Karnataka High Court
Smt Ratna Nagaraj W/O M S Nagaraja Rao vs Karnataka Industrial Area Development ... on 3 July, 2009
Bench: Manjula Chellur, Ravi Malimath
IN 33% HIGH CGUREE O!' ,
mm mxs -rm 3"' mar 02' JIILY, 2099--{'*-- 'f--«_ '--._'3
PRESENIE
mm E0!~¥'BI.E ms. wsrIm__u;a;um'
ARI}
was Ho:~vsz.z MR. ausrzqa fizgéi :;
mam JEPPEAL 1sto.2273R/'2§e»-5V' ¢:.a'?L'--xf::.:=;'z$n)
BETWEEN :
524'}: mm 1~zmm:m.::'- _ .
we 21 s "xmoj
AG
3/111' 92%;}, 13395! moss ,;j~ .
221:9
, '33 . APPEIJ-RH?
(By Sr:i. *:u 9.52:1. 5 ymsxm
A813
u
4 .
Bomb,
'-a.'*3i3m':*~ ceammn mama Kxzm mm
amrfztm .j1-:93 cmrxcz M 1:10.32,
. "'v%KIN1*is_r1f£Ln1ns, eannaznaam,
B.3\$i£i3IA)RE
3/33: was mmcsnva nxnxcz-on
séécmx. mm: Acgursmxox or:-xcm
"gzcznmnmaxa xrmusmn mm »»
"ngvzmmmm: Boasts,
230.32, KIN]: nvxwme, mmmnm,
RE.
3 '}.'fiE COHSERVATGR OF FORKS!'
BANGALORE DIVISIGK,
RE.
4 man: Iurnnsmucw
comma mmnpnxsns LTD
I-mvme 1:-rs on-rrcn A1'
mnmnn nousx,
mnwopn amznm,
0FF;M.G.RQAD, smegma: ._
may ms nmwszms nzanscmgon
5 sum or Kmrmmm _
my 32 ms "
m m ngmzmmrx.-{. at
cmmmm a INDUSTRY '-
vzmaam. SOIJDKA, ' _ . '
aauaamagw-5v6o e€e'1'*--..f " 1 . Rn-smmmms
(By Stj. :__ FOR R1)
(By sz-z'.":_ $1.3; --- Heap FOR 3-2, a-3
R.---S)-_ '
{B'y~Sr1°: PAEIL -- sn. cozmsxq.
8: P3RTRID% EOE. R'-1!)
vR§_sa;vgg3 '.ag. 24 . '1. 20:33
%'%%%~ms%%;m;:: Appnm. 13 Exam 6/8 «c or an
xmmmmza. max came: ma? mmrme mo 33': ASIDE Inn
02923 ms-am 18 mm mm annex no.1s411/2-0-as
7_pamxn~19g12/zoos.
V' }*E'!1.i.s Writ appeal coming on for firl. Hearing
.' and " having bases: arfiaazrv-ad. for p:a:<>:aac::1:2w%*!: of
jgzdfit, this day, mmum cnmmua J, daiivaz-ad
V " '"i:'I1e fallowingz
JUDGMSFIT
The appeal is directed against the
of writ petition nc.1s411/2006 on
learned single Judge dated 19[12{24OO6.M'"'--:'_':'. "
2. The appellant 3.; the
totally Inaaauring -3 acranfl "23 at 'V
Talagatapura village' a _ fiobii' ," Bseizgalorg
South Taluk. out 23 guntas of
land belonging' to thé""aV;'9{g:e l.1,éx;t " sought to be
for the purpose of
a pfi'9jé¢t' 'Mysore Bangalore
Infrastrzidflgfire Proje<::1:' (which sham
Vlbeoxaferred to as 'the project').
came to the wpelllant through her
registered will dated 14/7/1999
tho! of the ollant died during
1999. odiatezly the nme of the
" __?-lant ow to be mentioned in the mztation
wgégister and consequent antries were made in the
4
maord of rights. 'Beak plantation of about 490
<9
writ petitions.
trees are grown in the said land. Even dgxing
the life time of the mother of the
was assisting her in the tea}: p1antati§§.:i'.'*b».'_' _
has smut enorxnous money and .1: " V.
in question .
