VIJAYA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by four petitioners under Arts.226- and 227 of the Constitution of India, (it ought reajtly to be under Art.226 only).

(2.) The petitioners are expropriated ryots. Certain lands comprising of wet, dry and coffee, belonging to them and situated in Narasimharaja- pura, were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. They were paid compensation in accordance with the terms of that Act. In addition, placing reliance on Rule 43 (D) (2) of the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, I960, they claimed alternative land. The total extent of the land lost by them was about 63 acres, on account of the submersion by Bhadra Project. On the basis of the aforesaid Rule 43 (D) (2), they claimed nearly 231 acres of dry land in all. It is relevant to mention that the four petitioners had separately owned the lands and had made separate claims both before the Land Acquisition Officer and also before the authority competent to grant lands. However, on a consideration of circumstances such as the availability of land and their nature, the authority granted them lands aggregating to an extent of 127 acres for an upset price. Aggrieved by the said order, on the ground that it was inadequate and contrary to R.43(D) (2), the petitioners approached the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called the MRAT.), in appeals Nos.649 to 652 of 1968. The said Tribunal, without analysing Rule 43 (D) (2) and interpreting it, accepted the appeal and remanded the matter with a direction to this effect :

(3.) Thereafter, the matter was pursued by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner concerned and certain recommendations were made to the Government, as the proposed grant was clearly beyond their jurisdiction. The Government refused to accord approval to those proposals specifically on the ground that the petitioners had received compensation, justly due to them as per the Land Acquisition Act and also had been granted sufficient lands. Hence, the petitioners have approached this Court, requesting for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to obey the order made by MRAT in the aofresaid appeals and to implement the order of the Deputy Commissioner produced in the file as Exhibit B.