Smt. Mallamma and Others vs The Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore - 560001, The Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District, Hassan and The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hemavathi Reservoir Project (Holenarasipura), Deputy Commissioner''s Office, Hassan

Ashok B. Hinchigeri

Sri Venkatesh Dodderi, the learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for the respondents,

Sri H.N. Shashidhara, the Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners'' house properties in question are rendered unfit for human habitation on account of the seepage of water from Hemavathi Reservoir Project. He submits that the similarly placed house properties are already acquired and the compensation is paid to their owners. However, although the preliminary notification was issued in respect of the petitioners'' properties, the final notification is nut issued and the award is not passed. He submits that all the people from Makavalli Koppal Village are evacuated.

Urging these submissions, Sri H.N. Shashidhara requests that the acquisition proceedings are to be completed pursuant to the preliminary notification, dated 9.1.1993.

The preliminary notification is admittedly issued on 9.1.1993. As per the embargo contained in Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, no final notification shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the preliminary notification, Therefore, the question of directing the respondents to issue the final notification based on the preliminary notification, dated 9.1.1993 would not arise at all. Such a direction, if given would run contrary to law. As far as initiating the acquisition proceedings afresh is concerned, the matter falls within the eminent domain of the State. In exercise of the power conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not direct the State Government either to acquire or not to acquire any land compulsorily.

It is for the State Government to consider the petitioners'' grievance contained in the representations, dated 18.12.2007, 12.7.2010 and 15.12.2010 (Annexures - Q, S and T respectively) without any further loss of time. If the petitioners'' lands are rendered unusable and if the similarly placed house properties in the Village are acquired by the Government and the compensation is paid to them, the Government has to also consider the cases of the petitioners meaningfully and responsively.

With these observations, these petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.