3. By not3.£icati<';§ 'ggatéd.V .2/té.;A9af--V» 'V L'
section 29 (1) of the Iti<i¢us:t;i5ar:§l Area
Bevelcpment Act, (ft): KIM) Act')
the land belonging " acquired
by the 1" «the benefit of
the 4*" .'§e1_:* _« the project. The
c:ontanti9n" (sf is, the notification
acco;-cung to agspéilant is to be nullified as
no A. oft "actqtiisition was sewed on the
T a matter of fact, when the lands
wére"vt'not££:e§aV under section 23(1) of the man
flVAc:t,k jzize; mmers rushed to the Ccmrt in
Acquisition ca? 60% of
'iand was uphsald and 49% of the acquisitiam
5 rejected. Even the said. owners against whom
" the leaxned single Judge passed the ordsx were
unsuccessful in W.A.Ro.'?2/64 and other
matters. Public interest litigation aitt tafig ta 1
be filed which were also dispcggd cf in fiafiafir oi "
the 1"", 2"" and 4"' respondent:'..:auf,h9i:i£i1eSQ' '
4 . According to they "s§a<:i:.i6n 23:2} of the xxan Act, tan acquirigg éutgoiitiea V are required. to nO'E'.i.§ Y thé' by issuing persona}. days from the date of show cause against notice though claiurfld _sent on 2/8/1999 by respondézgtaéé 1' came to be served on the no objections am to A. of such non-service of ..:ia'ij1igation was cast on the acquiring it-..i3 consider the objwtions of the owneis than past orders ta rsach the ataga of i':3sé¢tiots 29(4), which was not available.
-- 'iu'i#i?é£ore, there is a failure on the part. of the * '"a7é¢qui;:i.ng' authority to newly with the mndatory requii-fiat under the man Act. I13 that visit of the mtter, the final notification issued. vV.uo£.T.ax section 28 (4) of the man Act quashed.
5. The appellant also having isaued 2 'notifia-":g:;t.j.o3;VV 3/5/1999 no award has the Icnowledge of the of two years. Therefore, proceedings would lapse': of the Land Aoquisitioo Vtfgtaxte LJL. Act') , as the pgfioiffigsiotgs {would apply mutatis litn V enquiry and the award yasaed 'igonvnziaaionex, eta. next contention is, proposed land is shown in the sketch 'trees or plantation are shown. 'rho *.,a<:t:i.o:':._ or the respondents 1 s 2 to divest the ff of has: lands without oozmlying with tho xrizmdatozy provisions, is nothing short of Warbitrary and illegal act in violation of Artioles 14, 19(1) (9') and 300 (A) of the Constitution of India. only when she reoeived a. notice on 6/8/2065 she became aura:-e acquisition prooeedings. In the she has mentioned all the above conters~t::i.oz;:2,:f the absence of sketch, pre.};iii11.mz.r'§1 notififfj oattiioip V and the final notification ttindiegting tffifiét existence of teak: plantitioga _otl;e?fi_ ;: it * L' has to be pres1::ned;__ that 'as.-qui.i:'ing_'A afithority has no intention to whore teak plantation is.in ex;ate§ce;_z_:t §.aao£n¢£ nc£ié§ gag; fig; sent on 7/10/05 calling upon thovoéppoiloat Ito file objctions and to ing§.i§;g:a.te tho" of award expected by her. cgontinflxag to be in possession of the tea}:
other valuable properties. when s.i.~.tiiat;ion was as stated above, the respondent "if: sgzite of protest by applt. high han%J.y '' 12 trees and a cglaint had to be lodged. VA ___f_!.':nspite of controversy over tho project, the authorities had to verify and re-affirm: rm extent of land requirw for the said 'the notification of aoqlziaition __ _ formation of road as public specifying the nature, purpoége road 'under the project. _I£ 5;-t"'3.s formation of road, only 2 gfintaa or Iafid Qoia be sufficient for layiag <;'i."W to join peripheral "the proposed acqnisition as ianq fi¢§;.od£;oote£§ benefit the 4"' ralP0?3*'1§1_§ which would uxtimatelgf oé§o;t_ in 7un§ogt5 enrichment at the cast of gfiaationing all this, the apexlaotol£;iéd £noflj§¥it petition and inbambm Ordégi 'V of A..:;:;tot11 :a-wqua was also granted. and filed objections. All §?6§~trovarsies were brought out in the coiz-i;_e::i;:i.c\:ni:§t*A13e£o;;'e the learned single Judge. The single Judge by his order dated. '7;9{i2/zees dismissed the writ petition.
