Karnataka High Court
Judges : A.R.Somnath Iyer,M.Sadanandaswamy
MUTHYALA REDDY - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MYSORE REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT VIDHANA - Respondent
Writ Petn. 1934 Of 1966
Decided On : 04/18/1968
Land Acquisition - Improvement Act - Section 16(2), Section 4(1) - The court discussed the constitutionality of section 16(2) of the Improvement Act, which restricts the service of notice only on the person whose name is entered in the land revenue register. The court compared this provision with section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and concluded that the purpose of the Improvement Act is not the same as the purpose of the Land Acquisition Act, and therefore, the different procedures prescribed by the two Acts do not amount to discrimination. The court held that the procedure for the investigation of whether the land is needed for a public purpose is an administrative function and not a quasi-judicial function. The court dismissed the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of section 16(2) of the Improvement Act, arguing that it discriminates against owners and occupiers of the property proposed to be acquired.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the different procedures prescribed by the Improvement Act and the Land Acquisition Act do not amount to discrimination, as the purpose of the two Acts is different. The court also held that the procedure for the investigation of whether the land is needed for a public purpose is an administrative function and not a quasi-judicial function.
Issues: Constitutionality of section 16(2) of the Improvement Act, discrimination against owners and occupiers of the property proposed to be acquired.
Ratio Decidendi: The different procedures prescribed by the Improvement Act and the Land Acquisition Act do not amount to discrimination, as the purpose of the two Acts is different. The procedure for the investigation of whether the land is needed for a public purpose is an administrative function and not a quasi-judicial function.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition.
( 2 ) NOW, section 16 (2) on the constitutionality of which considerable argument was expended, provides principally for service of notices on persons interested in opposing the scheme for the implementation of which an acquisition is proposed to enable them to oppose the acquisition should they so desire.
( 3 ) IT will be seen from its provisions that when a land is proposed to be acquired, the person on whom service of notice is enjoined by this sub-section is he whose name is entered in the land revenue Register as the person primarily liable to pay the land revenue. It is that person who can object to the proposed acquisition and it is his objection that has to be considered and transmitted to Government under Section 17.
( 4 ) THE argument advanced for the petitioner by Mr. Mohandas Hegde was that section 16 (2)which restricts the service of notice only on the person whose name is entered in the land revenue register, is open to the denunciation that it makes a hostile discrimination against others as the owners and occupiers of the property proposed to be acquired. This argument is constructed on the contrast between the provisions of section 4 of the Central Land Acquisition act, 1894, which will be referred to as the Land Acquisition Act, as extended to the new State of mysore by the Land Acquisition Amending Act, 1961, and the Improvement Act.
( 5 ) NOW section 16 (2) was introduced into the Improvement Act in the year 1952, and, when the scheme was published under section 16 (1) of the Improvement Act, in the year 1963, there were two laws under which the acquisition of a property for a public purpose was possible. The one was the Land Acquisition Act to which we had referred and the other was the Improvement Act.
( 6 ) IT was said that a person whose property was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act was in a more advantageous position than he whose property was acquired under the Improvement Act in respect of notices which should issue before a final declaration is made by the appropriate authority that the acquisition is for a public purpose.
( 7 ) SECTION 18 of the Improvement Act and section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act are the two provisions under which that declaration is made as the case may be. Similarly, section 16 (2) of the Improvement Act corresponds to S. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Section (16) (2) of the improvement Act provides for the publication of a scheme, while section 4 (1) of the Land acquisition Act authorises a notification about the proposed acquisition.
( 8 ) NOW, section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act as it now stands, provides for the publication of a preliminary notification and enumerates the powers of the officers. It will be seen from this section that when an acquisition of a property is proposed to be made under the Land Acquisition act, the announcement that an acquisition is proposed to be made should be published in the official gazette, and in addition, the Deputy Commissioner should cause public notice to be given. These are the imperative provisions of section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. That sub-section in addition provides that the Deputy Commissioner may cause notices to be served on the owner and the occupier as the case may be. It was argued on behalf of the Board that the word 'may' occurring in the concluding part of this sub-section in the context of these notices, when contrasted with the word 'shall' occurring in the earlier part, supports the interpretation that the Deputy Commissioner is invested with the discretion to serve those notices on
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.