M/S. KANAKA GRUHA NIRMAN SAHAKARA SANGHA versus SMT. NARAYANAMMA (SINCE DECEASED) BY LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 97 · Decided: 03-10-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

.... -
MIS. KANAKA GRUHA NIRMAN SAHAKARA SANGHA. 
A 
v. 
SMT. NARA Y ANAMMA (SINCE DECEASED) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
OCTOBER J, 2002 
[M.B. SHAH AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARit JJ~ ) 
Land Acquisition Act, /894/Land Acquisition (Mysore Extension and 
Amendment) Act, 19~1-Sections 3(/)(vO, 4 and 61 Section 4-Land acquisition 
for public purpose: 
B 
c 
Initiation of proceedings for acquisition of land under Mysore Act-
Acquisition proceedings challenged on the ground that Mysore Act was' 
repugnant to Central Act of/894 as amended in 1984 and proceeding initiated 
with lhe approval of Depzity Commissioner instead of State Government-
Single Judge dismissing the writ petition-Division Bench holding that in view D 
of Article 2.54 proceedings initiated under Mysore Act void, thus quashing the 
notification and consequently the proceedings-On appeal held, finding of the 
High Court illegal and erroneous-By empowering the Deputy Commissioner 
with the powers which could be exercised by the appropriate Government, no 
question of repugnancy between the provisions of both the Acts would aril'e 
since both can co-exist withmtt any conflict-Constitution of India, 1950- E 
Article 2 54. 
Land owner challenging notification for acquisition of land-Single Judge 
dismissing the writ petition-Division Bench quashing the notification on the 
ground that initiation of action by Deputy Commissioner under Section 4/or 
Issuing notification illegal as under the Land Acquisition Act, the appropriate F 
. Government is required to be satisfied that the land is needed for public 
purpose In terms of section J(/){vV and approval not obtained from State 
Government-On appeat held, there is no laps·e in observing the procedure 
prescribed under Section 3(/)(vlj-Prior approval by the State Government 
under Section 3(/)(vi) was granted after due verification and scrutiny. 
G 
· Notification was Issued under Section 4(1) and Section 6(1) of the 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 respectively for acquisition of la~ds for 
appellants Society. Respondent-land owners challen1ed the notification. 
It also contended that the proceedings under the Land Acquisition (Mysore 
97 
H 
I 
. 
I ! . 
t' 
i . 
I 
' I 
; . 
: ~ 
I 
I . 
! I '. 
i I 
I I 
~~ ,, 
i 
! I 
=- . 
98 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A Extension and Amendment) Act, 1961 was void on the ground that Mysore 
.· ' Act was repugnant to Central Act of 1894 as amended In 1984 and 
proceedings were lnltiattd with the approval of Deputy Commissioner 
instead of State Government. High Court dJsmtssed the .same. Respondent-
land owners then filed Writ appeals. Division Bench quashed the 
notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on the ground that the initiation 
B . of action by Deputy Commissioner under Section 4 for issuing notification 
is Illegal as under the Land Acquisition Act, the appropriate Government 
Is required to be satisfied that the land is needed for public purpose and 
that prior approval in terms of Section 3(0(vi) was not obtained from the 
State Government. It also held that in view of Article 254 of the 
C . Constitution, proceedings initiated under the Mysore Act would be void. 
However, writ appeal filed by the Society was dismissed. Hence the present 
appeals and Special Leave Petitions. 
· 
· 
Appellants contended that the finding given by High Court with 
D regard to the non-compliance of Section 3(0(vi) is, on the face of it, illegal. · 
. -
Respondent-land-owners contended that High Court rightly arrived 
at the conclusion that State Government conveying its approval Cor 
initiating the proceedings for acquisition of the land cannot be termed to 
be the satisfaction either in terms of Section J(t)(vi) or sub-section (1) of 
E Section 4 of the Act. 
. 
. . . .. 
. .. 
Disposing of the matters, the Court 
.· HELD: 1.1. By empowering the Deputy Commissioner with the 
powers which could be exercised by the appropriate Government, no . 
F question of repugnancy between Sec:Uon 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, . 
1894 and Section 4 of the Land Acquisition (Mysore Extension and 
Amendment) Act, 1961 would arise. (103-GJ 
' 
1.2. ·u would be difflcult. to hold that the a.mendm~nts made by the. 
Mysorc Act' which are sup 1 
1 
· 
G 
w'th th 
P ementary n nature, cannot stand together 
. 
t 
e amended Land Acquisition Act. It cannot be Jtated that the 
amended Land AcquisJtlon A t 1 
h 
. 
· 
the , 
. 
c 
5 so ex aushve and unquullfied that only 
appropriate Government' has to b 
t' 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.