8. According to we ollantélaamed single was not justifiacl in d:i.s1ui.s.s.1.ng the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. By placing reliance on annexure--P it is ccmtegdm that aganexure-9 was sent to the 23.3.2005 to umich theme ha been no ggagaggggfa when the ellant was expeeting u 9 annexure-P as the road rushed to the Court when.e'.a3:th6i;*j;{:1.es V trees in the last week H The learned. Judge totaily dfiiiim of this Court in 1975(1) Hg: afia. 295 Qaere personal service of gofijéea asked! Ia. want. The learnefi $i§§£e, du&ge& did not lodk inta the centexationfi _of=._~&:s.¥£;u.e"'-«ebeéification, vague notice, etc. =£he ieagnea éififile Juége was not justified . V. "in "a*-z<.;.'ti'ta'eg "upon ox:aJ. submission cf ::espcn&nt _p6,4 ~ was set aside when it was aer,fii_. £:V.~us;y e: by the eeunsel fox the with these avermants, she sought A w~f_"§Ae££ing aside the orders of the I learned single '7*Jfidae " * . hflfitification the and q1.1ashir:g' of preliminary dated 2/5/1999 and final notification dated 24/6/2003 issued by respondents 1 a 2 for the benefit of IQ"
respondent .
9. The contention of the V' authorities 1 & 2 before the .1ea.'rrnod'_"
2' .
on the appellant as requixéd unae: atctiog 23 11) of the xxan Act and they_§ino gontondod that the writ petition desérxfétdfl 'to on the ground of delay .J:,.a:'-.hIaV.o .1i'..':v.e:{:5 ito say though acquisfitionv initiated in the year ,« the ollant she ow to know of tie atqgitition in the year 2006 and she patition in the year 2006 itself. iH_n§tic¢udu§a§t._section 9 of the 3.3. but was recs' ' appellant. Therefore, oontention
-V of .u{:3::o*v.uap;$ie11ant that no notioe was served was 'i It was further contondaed that when the ézoqixisition pacooeedings have $311 concluded, it not open for her to question the acquisition V proceedings with regard to issuance of notice. was notioa of acquisition 11 on the other hand, they contended. that the records maintained by the 2"" respondent authefiiety would indicate service of notice. .' averments, they had. sought for di.s:aa;i,§;s5?'a~.}, the writ petition .
10. The point tnatv*wa:_;1dV"a;?i.ae aonaiclaeration is:
Whether the otfiers fiingle Judge deserve to be t 11. $»;:.- land for the
entu-el:__ p;ej'feL¢3;_» the public: interest litigatsicnét » petitions cm to be dispeosed "Court pursuant to a final "'judgmenV.'t" V. V5"/mS«[2005 wherein the acquisition ye j e npheld.
The public interest li'£;jo,'§g'.-.:ct;i.-::u§r:1' upto the Apex Court and the Apex _:i.in a. reported judgment dated 20/15/2006 in (2005) 4 sec 683 confirmw. the '." sition proceedings holding that the \m acqtxisition of land for tho purpose of the above said project cannot be found fault with. $2. so far as land owners already stated above and in Division Bench of this acquisition of the land for gait 9:=.'<v>3;e*ct-.2. " "
13. The learned oouiisol _V£oz" '*tlfi1é €a§fpeJ.J.ant re.1.ied_ upon the foiiokinfir in so fax: as servioe of notice is i
1. 19'I€3""'§i1)' I€ar:Is.5J¥"' -» zwmmxx 3.3. 5 ans. wherein it is heid- as' _ _V a*'Tfi_iie:."e';-- opfiortnnity for personal "ha,_;s;_____vnot been affoxded as by s.2s(3), which is _ all proceedings subsequent °'to 't.2é;e;V..i:aaua of notice aura vitiated. Wfimre the notifiaation mentioned x j name of the deceased father though Vi"~_.on that date the sons' names had been "imitated and no notioe was served. on them, the proceedings are vitiated. sexvme of the notiae by a££1xtuxe '*»T on vacant land, instead of service does not amount to V. with 5.28 (2) of the Act."
