P. VISHWANATHA SHETTY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, in this petition, is the owner of land bearing Survey nos. 1/1 measuring 19 guntas and 1/2 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas, situated in Haludodderi, Taluk Shira, Tumkur District. ( 2 ) IN this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the preliminary notification dated 14th of April, 1988, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-A, issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and the final notification dated 2nd of february, 1994, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-B, issued under sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act, proposing to acquire the lands, referred to above, belonging to the petitioner. ( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that he is a small holder having only the lands in question in his possession and he is entirely depending upon the said lands for his livelihood. It is his further case that he has developed the major portion of the said lands by installing a bore-well and developed a coconut garden and tamarind trees. It is his further case that he is residing in a house situated in a portion of the lands in question. ( 4 ) SRI G. G. Shastry, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, challenged the impugned notifications on three grounds. Firstly, he submitted that the lands in question are not required for allotment of house sites to the weaker sections of the society as sought to be made out, as the need for house sites had already been satisfied; and, therefore, the lands in question are not required for any public purpose. Secondly, he submitted that the impugned notification Annexure-B came to be passed without considering the objections filed by the petitioner and without conducting necessary enquiry as prescribed under law. Elaborating this submission, Sri Shastry submits that the petitioner had no notice of the alleged spot inspection said to have been conducted on 17th of September, 1993 and, therefore, it was not permissible for the respondents to rely upon the spot inspection held in the absence of the petitioner and on that basis, proceed to acquire the lands belonging to the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that the entire enquiry held is in disregard to the mandatory provisions contained in sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act. Thirdly, he submitted that the enquiry held is also in disregard of Rules 6 and 8 of the Rules framed under the Act. He points out that sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Rules provides that as soon as the objections were filed by the petitioner, a copy of the same must be sent to the Block development Officer and his reply thereto is required to be obtained by the Assistant Commissioner. He also points out that sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the Rules requires that in the presence of the petitioner on the date fixed for hearing, the Assistant Commissioner should hear the Block development Officer. He submits that in the present case, the copy of the objections filed by the petitioner has not been forwarded to the Block development Officer and he was also not heard; and, therefore, he submits that the impugned notification is liable to be quashed. In support of this submission, Sri Shastry relied upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of Ganga Birappa v State of Karnataka , Kunne Gowda v deputy Commissioner, Mysore and Others , and Archak Rangachar v deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District and Others. Finally, the learned Counsel would submit that adjacent to the lands belonging to the petitioner, there is 1 acre 7 guntas of land in Survey No. 96 belonging to the State Government and there is yet another land to an extent of 12 acres in Survey No. 46 belonging to the State Government, which are more suitable for the purpose of allotment of house sites to the weaker sections of the people, if any, in the village. He submits that the proceedings were initiated for acquisition of the lands in question on account of local political considerations; and, therefore, the acquisition of the lands suffers from mala fides. He submits that if the fully developed lands of the petitioner wherein the petitioner is residing, is acquired, the petitioner will be put to untold hardship and it will seriously affect his right to livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of india. ( 5 ) SRI A. S. Mahesh, learned Government Advocate, strongly supports the impugned notifications. He submits that if the fully developed lands of the petitioner wherein the petitioner is residing, is acquired, the petitioner will be put to untold hardship and it will seriously affect his right to livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of india. ( 5 ) SRI A. S. Mahesh, learned Government Advocate, strongly supports the impugned notifications. He submits that after giving an opportunity to the petitioner and after fully complying with the procedure prescribed under law, the impugned notifications have been issued. He also disputes the assertion made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not notified of the spot inspection held by the third respondent. The learned Government Advocate referred to me the order-sheet of 28th of August, 1993 wherein the petitioner's signature is found, and submitted that the order-sheet shows that the spot inspection was held on 10th at 11-00 a. m. He points out that the petitioner and one another person have signed the order-sheet. He also drew my attention to the statements made in the Statement of Objections. He submitted that the objections filed by the petitioner has been considered by the third respondent and after consideration of the objections, the third respondent recommended to the Deputy Commissioner for acquisition of the lands in question and thereafter, the impugned notification Annexure-B came to be issued. ( 6 ) I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this petition for reasons more than one. It is not disputed by the learned government Advocate that the copy of the objections filed by the petitioner was not forwarded to the Block Development Officer to enable him to submit his reply to the objections filed by the petitioner. The learned Government Advocate is also unable to dispute on the basis of the records, that the Block Development Officer was not heard by the third respondent. As pointed out by Sri Shastry, sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Rules requires that a copy of the objections filed by the person interested in the land under acquisition is required to be forwarded to the Block Development Officer to seek his reply to the said objections raised by such person. As pointed out by Sri Shastry, sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Rules requires that a copy of the objections filed by the person interested in the land under acquisition is required to be forwarded to the Block Development Officer to seek his reply to the said objections raised by such person. Further, sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the Rules also requires that on the date of the enquiry fixed, the third respondent should hear the objector or his Advocate and record evidence which may be adduced in support of the objections. The said sub-rule further provides that the Block Development Officer also should be heard by the third respondent. Rule 8 of the rules provides that on completion of the enquiry, the third respondent should consider the objections filed by the person interested in the land under acquisition and also the statement filed under sub-rule (2) thereof by the Block Development Officer and forward his recommendations on consideration of each of the objections, for necessary orders of the Government under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act. In the instant case, as noticed by me earlier, the copy of the objections filed by the petitioner was not forwarded to the Block Development officer. Therefore, the third respondent did not have the reply or the opinion of the Block Development Officer in the matter of acquisition or otherwise of the lands in question. Further, sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 also provides for hearing of the Block Development Officer. In my view, since the objections filed by the petitioner were not forwarded to the block Development Officer and his reply thereto was not obtained and he was also not heard by the third respondent, it vitiates the recommendation made by the third respondent proposing to acquire the lands in question. No doubt, as pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, on 28th of August, 1993, after hearing the petitioner, the case was fixed for spot inspection on 10th. It is necessary to quote the relevant portion of the said order-sheet, which reads as hereunder: 28-9-1993: from the order-sheet extracted above, it is not possible to make out on 10th of which month, the spot inspection was fixed by the third respondent. However, the learned Government Advocate submits that the spot inspection, under the circumstances, must be held to have been fixed on 10th of September, 1993. However, the learned Government Advocate submits that the spot inspection, under the circumstances, must be held to have been fixed on 10th of September, 1993. Even if the said submission is accepted, the spot inspection was not held on 10th of September, 1993. On the other hand, the order-sheet maintained by the third respondent shows that the spot inspection was held on 17th of September, 1993 in the absence of the petitioner. It is useful to extract the order-sheet of 18th of September, 1993, which reads as hereunder: 18-9-1993: i am inclined to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had no notice of the spot inspection held by the third respondent. Therefore, it was not permissible for the third respondent to rely upon certain facts, which had been collected by him behind the back of the petitioner. As pointed out by me earlier, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has developed a major portion of the lands in question as a garden land and he is residing in a portion thereof. If the petitioner was notified of the spot inspection and it was held in his presence, he could have persuaded the third respondent with regard to the age of the coconut trees standing on the lands in question and that the land in question should not be acquired for the purpose of formation of house sites to the weaker sections of the society. Further, if the objections filed by the petitioner were forwarded to the Block Development Officer, the Block Development Officer would have inspected the lands and submitted his report with regard to the developments made by the petitioner on the lands in question. Therefore, the procedural irregularity committed by the third respondent seriously affects the property right of the petitioner. Further, from the order passed by the second respondent, it is seen that he has only proceeded to accept the recommendation made by the third respondent. Therefore, the procedural irregularity committed by the third respondent seriously affects the property right of the petitioner. Further, from the order passed by the second respondent, it is seen that he has only proceeded to accept the recommendation made by the third respondent. Rule 8 of the rules requires that the second respondent should apply his mind independently to the objections filed by the person interested in the land under acquisition and also the statement, if any, submitted by the Block Development Officer and consider each of the objections and then forward his report/recommendation to the Government for the purpose of issuing the notification as provided under sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Act. From the records, I find that the whole procedure followed by the second respondent is illegal. Therefore, the entire acquisition proceedings commencing from the enquiry held by the third respondent is liable to be quashed. However, since the preliminary notification is dated. 14th of april, 1988 and the record also discloses that the petitioner has developed the lands by raising coconut garden; and till now, no steps were taken to get the interim order vacated, I am of the view that it would be in the interest of justice to quash the preliminary notification also, reserving liberty to the Authorities to initiate fresh proceedings for the acquisition of the lands in question in accordance with law, if they so desire. ( 7 ) IN the light of the discussion made above, the writ petition is allowed and the preliminary notification Annexure-A dated 14th of April, 1988 and the final notification Annexure-B dated 2nd of February, 1994 are hereby quashed. Rule issued is made absolute. However, no order is made as to costs. ( 8 ) SRI A. S. Mahesh, learned Government Advocate, is permitted to file his memo of appearance within four weeks from today. --- *** --- .