’
BANGALORE: The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday held that “any and every defect in the preliminary notification will not prove fatal for acquisition proceedings as long as the notification specifies the locality and survey number and provides sufficient opportunity to the persons to put in their objections.”
Justice B.S. Patil passed this order while dismissing a writ petition by a resident of Bangalore challenging the action of the State Government and the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) in notifying his land in Kengeri village for acquisition for the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project (BMICP).
The petitioner, P. Parthasarthy, an agriculturist and industrialist, had challenged the April 25, 2009 order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, for acquiring land in survey no 154/10 measuring 2 acres in Kengeri village, Bangalore South taluk.
Mr. Parthasarthy alleged that the description of land as mentioned in the final notification of acquisition was different from the land sought for in the preliminary notification. NICE denied all the allegations and contended that fresh inquiry had been ordered into the acquisition of land following an earlier High Court order. The petitioner and others had been afforded opportunity to put forth their objections before a decision was taken.
Dismissing Mr. Parthasarthy’s petition, Mr. Patil said the High Court had specifically directed the Land Acquisition Officer to provide an opportunity to Mr. Parthasarthy to air his grievances. Moreover, his land had been identified and objections considered. Therefore, the order of the Land Acquisition Officer had attained finality.
The petitioner now could not say that there “is some difference in full details and particulars of the portion of land required in the preliminary and final notifications.” This contention is too technical and, therefore, cannot be accepted, Mr. Patil said.