2. AIR 1973 5:: 552 --
sum or 0.9. mm 0'1-3225;;
" It is Collector did ngt cg;au'sa.e _ $._I..i.c n'o":.ies<;a of the _c>£5 '3j;i'xa"
to be given at" in the wfI1Aezfbe:_:'V.«fthgA"*~bia;;d ";c$ugm-. to be In other wordé ' cwliance part of s~1¢;}';..'-s"ec*?.~t~,.v*:i.'<:.'fiV-~ . 1) " "S_é<§t.1on 4 . Vfnrm 1&1?' as' "s§£.tled by this court . -is '31i<:h". a ' notice under second __o£ §ec.2;:Lc;n 4 (1) is mndatory and that notice is given in _ 2 V with the provisions V tharein the entire adfifiifiition proceedings are vitiatad. x T :may refer in this aonnection to Chaad. Va. The State of Rajasthan (196'?) 1 so 1674. In that case um:
,w% Court pointed out that the object is to give intimation to a person, whoue:."fl _ land is sought to be acquired of » A' intention of the officer to enter land. Under saction 4.~~~(.2}' notice is a. necessary the exax-cine of the " V Non-compliance with ]that°'gmmg1g1e§*w"
makes the entry --._In of?
Mysore Vs. {1§?2} (2.2%. 2351 of 2156.3","M-%1:L:}'éI%_.f1:9"?s (so;
no notices as 4 (1) of thej" " in the 1&9" of about 1!) .... fiuestion for
<:pnsidéi';aatj,_oEn .v_ga.,s _* whether a under section 4 was u"a.._A one This court held that _;;i."n the" ..§:é.oe V" of notification under
-..ase-':;'oti'qn 4 H has presoribed that to publication of a notioe vAV.:'c;fi'"£icia1 gazette the oollwtor m.';.*st_"Ta:lso giva pu:o3..i.city of the sixiaotance of the notification in the V 'A s '_ oohoarnw locality. Unless both these _f5cond.it.:i.oz1s are satisfied seotion 4 of the Act cannot be sale! to have bun complied with. 'rho prurpose behind such 3: notice was that interested persons shculd know that the land. is H being a<::qu:i.red so as to prefer any objections under section 5(1) confers a valuable right." x V
3. AIR 1973 sc 1150 - wnsm sxxsn §,_' UNION OF IRDIA (1994), Ss.5(A) ana.-4-cg.)-"'mg£e wc.:dg:.;;; _ the notification (1;._V1tha'-E. land. is needed for of the area" "__n<:g_t.'. "ati£'.£ic1mt ta satisfy the -
civ.wn::'_1§a..,ss;g"V' i§7i'1_.¢23'- :n}'- 2s---3- .' : Brie£=':'':4¥ete person interested. xinvthe to be acquired Il§1$t"'.h3.?fe "anVAAoppc,rtun1ty to submit his objection he can do only if Végjthe. notEE.£;E,ca.t1<>:1 while mentioning the .f___';au_:;J._~Lc; purpase gives some definite :§.n'c1.;i.ce.tj_.on or particular: of the said " ~y22;'-p'r.>§eA which would Mable the persons abject effectively.
iihere the natifications merely imeizticned that the land was needed for "pJ,a:med development of the arm." and " athez.-e was no proof that the interested "persons were either aware of out were "shown the schw or the master plan in respect of the planned davelcpment, it we; held that the persons were unable to object effectively and thezcetere, Index Note- Land 13$ the acquisition proaeedings were liable to be quashed. AIR 1.954 sc 121'.rj,"»_f'=«_ RBl.Oh.fiIR 1955 SC 1733 and AIR 1960"SCu_""
11.203, bistinguished. civ. wait of 1971 (-2) n/-- 26-3-1968 Reversed." 7 A 14; sectazoa 23(1) of the service of ntzticei tq appellant: there was at: of' her as required under Act.
The learned single to the records :1._byL,_.___:§§§$pondent held notice waai :'t'.:'<'5f'.': Ea also refers: '£6 = K': i Land Acquisitian Officef _ A A. that registered natices »s#n'_1:: mmera of the land .9.-ind .~ , '_ ' Vret.i13:neg_;1___1;n--ae1-wed. is«.Vp§t'tinent to note that it is not juat $111,331: which was the subject _ V-._'é>..*I:"v ""'a<:quisitian, a good number of lands to s be acquirw. including the neighboring According to the illant, as there is no geeirvice of notice under section 28(1) of the Act, he could challenge the proceedings aft; time and at any stage. The fact August and October: actives were .in_a;1_¢.._ iziié appellant. This is not at #ii"':1ér;ieoa _1$1r _tEe '1 appellant. as a matter jot in sent by her on 23.3.2995' she was aware of the __pr<:'><.9.éead.1m_§;': and she even requested t$§- _ to acquire only that exfgezgt :A6£" * requirw .1-without plantation and «. land. She also 3:-equesf-.::§d __ _' to give fresh notice 1ndicat1Q::_;j" éxtent of land. to be aaqt:3.'._3:*af.i3 V this only ind.i.¢at.e that all . A E _ghé_ was... ..... .. 'aware of the acquisition ' A._ she was 2.-fitting the acquire only that extent of land vactually required without disturbing V' wall, etc. one Mr. ILV. Rithy was 'éfluthorised representative of the appellmt " he was working as a Joint secretary to the Governznent of Karnataka. This dated 23/a/zoos was issued through Special. Land Acqtxisition Officer. _ View of the fact that va.s:i*."ml2n§1"..'A acquired for the atoresatd ._ neigaoux-ing lands of " V authorised repneaentativeVAt.w:t§v._non_e fitter' the Joint Secretary t§ -xarnataka, it cannot he saw. _ that of the aaquisitiqnt a mattam of fact, that Qaffn indicate that when tize to the appellant and otiiet-3 1m--servvad on 27/10/1999 with eiid§rsa§ma:ti: they were mt residing "V...;i.1: ware served on the land ":3. also dream in that direatiem. Vt "'i'i:spactox .
