Back
Karnataka High Court
Judges : V.Gopala Gowda
V.GUNDA REDDY - Appellant
Versus
SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE - Respondent
W. P. 33567 Of 2004
Decided On : 08/01/2005
Advocates Appeared :
G.V.SHANTHARAJU, Hegde, M.E.PRABHU, R.K.HATTI, SHETTY
Cases Referred: Followed: AIR 1987 SC 2421; AIR 1975 SC 1716; AIR 2003 SC 511; AIR 1995 SC 2224; AIR 1994 SC 853; 2004 (4) Supreme 44; AIR 1975 SC 1776; 1999 (3) SCC 422; AIR 2003 SC 511.
KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1961 ; No.1825 ; Synopsis ; Holding agricultural lands ; Sections 79-B & 109 -Holding agricultural lands -Housing society - Not entitled to hold agricultural land. [V. Gopala Gowda, J]: The society is also not entitled to hold agricultural lands in view of the prohibition under Sections 79B and 109 Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961 beyond the permissible units as mentioned under Section 109 of the Act.
EMINENT DOMAIN - Approval of scheme - Approval of scheme -Not obtaining of -Effect on acquisition. See, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -Section 3F (vi).
Cases Referred: Followed: AIR 1987 SC 2421; AIR 1975 SC 1716; AIR 2003 SC 511; AIR 1995 SC 2224; AIR 1994 SC 853; 2004 (4) Supreme 44; AIR 1975 SC 1776; 1999 (3) SCC 422; AIR 2003 SC 511.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Procedure -Statute prescribing procedure for doing an act -That act should be done in accordance with procedure so prescribed or it should not be done at all.
Cases Referred:
Followed:
AIR 1987 SC 2421; AIR 1975 SC 1716; AIR 2003 SC 511; AIR 1995 SC 2224; AIR 1994 SC 853; 2004 (4) Supreme 44; AIR 1975 SC 1776; 1999 (3) SCC 422; AIR 2003 SC 511.
Holding agricultural lands
KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1961 Sections 79-B & 109 -Holding agricultural lands -Housing society - Not entitled to hold agricultural land.
[V. Gopala Gowda, J]: The society is also not entitled to hold agricultural lands in view of the prohibition under Sections 79B and 109 Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961 beyond the permissible units as mentioned under Section 109 of the Act.
Cases Referred: Followed: AIR 1987 SC 2421; AIR 1975 SC 1716; AIR 2003 SC 511; AIR 1995 SC 2224; AIR 1994 SC 853; 2004 (4) Supreme 44; AIR 1975 SC 1776; 1999 (3) SCC 422; AIR 2003 SC 511.
LAND ACQUISITION ( MYSORE EXTENSION AND AMENDMENT ) ACT, 1894 ; No.2443 Synopsis ; Taking possession of land ; Section 16(2) -Taking possession of land - Authority empowered to. [V. Gopala Gowda, J]: Under Section 16(2) Land Acquisition (Mysore Extension Amendment) Act XVII of 1961, the Deputy Commissioner of the District has to take possession of the acquired lands. In the instant case, the Spl. L.A.O has issued and got published the notification under Section 16(2) of the Act, he is not empowered to do so in Jaw. That apart the lands are not acquired by the State Government is evident from the final notification. Therefore, question of taking possession of the same by the Special Land Acquisition Officer from the Petitioners and handing over the same to the society does not arise. The power to take to possession of the acquired land was retained with the Deputy Commissioner, obviously with some purpose and definite intention, therefore that power cannot be exercised even by the Land Acquisition Officer or any other person. Other than the Deputy Commissioner if, any other officers takes possession of acquired lands, it has to be held that possession is not taken at all as the same is without Authority of law.
Cases Referred: Followed: AIR 1987 SC 2421; AIR 1975 SC 1716; AIR 2003 SC 511; AIR 1995 SC 2224; AIR 1994 SC 853; 2004 (4) Supreme 44; AIR 1975 SC 1776; 1999 (3) SCC 422; AIR 2003 SC 511.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 16 - Taking possession - Section 16 -Taking possession -Authority empowered to -Procedure to be followed. Settled principle: It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. The origin of this rule is traceable to the decision in Taylor v. Taylor, (1875) I Ch. D 426 which was followed by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, 63 Ind App 372: AIR 1936 PC 253 Who stated as under: "Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all." This rule has since been approved by this Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh V State of Vindhya Pradesh, 1954 SCR 1098: AIR 1954 SC 322 and again in Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan, (1962) 1 SCR 662: AIR 1961 SC 1527. These cases were considered by a Three Judge Bench of the Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh, AIR 1964 SC 358: (1964) 1 SCWR 57 and the rule laid down in Nazir Ahmads case (supra) was again upheld. The rule has since been applied to the exercise of jurisdiction by Courts and has also been recognised as a salutary principle of administrative law [(1999) 3 SCC 422)].
