MADIAH Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a owner of a land bearing Survey No. 10 in Bilidale Village, Kanakapura Taluka. He has questioned the validity of two notifications issued by the Government under Ss.4 and 6 of the Land Acauisition Act (referred to as the Act) . Copies of these Notifications have been produced along with the petition and marked as Exts. C and H. Exhibit C is the Notification issued under S. 4 bearing No. RD 11 AQB 67 dated21-2-1967 published in the Mvsore Gazette on 6th of July 1967. Exhibit H is the Notification under S.6. issued pursuant to the Notification Exhibit-C, bearing No.RD 589 AQB 69. dated 7th February 1970, and the date of publication in the Mysore Gazette is not indicated in the said Exhibit.

(2.) Shri T.R.Subbanna. the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, urged the following contentions: (i) That the Government, having withdrawn from acquisition as can be seen from Ext.F, which is a letter addressed by the Secretary to the Government of Mvsore, Revenue Department, to the Deputy Commissioner. Bangalore District and dated 21-3-1969. should have issued a fresh Notification under S.4. of the Land Acquisition Act, instead of following up the earlier Notification Exhibit C by the issue of a Notification under R.6 of the Act. Hence the present proceedings are invalid and both the Notifications are liable to be quashed; (ii)That the fact of having sent up a report to the Government under S.5A(2) of the Act, not having been intimated to the petitioner, the Notification under S.6, stands vitiated; and (iii) That the Government, not having afforded the petitioner an opportunity of a personal hearing in support of his petition under S.15A of the Acquisition Act, the Notification under S. 6 would be invalid.

(3.) We are unable to accept anv of the above contentions. In regard to the first contention of the learned counsel, reliance is placed on Ext. 'F', which is a letter addressed to the Deputy Commissioner by the Secretary to the Government It is no doubt true that the said communication refers to the dropping of the acquisition proceedings accompanied with a request to the Deputy Commissioner to take such steps as may be necessary for the cancellation "of the present Notification issued under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act. In our opinion, this communication 'ex facie' does not indicate that such dropping of proceedings was ordered at the instance of the petitioner, nor is it a communication addressed to the petitioner putting him on notice of such dropping of proceedings. It is a part of the correspondence between the two officers of the Government and no reliance can be placed by the petitioner on the contents thereof. On this part of the submission, Shri Subbanna, the learned counsel, also relied on a judgment of this Court in WP. 2167 of 1964 pronounced on 7-2-1967. It is no doubt laid down therein that S.48 of the Land Acquisition Act did not expressly enjoin the issuance of a Notification for a cancellation of the Notification issued under S.4 of the Act. But this decision will not be of any assistance to the petitioner, in view of the fact that subsequent to the proceedings concerned in the said writ petition, rules have been framed under the Land Acquisition Act, in" the year 1965. Rule 8 (b) of the said rules lays down that "when the Government decides that all or any' land possession whereof has not) been taken should not be acquired, a notification cancelling the notification issued under S. 4, shall be published by the Government." It is, therefore, clear from the above statutory prescription that any cancellation of Notification for acquisition can onlv be done by a fresh Notification issued under S.48 of the Act read with Rule 8(b) of the Rules. There is no such Notification in the instant case. This view is also supported by a decision of the Madras High Court in Khan Bhahadur Chowkaram Kelath Mammad Koyi v. Province of Madras, AIR 1946 Mad 450.