IMPORTANT POINT
Failure on the part of revenue authorities to make entry in the register of mutation in favour of subsequent owner would not render the acquisition proceedings bad in law on account of non-issuance of notice inviting objections to the acquisition proceedings or service thereof.

Headnote:Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966-Section 28-Notification under, acquiring inter alia land of the appellant-Challenged in writ petition-Dismissed by Single Judge-Affirmed by D.B. in appeal-Appeal to Supreme Court-Contention of appellant that mandatory requirement for the declaration of the industrial area as well as issuance of show cause notice to the appellant to file objections has not been complied with-Whether has any force? (No)-Appeal dismissed.
       Held : In the circumstances, there can be no legal objection in all the three processes provided under Sections 1(3), 3(1) and 28 (1) of the Act being accomplished together by publication, on which only the exercise of power could be said to have been made. The simultaneous issue of the three notifications therefore does not constitute a flaw much less one which can render the acquisition proceedings legally bad or void. (Para 10)
       Held further : Admittedly, the appellant had not got his name entered in the revenue records as owner or occupant of the said land and therefore he could not complain about non-service of notice on him nor about the failure to grant a hearing to him. Contention that as per provision of Land Revenue Act there was no obligation on his part to either inform the revenue authorities about the sale in his favour or to request them to transfer the katha in his name cannot stand as it has not been brought on record with reference to any pleadings with supporting documents that in fact the appellant had made payment for making the necessary entries in the record of rights and the register in his name at the time of registration of the sale deed in his favour. This apart failure to make entries on the part of the revenue authorities by itself would not cast any obligation on the authorities under the Act to make a roving enquiry and try to locate an owner who may have subsequently purchased the land from the previous owner. Failure on the part of the revenue authority to make entry in the register of mutation in favour of the subsequent owner would not render the acquisition proceedings bad in law on account of non-issuance of notice inviting objections to the acquisition proceedings or service thereof. (Para 13)
       Held finally : For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. (Para 14)

JUDGMENT

Bhan, J.-The instant appeal seeks to assail the judgment and order dated 1st February, 2001 passed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No. 570 of 2001, (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order ) upholding the order of the Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the acquisition proceedings initiated under The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") including Survey No. 6 (with which the appellant is concerned) measuring 1 acre 30 guntas. The appellant is aggrieved not only with the acquisition proceedings but also with the manner in which the acquisition proceedings have been commenced and proceeded with under the Act. According to him the mandatory requirements for the declaration of the industrial area as well as issuance of a show cause notice to the appellant to file objections have not been complied with.

2. Before adverting to the points raised in this appeal it would be necessary to enumerate the basic facts, which are as under:

On 10th February, 1993 appellant purchased land ad-measuring 1 acre 30 guntas bearing Survey No.6 by registered sale deed located at Krishna Sagar village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District from Khujam and Rahmath Shariff. According to the appellant he was put in possession of the said land from the date of sale. However, his name was not shown in the revenue record as the land had not been mutated in his name in the record. The name of one Jacob who had sold the land to the Vendor of the appellant is shown in the revenue record.

3. The said land and surrounding lands were acquired for the purpose of industrial development under preliminary notification dated 3rd October, 1997 (Gazetted on 30th October, 1997) issued under Section 28 (1) of the Act and final declaration dated 21st April, 1998 (Gazetted on 23rd April, 1998) issued under Section 28(4) of the Act.

4. Appellant being aggrieved by the acquisition proceedings filed the writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed by the Single Judge by his order dated 21st November, 2000. The writ appeal against the said order has been dismissed by the impugned order.

5. Section 1 of the Act gives the short title, extent and commencement of the provisions of the Act. Sub-Section (3) of Section 1 stipulates that the Act shall come into force at once, except Chapter VII, which shall come into force in such areas and from such date as the State Government may by notification specify in that behalf. Section 27 of Chapter VII literally reproduces the said provisions and states that the provisions of the said Chapter shall apply to such areas and from such dates as may be notified by the State Government under sub-section (3) of Section 1. Section 3 relates to declaration of industrial areas and empowers the State Government to declare any area in the State to be an industrial area for purposes of the Act. Section 28(1) empowers the State Government to give notice of its intention to acquire such land as may in its opinion be required for the purposes of development by the Board or for any other purpose in furtherance of the objects of the Act. Section 28(2) requires on publication of a notification in sub-section (1), that the State Government shall serve notice upon the owner or where the owner is not the occupier, on the occupier of the land and on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein to show cause, within thirty days from the date of service of the notice, why the land should not be acquired. Sub-clause (3) provides that after considering the cause, if any, shown by the owner of the land and by any other person interested therein, and after giving such owner and person an opportunity of being heard, the State Government may pass such orders as it deems fit. Section 28(4) provides that after passing of the orders under sub-section (3) where the State Government is satisfied that a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 408

IMPORTANT POINTFailure on the part of revenue authorities to make entry in the register of mutation in favour of subsequent owner would not render the acquisition proceedings bad in law on account of non-issuance of notice inviting objections to the acquisition proceedings or service thereof.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Failure on the part of revenue authorities to make entry in the register of mutation in favour of subsequent owner would not render the acquisition proceedings bad in law on account of non-issuance of notice inviting objections to the acquisition proceedings or service thereof.