V K KANGAN Vs. STATE OF MYSORERESENTED
LAWS(KAR)-1966-10-12
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Decided on October 06,1966

V.K.KANGAN Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MYSORE REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

S P SUBRAMANYA SHETTY VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MERCARA [LAWS(KAR)-1990-1-11] [DISTINGUSHED]


JUDGEMENT

Somnath Iyer, J. - (1.)In this Writ Petition thirteen persons whose lands were proposed to be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act call in question the acquisition proceedings which commenced with a preliminary notification published in the Mysore Gazette on June 23, 1960. There was an enquiry made under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, and that that enquiry was made, is established beyond doubt, although the petitioners contend that that enquiry was not made. From the record made available to us by Mr. Doddakalegowda, the learned Government Pleader, it transpires that the Deputy Commissioner did make the enquiry pursuant to which he made to the State Government two reports. The first he made on February 4, 1961 and the second on February 2, 1962. The real report under Section 5A is the report submitted on February 2, 1962. In the earlier report which he made on February 4, 1961 he did not make any recommendation on the objections of the petitioners but merely pointed out that on account of the pendency of another Writ Petition which was then pending before this Court, he considered it "objectionable" to make those recommendations which he was required to make by Section 5A.
(2.)On behalf of the petitioners Mr. K. R. D. Karanth, their learned Advocate, contends that even if it transpires from the records that the enquiry enjoined by Section 5A was indeed held, the final notification which was published on November 1, 1962 is invalid in consequence of disobedience to Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act as it stands amended by Mysore Act XVII of 1961 which came into force on August 24, 1961. His contention is that that amendment had come into force by February 2, 1962 when the Deputy Commissioner made his real report under Section 5A, and that in consequence, it was his imperative duty under the provisions of that amended section to communicate to the petitioners the fact of his having submitted the report to the Government. Since it is not disputed that that communication was not sent to the petitioners by the Deputy Commissioner, Mr. K. R. D. Karantli contends that there was a deprivation of an opportunity to which the petitioners were in law entitled, to make further representations to the State Government against the acceptance of the Deputy Commissioner's recommendations, and that the final notification under Section 6 which was not preceded by an opportunity to make those representations became invalid.
(3.)The further submission made by Mr. Karanth was that it was not possible in the circumstances, to which we shall presently refer, for the Deputy Commissioner to pronounce upon the existence of a public purpose or upon the validity of the objections proffered by the petitioners, unless that question was considered in the context of the proposal to acquire another 127 sub-divisions which formed the subject matter of another acquisition proceeding which came up before this Court for scrutiny in Writ Petn. No. 768 of 1960 (Mys).


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.