Skip to content


Patel Madegowda Agriculturist and Patel Vs. the State of Mysore by Its Chief Secretary Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 1191 of 1968
Judge
Reported inAIR1970Kant317; AIR1970Mys317; (1970)2MysLJ102
ActsLand Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 3, 4 and 5A
AppellantPatel Madegowda Agriculturist and Patel
RespondentThe State of Mysore by Its Chief Secretary Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore and ors.
Appellant AdvocateS.L. Simha, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateS.G. Doddakalegowda, High Court Govt. Pleader
Excerpt:
.....judicial powers, passing adverse order without evidence or basis is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. judicial review:held, judicial review is an integral part of the constitutional system. an authority is bound to pass reasonable order. if not, interference by high court and supreme court is permissible. - ' 3. although section 4 as amended in mysore permits both the appropriate government as well as the deputy commissioner to issue a notification thereunder, the power to confer upon an officer other than the deputy commissioner, the right to function as deputy commissioner under the act, is found in the definition of the expression 'deputy commissioner' in clause (c) of section 3, which reads: 7. we allow the writ petition and quash the notification under section 4..........commissioner, ramnagaram division, has not been duly authorised to perform the functions of the deputy commissioner under the act; and 2. that the intimation of submission of report to the government under section 5-a had not been given to him. 2. the preliminary notification under section 4 was prepared and published by the deputy commissioner of bangalore rural district. the said notification dated the 19th of may, 1965, appeared in the mysore gazette of 15th of july, 1965. the third paragraph of the notification contains the authorisation in the following terms:'the assistant commissioner, ramanagaram sub-division, ramanagaram, is hereby appointed under clause (e) of section 3 of the said land acquisition act, to perform the functions of the deputy commissioner for all proceedings.....
Judgment:

Narayana Pai, J.

1. The petitioner Patel Madegowda, the owner of land hearing Survey No. 127 of Mandya Bommanayakana halli in Malur Hobli, Channapatna Taluk, impugnes the compulsory acquisition of the said land under the Land Acquisition Act as amended in Mysore on two main grounds:

1. That the Assistant Commissioner, Ramnagaram Division, has not been duly authorised to perform the functions of the Deputy Commissioner under the Act; and

2. that the intimation of submission of report to the Government under Section 5-A had not been given to him.

2. The preliminary notification under Section 4 was prepared and published by the Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore Rural District. The said notification dated the 19th of May, 1965, appeared in the Mysore Gazette of 15th of July, 1965. The third paragraph of the notification contains the authorisation in the following terms:

'The Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagaram Sub-Division, Ramanagaram, is hereby appointed under Clause (e) of Section 3 of the said Land Acquisition Act, to perform the functions of the Deputy Commissioner for all proceedings hereafter to be taken in respect of the said land.'

3. Although Section 4 as amended in Mysore permits both the appropriate Government as well as the Deputy Commissioner to issue a notification thereunder, the power to confer upon an officer other than the Deputy Commissioner, the right to function as Deputy Commissioner under the Act, is found in the definition of the expression 'Deputy Commissioner' in Clause (c) of Section 3, which reads:

'The expression 'Deputy Commissioner' means, the Deputy Commissioner of a District and includes an Assistant Commissioner in charge of a Sub-Division of a District and any officer specially appointed by the appropriate Government to perform the functions of a Deputy Commissioner under this Act.'

4. The definition makes it clear that an Assistant Commissioner of a Sub-Division or any officer to be able to function as 'Deputy Commissioner' under the Act, must be specially appointed by the appropriate Government to perform the functions of the Deputy Commissioner under the Act. In the extract of the notification given above, the appointment is by the Deputy Commissioner and not by the State Government which is the appropriate Government in this case.

5. It follows therefore that the Assistant Commissioner had no power to function as the 'Deputy Commissioner' for the purpose of acquisition of the land in question.

6. As this is sufficient to invalidate the proceedings, we do not go into the second question of fact whether the intimation had in fact been given to the petitioner of the submission of the report under Section 5-A.

7. We allow the writ petition and quash the notification under Section 4 referred to above, as well as the subsequent notification under Section 6 dated the 11th of October, 1967, published in the Mysore Gazette of 2nd November, 1967.

8. Petition allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //