BALAKRISHNA, J, J. ( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions are directed against the notification of acquisition dated 19-11-1983 bearing No. RHS (2) 242/76-77 acquiring the land belonging to the petitioners. Since common questions of facts and law are involved, these writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are as follows : in W P. No. 17476/84, the petitioner is one of the Archaks of the deity Sri anjaneya Devaru of Byrasettyhalli, Nelamangala taluk. Bangalore District. Sy. No. 68 of the said village consists of 3 acres 29 guntas of dry land. The petitioner is stated to be in possession and enjoyment of only 27 guntas of the said survey number. According to the petitioner, the lands were regranted to him and to others by the Land Tribunal, Nelamangala Taluk under Certificate of Registration of tenancv issued under Section 55 (1) of the karntaka Land Reforms Act. Out of sy No. 68, a total extent of 2 acres including the land of the petitioner measuring 27 guntas were notified for acquisition by the Deputy Commissioner, bangalore District, under preliminary notification no. RHS (2) 242/76-77 dated 25-1-1977 issued under Section 2 (1) of the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for grant of House sites Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). ( 3 ) IN W P No. 18670/84 the petitioner is another Archsk of Sri Anjaneya devaru of Byrasettyhalli, Nelamangala taluk, Bangalore District. This petitioner also claims that lands were regranted to him and others by the Land Tribunal, nelamangala Taluk under Certificate of registration of tenancy issued under section 55 (1) of the Karnataka Land reforms Act. ( 4 ) IN both the cases, the petitioners filed their statement of objections before the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Both the petitioners wars represented by a common Counsel in both (he cases. Thereafter, an enquiry was held by the special Land Acquisition Officer and a report was submitted to the State Government after considering the report of the Special Land Acquisition Officer The deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, issued the final notification of acquisition the legality and correctness of which is challenged in these writ petitions. ( 5 ) THE question for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled to a certiorari to quash the impugned notification. ( 5 ) THE question for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled to a certiorari to quash the impugned notification. ( 6 ) THE contention common to both the petitioners is that the Special Land acquisition Officer did not afford a reasonable opportunity to further cross. examine the witness during the course of the enquiry and, instead, proceeded to pass orders and that, therefore, there is denial of natural justice. Elaborating this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that a specific plea was taken in the statement of objections filed before the Special Land Acquisition officer that lands had been acquired in sy. No. 20 of the village and sites had been formed for distribution to the siteless, but these sites remained undistributed and as such, the necessity to acquire the lands of the petitioners is obviated. ( 7 ) ON examination of the records and in particular the order passed by the deputy Commissioner while referring to the report submitted by the, Special Land acquisition Officer, I noticed the fact that there is no reference at all to the objection raised by the petitioners before the Special Land Acquisition Officer in writing regarding the availability of sites in Sv. No. 20 in lieu of which it was not justifiable to acquire ths lands of the petitioners. I also find from the records that there is non-compliance with the requirements of the mandatory provisions of law inasmuch as there is no specific finding in relat on to at least one of the important objections raised by the petitions rs to which I have adverted earlier and there is no determination as to whether that objection is admissible or not admissible. ( 8 ) REGARDING the question raised by the petitioners that the Special Land acquisition Officer ought to have afforded further opportunity for cross-examination of the witness since on that particular day the cross examination was taken at 3 P M. and went on till 6 P. M. and, therefore, the Counsel appearing for the petitioners was suffering from fatigue and unable to proceed further as a result of which he sought an adjournment It is no doubt true that the learned Counsel who appeared before the Special Land acquisition Officer had promptly attended the enquiry at 11 AM. and was there before him upto 6 P M. whereas ihe case was taken up actually at 3 P. M. and ended at 6 P M. during which time the counsel for the petitioners had the opportunity of cross examining the witness. I have also seen fiom the records that 46 questions have been put in cross examination. But in the opinion of the Counsel and in his discretion, he wanted to put some more questions ; but he was tired on that day and he sought an adjournment. It is not the case of the respondents that the witness also was not tired and, therefore, adjournment was rot necessary. However, it may be made clear that to ray that there is violation of natural justice Because or denial of opportunity for further cross examination does not appear to be reasonable. The right to cross examination was conceded, but the request sought for further cross examination was declined and, therefore, basically there is no denial of a reasonable opportunity to cross examine the witness. Unless there is a total denial, it cannot be said that there is violation of principles of natural justice i must add that there has been a substantial compliance with the requirements of natural justice by allowing the Counsel to put 46 questions in cross examination. I am also inclined to believe that the witness was more tired than the Counsel having faced a barrage of 46 questions in the course of cross examination However, that is not the case of the respondents. ( 9 ) NOW with regard to the non- compliance with the requirements of law, there is every reason to hold that the special Land Acquisition Officer has not acted in accordance with the requirements of Rule 8 of the Karnataka Acquisition of lands for grant of House Sites Rules, 1973. The said rule reads :"on completion of the enquiry, the assistant Commissioner shall consider the objections and the statements filed under sub-rule (2) of rule 6 and the evidence recorded and shall as expeditiously as possible submit his report and recommendations as to each objection, whether admissible or inadmissible, for the orders of the State Government under sub-section (3) of section 3. " ( 10 ) A mere casual look at this provision of law would indicate in unmistakable language that there is a special onus cast on the Assistant Commissioner to meet each and every objections raised by the objectors and, after considering the objections and the evidence recorded, determine whether or not each of the objections is admissible before seeking the orders of the State Government under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act. This is one of the money cases in which the Assistant Commissioners have failed to notice the mandate of law under Rule 8 and have restored to summary dispcsal of land acquisition matters by submitting summary reports without due compliance with the several requirements imposed on them under Rule 8. A lapse on the part of the Asst. Commissioners in this regard would result in not only in unnecessary litigative entailing loss of time and resulting, but also defeat the purpose for which the Act was brought into force. The instant cases relate to the acquisition made in the year 1977 and these writ petitions were filed in 1984 and arebeing disposed of in 1988. The facts speak for themselves. It would not be too harsh to observe thet it is a sad commentary on the performarce of the duties and functions by the Assistant Commissioner at least in this case. The care and caution expected of a reasonable and prudent person could prevent such lapses. ( 11 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated above, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned final notification is quashed with liberty to the Special land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, to hold a fresh enquiry, consider and submit his report on the question whether land was acquired in Sy No 20 of Byrassttyhalli, nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore district and whether the sites formed in the acquired land have been distributed to the siteless as required under the Act, the enquiry should continue from where it had been stopped on the earlier occasion, writ petitions allowed. --- *** --- .