Judgment

RAY, C. J. :- This is an appeal by certificate against the judgment dated 6 June, 1969 of the High Court at Mysore.

2. The appellant was the owner of several acres of land at Banglore. The appellant developed an agricultural and horticultural Estate on that land. In the year 1967 there was a proposal to acquire the aforesaid property of the appellant. The land acquisition proceedings commenced. Possession of the property was taken in the month of April, 1967. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was made in the month of May, 1967. A declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made on 1 July, 1967. In the month of August, 1967 the appellant preferred claims. The claim for compensation preferred by the appellant was for Rs. 18,83,650/-.

3. In the month of September, 1967 the Government paid a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- as an instalment. On 30 August, 1968 the Government wrote to the Divisional Commissioner that the Government approved the award for the total of Rs. 6,57,870.15 in respect of land measuring 86 acres 2 gunthas.

4. The appellant made an application under Article 226 of the Constitution inter alia for an order that the proviso to section 11 and Sec. 15-A of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act 17 of 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Act, be struck down and for further order that a writ of prohibition be issued to the Deputy Commissioner not to follow the instructions given by the Government in their approval letter dated 30 August, 1968. The appellant also asked for a writ of mandamus directing the Land Acquisition Officer to maintain their own valuation expressed in the draft award dated 24 July, 1968 for the sum of Rs. 13,00,000/-.

5. The High Court held that the proviso to Section 11 of the 1961 Act is valid. The reason given by the High Court is that the Deputy Commissioner is an agent of the State Government and the compensation fixed in the award is an offer made on behalf of the Government. The reason for the proviso to Section 11 of the 1961 Act is to eliminate rare cases of Land Acquisition Officers being influenced by extraneous considerations in determining the amount of compensation in excess of the real market value.

6. Counsel for the appellant contended that the proviso to Sec. 11 of the 1961 Act is unconstitutional. Section 11 of the 1961 Act deals with enquiry and award by Collector. Section 11 of the 1961 Act states that the Commissioner shall enquire into objections which any person interested has stated a prusuant to a notice given under Section 9 to the measurements made under Section 8 and into the value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 sub-section(1), and into the respective interests of the persons claiming the compensation. Section 11 of the 1961 Act further provides that the Deputy Commissioner shall make an award under his hand of (i) the true area of the land; (ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and (iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him.

7. Section 15-A of the 1961 Act states that the State Government may at any time before an award is made by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 11 call for and examine the record of any order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of any inquiry or proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed and as to the regularity of such proceedings. If, in any case, it shall appear to the State Government that any order or proceedings so called for should be modified, annulled or reversed, it may pass such order thereon as it deems fit.

8. The proviso to Section 11 of the 1961 Act is that no such award shall be made by the Deputy Commissioner, without the previous approval of the State Gov