It that as per axmexure---I. another notice sent on 16/08/2005. one more notim itsuea on 9/3/2999 fixing' the date of as 28H/2000 through the revenue The villagers infonnad that the 20 alignment of road has to be acquired and not entire 1 acre 34 guntas. The Apex Court has observed as follows:
" {I} Land Acquisition *' Requisitionw Acquisition _ purpose -- Bangjralbzm. A _: Infrastrueture Coz:::'.f;de<>z:' T ~ '; 'l'r63 \\:£w:: .. A . 7] A Acquisition of exgegs 3 from the actual alisgfiaent V. we and periphery,' be' "am; for p-jir;$6»saé-P::駧'j'é'é£ being an }i,ntagra£e«c:- .. L' ' tmctuxe éavelapment pxfej ,' of land my be ..a§wag'V--.£jr:;un}"'the min augment of i'ciad- as acqtlisitian arose from of the t of State the Cowany for execution of the'-irrésjyeat, it would be connected. with
1. paabi-3.96: puxpoae irrespective of Qjfiuation of the .1ana--xaz-natasca =.,_Ind:zstria3. Areas Development Act, 1966 (13 of nice), 83. 2:5), ('7-3.} -- Lam Acqtzisition Act, 1894, S.4{1}'"' 22 Under the circunwtanoes discussed aflzoove, Judge was justified in saying that * aware of the acquisition pzooeodinxjfit " V""a.3:'.ongV_V K '' but wa:L'ted till zees to F Therefore, the learned. simfie in saying that the 1v.V9'76 (1) xar.::...:r. 299 will ' 'téfthe aid' of the appellant in acquisition proceedings .; " ' t * 17__._'1'h:3V ':'::+s.:-'$:g,1_: V Wfgzatxzarhv:-'t't'v."é;?xo:"Vtpagffiitg f of an award beyond 2 years wéouid way of acquisition of land? ~ _ _VV18.'«.Vcofmi,_ng to the question of passing of two years, placing reliance on aeotd.o1:x'"i3;'1?~A loomed oorunsel £03: tho appellant the following decisions:
. " AIR 1998 so 1334 -- mmzxmm ma: omms V'. S'.'€A"i'E O? KAQQAZEAKA 31% Offikfi; 1* .3 24 applicabla having regard. to swtion 30 and sub- smtion (5) of section 28 of KIA!) Act. 3'4 brought to the notiae of the Bench decision in 200'? AIR scw was mfie to section 11-AV on lapaingr of the a.cquisi*lV:i<;i:1'i~~._%»o£' results in owner of the right in the siabatantive 'right a.x::<:rued_"t9 land. The questigzéripfiv "%I'.x: %¢a:_:*e %'}V referenae to due»- resarvaitibn Vof Maharashtra Regional and Brawn '¥'34.. a.n.*1i'ng'A'.§§:i:...'~*'Lwith reference to seations \___126_" pf The said flisiosx does not of the present case.
