STATE GOVT. HOUSELESS HARIJAN EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 483 · Decided: 11-12-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY PRAKASH MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

r 
STATE GOVT. HOUSELESS HARIJAN 
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 11, 2000 
[A.P. MISRA AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
A 
B 
land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 3(j)(vi), 4(1), 6(1), 6(1-A), 9, 
sub-Sections (/) and (2) of Section 48· Acquisition- Withdrawal of·- C 
Justiciability of Beneficiary ef acquisition- -Right to be heard --Notification 
under Section 48(1) for withdrawal of acquisition-Appellant/beneficiary 
given no opportunity of being heard before such notification-legality of 
Held, the State Government could not have withdrawn from the acquisition 
without hearing the appellant- Though Section 48(1) has been construed to 
exclude the owner's right to be heard before withdrawal of acquisition, there D 
is no similar provision with regard to the beneficiary of the acquisition--A 
beneficiary, may, by such withdrawal suffer substantial loss without redress 
particularly when it may have deposited compensation money towards the 
cost of the acquisition-An opportunity of being heard may allow him not 
only to counter the basis for withdrawal, but also to cure any defect or E 
shortcoming and fill any lacuna-
Requirements of natural justice to be read 
into statutory provisions unless excluded expressly or by necessary 
implication· -Administrative law--- Principles of natural justice. 
Public purpose- -Meaning of-Acquisition with prior approval of 
appropriate government for land for any housing scheme sponsored by a F 
Society registered under the Societies Registratwn Act-·Contention that 
acquisition not for a public purpose as appellant not registered as a Society 
Tenability of- Held, if some of the objects with which a Society is established 
are invalid and others are valid, the registration of the Society is not ipso 
facto vitiated-Appellant-Society registered under the Karnataka Societies 
Registration Act-Two of the objects in the Act being two of the aims and G 
objects of the appellant-Society-Thus, it cannot be asserted that the appellant 
could not have been and cannot continue to be registered under the 
Karnataka Act-Notification having been issued and published declaring 
that the land was required for a public purpose, such declaration was 
conclusive evidence that the land was needed for a public purpose-Such H 
483 
484 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A purpose cannot be lateron questioned or reopened without challenging the 
notification-Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1961. 
Prior approval-Requirement of-Contention that letter relied on by 
appellant did not amount to prior approval as the Government could not rely 
on material collected prior to issuance of the second notification and that 
B it was not in accordance with Article 166 of the Constitution-Held, when 
earlier proceedings for acquisition came to an end as a matter of law, it does 
not mean that the material on the basis of which the earlier notification was 
issued ceased to exist as a matter of fact--Such material considered before 
granting approval for the third and final notification-No form of prior 
C approval or the material on which such approval is to be based, specified-
lack of comp/iattw with Article 166 did not render the prior approval a 
nullity--Ct:mstitution of India, 1950--Article 166. 
Contention that acquisition was originally commenced under Part Vil 
and material gathered prior to first 11.otificarion relevant for an acquisition 
D under Part VII, could hot be relied on for proceedings under Part II-Held, 
second and third notifications under Section 4(1) clearly stating that the 
acquisition was being made for a public purpose and not under Part V/1-
Therefore, even if the acquisition was originally commenced under Part VII, 
it was continued under Part If, 
E 
The appellant WJ.S a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies 
Reglstrntlon Act, 1961 consisting of members who were State Government 
employees belonging to the Scheduled Castes. With a view to provide house 
sites for its members all of whom were houseles9, the appellant approached 
the Government to acquire 15 ccres of land situated in a particular village. 
F The said land belon~ed to respondent numbers 5 to 7. Pursuant to it, the 
Planning Authority passed a resolution to issue 'no objection certificate' for 
suitability of the land for house sites in favour of the appellant. The said 
decision was communicated to the Assistant Commissioner of the area who 
subsequently asked the appellan

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