K. A. Swami, J.
1. In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner has challenged the validity of the notifications issued under Section 3(1) and Section 3(3) of the Karnataka Acquisition of Lands for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') acquiring the land in question bearing No. 192/lA situated at In norugollahalli Village, Kanakapura Taluk, Bangalore, belonging to the Petitioner.
2. Sri. Rangaraj, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, urged the following contentions for consideration :
(i) that the preliminary notification is vitiated and is liable to be quashed as respondents 1 to 3 have not followed the guidelines issued by the State Government for the purpose of proposing the land for acquisition; and
(ii) that the notification issued under Section 3(4) of the Act, is vitiated as the Deputy Commissioner has not passed the order in accordance with the provisions of Section 3(3) of the Act. There is no difficulty in accepting the second contention in view of the fact that the order passed 'by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 3(3) of the Act, is a cyclostyled order and the same has been passed without considering the objections raised by the Petitioner.
3. It has been held by this Court in more than one case that the Deputy Commissioner, while passing an order under Section 3(3) of the Act, is required to consider each and every objection raised by the persons interested in the land proposed for acquisition and he must give reasons for overruling the same. The learned Government Advocate has made available the records of the case and from the records, it is found that the order passed under Section 3(3) of the Act, is not a valid order inasmuch as it is passed without considering the objections raised by the Petitioner. Therefore, on this ground, the notification issued under Section 3(4) of the Act, which is issued pursuant to the order passed under Section 3(3) of the Act, cannot at all be sustained.
4. The first contention of the Learned Counsel is that the notification issued under Section 3(1) of the Act, is vitiated because of the fact that respondents 1 and 2 have not followed the guidelines issued by the State Government under its order No. DPC. 15 DRH 72, dated 13-5-1972 before proposing the land in question for acquisition. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid guidelines issued by the State Government have not been followed while proposing the land in question for acquisition, but, however the Learned II Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents submitted that the said guidelines are not enforceable as they do not have the force of law and they are only intended to serve as departmental instructions to the concerned officers and not intended to create any enforceable right in the persons interested in the lands proposed for acquisition. It was also further contended that neither the Act nor the Rules framedthereunder, authorise the State Government to issue such guidelines. Therefore, theviolation of those instructions will not render the acquisition made in accordance with law, illegal. But, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in this regard relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 150/80, dated 22-1-1980, State -v.- Munireddy. That was a case which arose out of the acquisition proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Act. The Learned Single Judge, in W.P. 8311 of 1978, Munireddy -v.- State held that the notification issued under Section 3(1) of the Act was vitiated because the guidelines referred to above, were not followed. The decision of the Learned Single Judge has been affirmed by a Division Bench in the aforesaid Writ Appeal in the following words :
'Since the authorities have not followed the guidelines issued by the Government, the learned Single Judge was right in quashing the impunged notifications.'
The compulsory acquisition of land belonging to a citizen cannot be made except in accordance with the law made in that regard. The law that is made governing the acquisition of the land in question in this case, is the Act referred to above. There is no provision either in the Act or in the Rules framed thereunder, empowering the State Government to issue the guidelines in question. It may be, the concerned officer being an officer under the control of the Government is required to follow the guidelines and in the case of failure on the part of the officer to follow the guidelines, the State Government may direct the Deputy Commissioner to drop the acquisition or cancel the Notification issued under Section 3(1) of the Act ; but it is not possible to hold that if the guidelines are not followed the person interested in the land proposed for acquisition can enforce the guidelines in a Court of law and on that basis, the Notification issued under Section 3(1) of the Act, can be held to be illegal by the Court. If the acquisition proceedings are in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and such acquisition proceedings might have been initiated without following the aforesaid guidelines but such acquisition proceedings cannot be quashed on the ground that the guidelines have not been followed. The guidelines in question do not have the force of law, as such, the same cannot at all be enforced in a Court of Law Hence, it is not possible to hold that the Notification issued under Section 3(1) of the Act, is contrary to law as such, it is liable to be quashed on the ground that it is issued without following the guidelines in question. Therefore, with great respect, I find it difficult to pursuade myself to agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 8311 of 1978 and affirmed by the learned Judges of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 150 of 1980. Hence, I refer this case to a Division, Bench.