7 "'22.' .5'.-erexrad to in tm daaisions of this '._couri: ..£epo4:ted in mm 2091 Rat. 638 am 2002 xcm ". <3.32;2- xéferred to supra, judmant of the Apex dad;-£ in the case of sarmmm PRBSAB .3313 vs "sitar; or 3.9. um: 3.993 5:: 2517) and mm vs 21.3 Learned counsel for the straw or RA-3?nS'.I.'B1!.1~'£ {AIR 1996 so 1295) field so far as section 11--A of the I...&. reference to KIA!) Act. Therefore, t in the case of Satendra «vcnxlt cl clear that section 11--AV is the land has already' .:Ln., 't;né,""'st;te " ' enactment yrovides _ there is no provision :Eor_:Vr+aver.:3i6n".to the land. owner. {SQ KIA!) Ant, the land. vggtt t on the 9 éeclaration Hence none of the Aiasétanéz-at passing of an award or tjakigzg ufi>¢,:suseas'si.é>n tc>f the lané are ccanditiona . for in the State t.
,~ taken in Pratap's case by the coux~v_.'i;"i..'_tiaa1: section 11»--A of the 1..A. act will 'r__not oncse the land vest: in the state evan if award. is ant passed is to the present case. In View ofi the diacmssion, contention qf the tllant 26 that non--passing* of an award wxthin tvm would mice the entire acquisition V. under section 11-2. of the x..A. Act . would not mama to the aiis;k.«sta';:cc_e appellant .
23. Then coming to the learned counsel for: '~~3;he that in View of 1mon~se:::sa;:'V.c;:ie:' question czf delay and the way cf %11an!: v"'4'5f=L~'é-'¢;;t1iiai1iion as she was aware in the year 2005.
He '--; discretion of the court in a r@onab1e manner on and ~ He relied won ILR 2eo_ é . 1a.72 --» sax. aovmn mrsmmnao nasapmzns Arm ormns counsel for the responclwts AIR 1984 St: 1629 ---- mm: 511133 Am . v. STATE or 10.9. 5 o-1-mks.
25. The said deaisions are perused. '26. In the present case, more than 1000 acres of land came to be acquired for the in question. :1: is not in neighbouring lands of the $113111: "
be acquired. If the j;i'.'fl_ visiting the place as development and 6.€__ plantation, such ptx:sposi;iio:;a; of lands including her to her not:.ic:e .' """ was the burning topic . Bangalore, when the neighbmaiingr - 3.a3nd1§" '«.._"-iweraa also notified. for acq3.13;sj.ft;i9n, i"t._i_§_.di££ic111t to bali-ave that the v: is~'1:_s_:> was visiting the said place not aware of the proposal of V _ ac:q ii.i.si.i::ic-xi' in the year 1999 itself. in a uattea:
stha:m is nothing on reaorcl ta about that . 5add.ress of the %1.J.ant as shown in the ...rr$present:at;!.on givan by the appellant as per V' annexuz.-as L S M was gt Jmown to the authoxiues 28 at the time of issuing notice aontglated under section 28 (2) of the Act. It is not the case of the appellant that her 311?. Hagar addresq disclosed in any of the revenue the dtails furnished in the revan§@tfi¢¢§2§.;.; i.e. 22s., the notices wbuld be ;sgfigd;» In gs; f prdbability the xegisteraq_1et£a§s_mustf:§ve*Seént' sent to Talaagatapura villatgail Evan ._ivha_"z*:f. notice was tried to big "ttirzajzqh ' xnspector and the t' 'M the villagers .-Ln.£c~J'.'nmd:: _ V_ s were not residiiag ._i1:x 'V ' V - ._ yrillage . The concerned author.-itiefi . havé 'fipains to see that the not.i.c;e" jvas 'V the wpellant in «very ."Vpos§ii:»IaéA viayf. the absence of material that Elttrtfg .3'.P. Hagar was well within the 'the concaexned authorities, it has to helcfthat the known address with reference to ":it11Ve:t""~«_.situation of the land was ralagatapura ' village and the concerned authorities have tried best to see that such service of notice was executed. on the appellant. when such efforts were not fmxitful they affixed the notice land and a mahazar was drawn ta Therefore, the respondent authorities; found fault with for :ao:1~»aerv:%_:.ce §f 2'7. Even othervriae,"t__.i.-3; 2005, she was aware «-.t_;av.cqtvzV3l.s1tion pxraaeedings as shat ' Segt a. reply in Aug. 2005. However she did not choose to A proceedings.
At interest litigation :"'a;1d"_ thvjett trade by other land. owners raaultteci - étfitphxgiding the acquisition the appellant cannot be at this belated stage that the are bad in law and V".'-:.%ia?jV.c:+1a.ts.x}se ~§£ ~ 'fjaxiaciples of natural justma. angle, the d:l.a:a.i.sxal oi.' the writ the laamed single Judge we: not any interference and in viaw of the