Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
(DIVISION BENCH)
S.H. NAYAKANDANAND BYRAREDDY, JJ.
M/s. VIJAYA LEASING LIMITED, BANGALORE - Appellant.
Vs.
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS - Respondents.
Writ Appeal No. 4947 of 2002 (LA-RES).
Decided on 29th March, 2005
EMINENT DOMAIN
Withdrawal of Notification -Land acquired -Award passed -Land denotified -Can that land be acquired by withdrawing notification issued under section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and validate the earlier proceedings? No -Proceedings to be initiated afresh.
[S. R. Nayak and Anand Byrareddy, JJ]: The attempt of the State Government again to acquire the very schedule land by a shortcut method by issuing the impugned notification to withdraw the Notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the Act should be frustrated. After issuing Notification under sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the Act, if the land previously sought to be acquired is required for any public purpose, the only course open to the State Government is to again initiate proceedings envisaged under the Act to acquire the land by issuing Section 4(1) Notification again. Therefore, it cannot be said that the power to issue the impugned notification withdrawing the earlier Notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the Act is a part of the power of the State Government conferred on it under sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the Act.
Cases Referred: AIR 1966 SC 1593; AIR 1998 SC 1160.
Effect of denotification
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 48(1) -Effect of denotification -Entire proceedings initiated for acquisition of land gets wiped out.
[S. R. Nayak and Anand Byrareddy, JJ]: All steps and proceedings taken by the State in exercise of its eminent domain power starting with issuance of Section 4(1) Notification and ending with passing of the award are wiped out by virtue and force of the legal consequences that flow from the issuance of notification under sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the Act.
Cases Referred: AIR 1966 SC 1593; AIR 1998 SC 1160.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Acquisition of land after denotification - Sections 4(1) & 48(1) -Acquisition of land after denotification -Denotification -Entire proceedings initiated for acquisition of land gets wiped out -Hence, notification under Section 48(1) cannot be withdrawn and proceed to acquire the land acquired under the earlier proceedings -Entire procedure should be followed afresh. [S. R. Nayak and Anand Byrareddy, JJ]: The attempt of the State Government again to acquire the very schedule land by a shortcut method by issuing the impugned notification to withdraw the Notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the Act should be frustrated. After issuing Notification under sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the Act, if the land previously sought to be acquired is required for any public purpose, the only course open to the State Government is to again initiate proceedings envisaged under the Act to acquire the land by issuing Section 4(1) Notification again. Therefore, it cannot be said that the power to issue the impugned notification withdrawing the earlier Notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the Act is a part of the power of the State Government conferred on it under sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the Act.
Cases Referred: AIR 1966 SC 1593; AIR 1998 SC 1160.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 48 - Effect of denotification - Section 48(1) -Effect of denotification -Entire proceedings initiated for acquisition of land gets wiped out. [S. R. Nayak and Anand Byrareddy, JJ]: All steps and proceedings taken by the State in exercise of its eminent domain power starting with issuance of Section 4(1) Notification and ending with passing of the award are wiped out by virtue and force of the legal consequences that flow from the issuance of notification under sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the Act.
Cases Referred: AIR 1966 SC 1593; AIR 1998 SC 1160.
EMINENT DOMAIN - Withdrawal of Notification - Withdrawal of Notification -Land acquired -Award passed -Land denotified -Can that land be acquired by withdrawing notification issued under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and validate the earlier proceedings? No -Proceedings to be initiated afresh. [S. R. Nayak and Anand Byrareddy, JJ]: The attempt of the State Government again to acquire the very schedule land by a shortcut method by issuing the impugned notification to withdraw the Notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the Act should be frustrated. After issuing Notification under sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the Act, if the land previously sought to be acquired is required for any public purpose, the only course open to the State Government is to again initiate proceedings envisaged under the Act to acquire the land by issuing Section 4(1) Notification again. Therefore, it cannot be said that the power to issue the impugned notification withdrawing the earlier Notification issued under sub-section(1) of Section 48 of the Act is a part of the power of the State Government conferred on it under sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the Act.
