The main legal point established is that the lack of oral hearing in quasi-judicial proceedings does not necessarily vitiate the order, and irregularities in the publication of notices may not affect the merits of the acquisition.

( 1 ) THIS is an application filed by the petitioner tinder Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the ex-parte order of dismissal passed by the first respondent Government on the application made by him, and for restoration of the lands bearing S. Nos. 1 and 14 at Gubbi Town, which are ordered to be acquired.

( 2 ) THE facts that have given rise to this petition are briefly as follows: the petitioner is a resident of Gubbi Town and the 1st respondent is the State Government, the 2nd respondent being the Gubbi Town Municipality. The petitioner is the owner of s. No. 1 having an extent of 15 guntas and S. No. 14 having an extent of 31 guntas. The 1st respondent-Government started acquisition proceedings in respect of these lands at the instance of the 2nd respondent-Municipality. At that stage the petitioner, who had been permitted by the Deputy Commissioner to convert s. No. 14 into sites, applied for a stay of the proceedings for acquisition and a stay order was passed. But ultimately the 1st respondent-Government dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for dropping the acquisition proceedings and ordered the same to proceed. It is this order that is impugned in the present petition.

( 3 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is two fold : firstly, that he has not been given a hearing before the 1st respondent-Government dismissed his application and that the procedure adopted is opposed to principles of natural justice: and secondly, that the provisions of Sections 4, 5 (A) and 17 (4) of the Land acquisition Act have not been complied with and that, therefore, the order in question is invalid.

( 4 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent government, it is alleged that the Duputy Commissioner's order was set aside by the higher authorities, that the Government sanctioned acquisition of S. No. 1 on 20-10-1953, that on the application of the petitioner an ad-interim stay order was issued staying further proceedings of acquisition, that after consideration of the petitioner's representation, they dismissed his application and vacated the stay order on 9-6-1954, that it is not true that the petitioner's Advocate was promised a full hearing, that there was also no necessity for doing so inasmuch as he was not entitled to it, that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act have not been contravened, that the State Government under Section 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act directed that the provisions of Section 5 (A) shall not apply to the acquisition of this land, that therefore there was no need for any enquiry under Section 5 (A), that the acquisition is bona fide and for a public pupose and that the application has to be dismissed.

( 5 ) WE see no merit in either of the contentions raised by the petitioner. The first ground of attack is that the petitioner was not given an oral hearing before his petition dated 23-11-1953 to the State Government was dismissed. What happened was this: the State Government sanction acquisition of petitioner's land s. No. 1 on 20-10-1953 and on the application filed by the petitioner an ad-intetim stay order was issued staying further proceedings. After consideration of the petitioner's representation the State Government dismissed the application on 9-6-1954 and vacated the ad-interim stay order. The petitioners contention is that his counsel was promised a hearing before disposing of his application, that no oral hearing was given as promissed, that the order of the State Government is opposed to principles of natural justice and that, therefore, it is liable to be declared null and void.

( 6 ) IT is not correct to say that the petitioner's counsel was not given any hearing at all. At the stage of stay of the acquisition proceedings the learned counsel was heard in full and a stay order was passed. The grievance of the petitioner that his counsel was given no oral hearing is wit