Cases Referred: Followed: AIR 1987 SC 2421; AIR 1975 SC 1716; AIR 2003 SC 511; AIR 1995 SC 2224; AIR 1994 SC 853; 2004 (4) Supreme 44; AIR 1975 SC 1776; 1999 (3) SCC 422; AIR 2003 SC 511.
KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1961 - Holding agricultural lands - Sections 79-B & 109 -Holding agricultural lands -Housing society - Not entitled to hold agricultural land. [V. Gopala Gowda, J]: The society is also not entitled to hold agricultural lands in view of the prohibition under Sections 79B and 109 Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961 beyond the permissible units as mentioned under Section 109 of the Act.
Cases Referred: Followed: AIR 1987 SC 2421; AIR 1975 SC 1716; AIR 2003 SC 511; AIR 1995 SC 2224; AIR 1994 SC 853; 2004 (4) Supreme 44; AIR 1975 SC 1776; 1999 (3) SCC 422; AIR 2003 SC 511.
( 1 ) THE petitioner in W. P. No. 33566/2004 is the owner of lands bearing Sy. Nos. 43/2 measuring 0-24 guntas, 44/1b measuring 1-00 acre and 46/2 measuring 1 acre 25 guntas. The petitioner in w P. No. 33567/2004 is the owner of Sy. Nos. 7/3 measuring 2 acres 01 guntas and 30/2 measuring 1 acre 34 guntas. All the lands are situated at Koodlu village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal taluk, Bangalore Urban District. They have filed these petitions seeking to quash the notification at Annexure-H dated 22-8-2003 issued under Section 16 (2) of the Land Acquisition act, 1894 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for having allegedly taken over possession of the said lands pursuant to the acquisition made for the benefit of Aircraft Employees Housing co-operative Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Society), which is the fourth respondent in these petitions.
( 2 ) THE necessary brief facts leading to these writ petitions are stated as follows: the preliminary Notification was issued on 5-9-1988 under Section 4 (1) of Land Acquisition act of 1961 (hereinafter in short called as 'act') proposing for acquisition of certain lands for public purpose in favour of Aircraft Employees Housing Co-operative Society for formation of residential layout and distribution of sites to its members. The Final Notification under Section 6 (1) of the Act was issued on 28-9-1989. The acquisition proceedings had been challenged by the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 279080-09/1993 before this Court on various grounds. During the pendency of the said writ petitions, the fourth respondent Housing Society entered into an agreement with them on 16-5-1998 agreeing to acquire only 2 acres 35 guntas out of 3 acres 35 guntas in Sy. Nos. 7/3 and 30/2. It was also agreed by it to pay compensation of Rs. 23 lakhs for the said 2-35 acres of the owner. It was further agreed to give-up the remaining 1-00 acre of land to the owner. A specific recital is made in the said agreement that lands in Sy. Nos. 43/lp, 44/1p and 46/2 totally measuring 3 acres 05 guntas are not included in the acquisition notifications. The society also agreed that the owner can utilize the roads, water supply and sewarage facilities formed by the society in the layout that would be formed in survey numbers of lands acquired by it, But, for the reasons best known to the society the said agreement was not brought to the notice of this Court when the said petitions were dismissed on 4-9-1999 on the basis of the submission made on behalf of the Society that possession of the lands were taken by the State Government and handed over to the society and it has formed the layout and allotted the sites in favour of its members, which statements are all false and were made with and ulterior motive, which was a fraud played upon this Court so as to dismiss the writ petitions and therefore the learned Counsel for the petitioners placing reliance upon the decisions of the Apex Court submits that the order passed in those petitions are null and void abinition in law. Therefore it is stated by the petitioners that the society has no manner of right whatsoever over these lands to take possession of the same under Section 16 (1) and publish the notification under Section 16 (2) of the Act, after a long lapse of 14 years.
( 3 ) IT is stated by the petitioners that even though the aforementioned lands had been notified by the Special Deputy Commissioner for acquisition in the preliminary notification, in the final notification the same have not been notified. No Award is passed in respect of the said lands as required under Section 11 of the Act, after following the procedure contemplated under Sections 10, 11 and notice of award as required under Section 12 (2) is not served upon the petitioners. Despite that, the impugned notification is issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, who is not authorized in law to do so. Being aggrieved by the same, these two writ petitions are filed seeking to qu
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
