Back
Karnataka High Court
Narayan Raju - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Decided On : 05-30-88
W.A. : 1084 of 1987
Land Acquisition - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4(1), Section 6(1) - [KEYWORD] - Land Acquisition - Section 4(1), Section 6(1) - The court discussed the amendments made to the Land Acquisition Act by the central Act 68/1984 and the implications on the acquisition for a 'company' (including a co-operative society) for a 'public purpose'. The court held that the acquisition of land for a co-operative society, for the implementation of a housing scheme sponsored by it with the prior approval of the Government, is for a public purpose under the Amended Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the land acquisition proceedings by questioning the notification issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the declaration made under Section 6(1) thereof. The main grounds urged by the petitioners were related to the authority of the Special Land Acquisition officer, the purpose of acquisition, and the exercise of power by the government. The learned single Judge dismissed all the contentions urged by the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the acquisition of land for a co-operative society, for the implementation of a housing scheme sponsored by it with the prior approval of the Government, is for a public purpose under the Amended Act. The court also held that the proceedings started earlier to the amendment Act of 1984 by a notification issued under Section 4(1) according to the earlier law, shall govern the proceedings till it crosses the stage of section 6(1) declaration, even though, the said declaration is to be made, after the Amendment Act. Alternatively, the acquisition of lands is for a public purpose, substantially falling within Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act as amended by the amendment Act of 1984 and hence valid.
Issues: The issues involved in the case were related to the authority of the Special Land Acquisition officer, the purpose of acquisition, and the exercise of power by the government.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the acquisition of land for a co-operative society, for the implementation of a housing scheme sponsored by it with the prior approval of the Government, is for a public purpose under the Amended Act. The court also held that the proceedings started earlier to the amendment Act of 1984 by a notification issued under Section 4(1) according to the earlier law, shall govern the proceedings till it crosses the stage of section 6(1) declaration, even though, the said declaration is to be made, after the Amendment Act. Alternatively, the acquisition of lands is for a public purpose, substantially falling within Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act as amended by the amendment Act of 1984 and hence valid.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the court certified the appeals as fit ones for appeal to the Supreme Court.
( 1 ) THESE appeals are by the writ petitioners, whose writ petitions were dismissed by the learned single Judge. The petitioners challenged the land acquisition proceedings by questioning the notification issued under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the declaration made under Section 6 (1) thereof.
( 2 ) PETITIONERS, assert that they are the owners of various lands sought to be acquired for the benefit of Vijaya Bank employees Housing Co-operative Society ltd. , (referred hereinafter as 'the Society' ). By a notification dated 30-5-1983 published in the Gazette dated 16-6-1983, the State government notified under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act as in force in Karnataka by the amendment made by the Karnataka act 17/1961, that "the lands specified in the schedule to the notification are likely to be needed for the public purpose to wit for the members of the Vijaya Bank employees Housing Co-operative Society ltd. , Bangalore at Bilekahalli Village, Begur hobli Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore district". Public notice was caused to be issued on 2-7-1983 (vide Annexure-B in wa. No. 1084 to 1089/87 ). Many of the petitioners (appellants herein) filed their objections to the proposed acquisition. After the enquiry under Section 5-A and the receipt of the report, State Government made a declaration under Section 6 (1) on 1-6-1985 (published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 20-6-1985), relevant para of which reads thus:"whereas the Special Deputy Commissioner, bangalore District, Bangalore, in his Notification No. LAQ (i) CR 177/81-82 dated 30th May 1983 published in the Karnataka Gazette, dated 16th June 1983 in part IX at pages 569 to 576 has notified that the land specified in the schedule hereto are likely to be needed for a public purpose to wit for Vijaya bank Employees Housing Co- operative society Limited, Bangalore; and whereas the Government of karnataka is satisfied after considering the report of the Special Deputy commissioner, under sub-section (2) of section 5-A and Section 6 (1-A) of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1/1894) as amended by Karnataka Act No. 17 of 1961, and Land Acquisition amendment Act No. 68 of 1984 that the said land are needed to be acquired for the purpose specified above. It is hereby declared under Section 6 of the said Act that the lands are required for the purpose stated above".
( 3 ) W. P. NOS. 14940 to 14944 of 1985 are dated 12-9-1985; W. P. Nos. 10864 to 10875 of 1985 are dated 15-7-1985; W. P. Nos. 13416 to 13429 of 1985 are dated 26-8-1985; W. P. No. 14065/85 is dated 9-9-1985 and W. P. No. 2311/1987 is dated 2-2-1987. Various grounds though raised in the writ petitions, three grounds, ultimately urged, as seen from the order of the learned single Judge, were:-" (I) The Spl. L. A. O. was not authorised to issue notice on 2-7-1983 and therefore all subsequent proceedings are illegal and without jurisdiction notwithstanding the issue of notification dated 12-7-1984 extracted above; (i. e. the order appointing him ). (ii) The acquisition is for a Company - housing Co-operative Society is a company. Acquisition for 'public purpose' excludes acquisition for a company since admittedly the company Rules 1973 are not followed the acquisition is bad. It was contended that both the notifications are liable to be quashed; (iii) The exercise of power is colourable, all proceedings are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India".
( 4 ) THE learned single Judge negative all the contentions urged by the petitioners, by holding that, (i) By the time objections were received, notification dated 12-7-1984 empowering the Special Land Acquisition officer to perform the functions of Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of the Land Acquisition act had been issued. The hearing of objections on 20-7-1984 and all further proceedings were conducted by the said duly empowered officer. The earlier steps of issuance of notices and receiving the obj
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
