LAW FOR ALL

the question of consideration of the objections which were not filed does not arise. In view of the findings recorded by the High Court that a perusal of the record disclosed that objections were filed by the Respondent and were not considered, we summoned and examined the relevant record carefully. The minutes of the meeting of Hubli-Dharwad Urban Development Authority held on 06.02.2002 was filed as Annexure P-2 along with the written submissions of the Appellant. The recommendations of the Chairman of the Hubli-Dharwad Urban Development Authority for acquisition of lands of Byridevana Koppa Village were discussed in the said meeting. The First Respondent’s land was part of the total extent of 54 acres and 39 guntas of land which was sought to be acquired for the housing scheme. It was stated in the minutes that objections filed by the landowners/interested persons of the lands included in the Notification issued under Section 17(3) of the Act were considered by the Chairman of the Hubli-Dharwad Urban Development Authority. It is clear from the said minutes that out of 19 blocks of land which were acquired, landowners of only 10 blocks filed their objections which were considered. Survey No. 311/A/1 does not find place in the said 10 blocks. A draft award dated 31.01.2005 was also placed on record by the Appellant in which the names of the landholders/ landowners whose lands were acquired and who filed objections were given. The Respondent’s name does not find place in the said list of persons who had submitted their objections. The High Court has committed an error in holding that the First Respondent filed his objections which were not considered. A Panchnama was filed by the Appellant to show that possession of the land was taken on 02.09.2005 in the presence of five Panchas. A Notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the Karnataka State Gazette on 21.12.2005. It is no more res integra that a Notification issued under Section 16 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall be evidence of the fact that possession was taken, though not conclusive. - The First Respondent is also guilty of taking contradictory stands in the matter of possession. We see no reason to doubt the Panchnama evidencing taking over of possession. In addition, the Notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the Gazette. Any attempt made by the First Respondent to show that he is still in possession is of no avail. In view of the above, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the Appeal is allowed.