CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner in all writ petitioners is a Society registered by the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act for whose benefit the land belonging to the respondent-landowners was proposed for acquisition under the notification dated 28-4-1983 followed by a final notification dated 28-2-1985 issued under Sections 4 (1) and 6 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'act'.

( 2 ) IN respect of the said lands, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award as required under Section 11 of the Act. Thereafter the Government issued three notifications under section 48 of the Act withdrawing the acquisition in respect of land in Survey Nos. 54/2, 23 and 35 of the Byatarayanapur village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. These three notifications are challenged in these writ petitions by the Society for whose benefit the land was acquired.

( 3 ) SRI S. K. V. Chalapathy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in these writ petitions contended that the government before withdrawing the application under Section 48 (1) of the Act ought to have heard the petitioners since the lands that were acquired is for the benefit of the petitioner's society. Further the petitioner's Counsel contended that Section 48 of the Act is to meet only three contengencies namely, (A) Where the Government finds that the land notified for acquisition is in excess of the requirement and as such portion of it will have to be dropped from the acquisition. (B) Where Government finds that the land notified for acquisition is not suitable for the purpose for which it was proposed to be acquired. (C) Where the Government or the body for which it was acquired is unable to meet the cost of acquisition. According to the Counsel for the petitioner, if any of the above said conditions is present then only the State Government may exercise the power under Section 48 of the Act and in the absence of any such conditions, the Government has no power to withdraw the acquisition. Nextly, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the power conferred on the State Government under Section 48 should not be exercised arbitrarily, and if exercised arbitrarily it would result in vitiating the action taken by the State Government.

( 4 ) IN reply to the said contention, Sri K. P. Ashok Kumar, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State government and Special Land Acquisition Officer contended that the State Government while exercising the power under section 48 (1) of the Act need not hear any person as the power conferred on the State Government under Section 48 is an absolute power and which is the High Authority as distinguished from minor official.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for landowners contended that the mere reading of Section 48, it is clear that the State government while exercising that power need not hear any person much less, the Society, provided that exercise of that power is before taking possession of the lands. Further, it is submitted that the Society itself had written some letters in respect of certain lands acquired under the very same notification requesting the Special Land Acquisition Officer to drop the acquisition proceedings. When such being the case according to the Counsel for the landowners that there is nothing wrong in withdrawing the acquisition proceedings relating to their land by the State Government.

( 6 ) I proceed to consider the rival contentions referred to above with reference to the scheme of the Act. It is not disputed that acquisition initiated are under Part II of the Act and not under part VII of the Act. The petitioner-Society is a Society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. The State government as stated earlier initiated the proceedings under part II of the Act since the Government is of the opinion the acquisition of the land is for a public purpose as defined under section 3 (f) (vi) of the Act. If the land is acquired by the S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document