Cases Referred: AIR 1966 SC 1593; AIR 1998 SC 1160.
Acquisition of land after denotification
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4(1) & 48(1) -Acquisition of land after denotification -Denotification -Entire proceedings initiated for acquisition of land gets wiped out -Hence, notification under Section 48(1) cannot be withdrawn and proceed to acquire the land acquired under the earlier proceedings -Entire procedure should be followed afresh.
[S. R. Nayak and Anand Byrareddy, JJ]: The attempt of the State Government again to acquire the very schedule land by a shortcut method by issuing the impugned notification to withdraw the Notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the Act should be frustrated. After issuing Notification under sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the Act, if the land previously sought to be acquired is required for any public purpose, the only course open to the State Government is to again initiate proceedings envisaged under the Act to acquire the land by issuing Section 4(1) Notification again. Therefore, it cannot be said that the power to issue the impugned notification withdrawing the earlier Notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the Act is a part of the power of the State Government conferred on it under sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the Act.
Cases Referred: AIR 1966 SC 1593; AIR 1998 SC 1160.
S.R. Nayak, J.,
The writ petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26th August, 2002 passed in W.P. No. 2565 of 2001 has preferred this writ appeal.
2. The appellant is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. An immovable property admeasuring 21480 sq. ft. comprised in sites bearing Nos. 526, 527, 528, 529, 530, 531 and 532 carved out in Survey No. 57 of Tippasandra, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk which land is hereinafter shortly referred to as 'the schedule land' originally belonged to one late A. Thimma Reddy, son of Muniswamappa. The schedule land was sold by A. Thimma Reddy to the vendors of the writ petitioner. The petitioner-company purchased the schedule land under two registered sale-deeds dated 28-11-1995. After the State Government in exercise of its eminent domain power initiated the proceedings to acquire the schedule land for a public purpose, to wit, formation of HAL II Stage layout by issuing Section 4(1) notification on 21-9-1967 and Section 6(1) declaration on 15-7-1971 and when the acquisition· proceedings were in pipeline, the vendors of the writ petitioner, it seems, made an application to the State Government for denotifying the acquisition of the schedule land. Accordingly, the State Government having satisfied itself that the physical possession of the schedule land was not taken over, issued a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 5-10-1999 and the same was published in the Official Gazette on 6-10-1999. When the matter stood thus, as per the BDA, having realised that even before the date of Section 48(1) notification, the physical possession of the schedule land was taken by it, it addressed a letter to the State Government complaining that the notification under Section 48(1) of the Act ought not to have been issued. That led to the State Government passing Annexure-F, dated 27-6-2000 withdrawing the notification issued by it under Section 48(1) of the Act.
3. The petitioner appellant being aggrieved by the order of the Government Annexure-F, dated 27-6-2000 preferred Writ Petition No.2565 of 2001. Before the learned Single Judge, two-fold contentions were raised to assail the validity of the impugned order. It was contended that the Government, having issued notification under sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the Act, lost the power to issue the impugned notification and, therefore, the impugned notification is one without authority of law. Alternatively, it was contended that even assuming that the State Government had power to issue the impugned notification Annexure-F, the same is vitiated on account of utter violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioner was not heard in the matter before the impugned notification was issued. Learned Single Judge found merit in both the contentions. The learned Judge held that the Government lacks power of review under the Act to review the order made under Section 48(1) of the Act and that since the action of the State Government in issuing the notification Annexure-F tantamounts to it exercising power of review, that action should be condemned as the one without authority of law. Learned Single Judge also held that the impugned notification was issued without hearing the writ petitioner and therefore, it is vitiated for infraction of principles of natural justice.
4. Before the learned Single Judge, as a defence, it was contended by the BDA and the State Government that the notification issued by the State Government under Section 48(1) of the Act itself is one without authority of law and without jurisdiction for well before the date of the said notification, the Government had taken possession of the schedule land and without noticing that fact, the notification was issued and therefore, the subsequent notification issued vide Annexure-F is only a corrective action on the part of the State Government. In the conte
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
