STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. versus NARASIMHA MURTHY AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 649 · Decided: 11-08-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
NARASIMHA MURTHY AND ORS. 
AUGUST 11, 1995. 
[K RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.) 
B 
Kamataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 : 
S.3-Notification issued under Sub-section (1) of S.3-0niission to 
mention the name of party-Whether vitiates the validity of the notifica-
C 
tion-Held : No. 
Subsequent to the issue of notification under S.3(1) of the Karnataka 
Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972, when measurement 
of the land was being taken the second respondent represented that the 
first respondent, his minor son, had purchased the property. Final D 
notification under S.3(4) of the Act was recommended. The first respon-
dent, through his father, filed a writ petition challenging the notification. 
The Single Judge quashed the notification on the ground that the name of 
the first respondent was not mentioned in the notification and therefore, 
the notification was vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record. 
On appeal, the Division Bench confirmed the order of the Single Judge. 
Hence this appeal. 
On the question whether the omission to mention the name of the 
first respondent in the notification under S.3(1) vitiated its validity; 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. Right to shelter is a shelter is a fundamental right under 
Article 19(1). of the Constitution. To make the right meaningful to the poor, 
the State has to provide facilities and opportunity to build houses. Acquisi-
E 
F 
tion of the land to provide house sites to the poor houseless is a public G 
purpose as it is a constitutional duty of the State to provide house sites to 
the poor. [653·A·B] 
2. Admittedly the recorded owner was given notice and she did not 
appear. Th~ mutation procetdings did not contain the name of the first 
respondent nor was it effected in the record. Consequently, notice could not H 
649 
650 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
be. issued to the first respondent. However, the final notification under 
sub-section (4) of S.3 did contain the name of the first respondent. Under 
these circumstances, the High Court was clearly in error in holding that the 
notification published under sub-section 3(1) of the Act was vitiated by 
error of law on account of omission to have the name of the owner, viz., the 
B 
first respondent, published in the notification under Section 3(1). 
(652-F; 653-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.7401 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.2.86 of the Karnataka High 
C Court in W.A. No. 332of1986. 
M. Veerappa for the Appellant. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
D 
Leave granted. 
E 
F 
By our order dated July 27, 1995 we had noted that the 1st respon-
dent after becoming major was duly served and was not represented by any 
counsel nor did he appear in person."'We adjourned the matter to enable 
the State to remove the defect of having discharged the second respondent-
father from guardianship of the first respondent. To-day, we have passed 
an order discharging the second respondent as guardian of the first respon-
dent. 
The notification under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Acquisition of 
Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 (for short, 'the Act') was publish-
ed in the Gazette on February 3, 1975. When measurement of the land was 
being taken, Venktappa, the second respondent, appeared before the 
authorities concerned abd represented that the first respondent, his inll,ior 
son had purchased the property from its owner, viz., Houlabi, wife of Khaja 
Sab. Subsequently, he recommended to the Government to issue final 
G notification under S~ction 3( 4) of the Act. The first respondent, through 
his father, challenged the notification in Writ Petition No. 12705/84. 
Learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court quashed 
the notification on the ground that the name of the· first respondent was 
not mentioned in_ the notification as required by Section 3(1) and· that, 
therefore, the notification is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of 
H record. Thus, this appeal by special leave against the Division Bench order 
-
,, 
,. 
STATE v. NARASIMHAMURTHY 
651 
dated February 19, 1986 passed in: Writ Appeal No. 332 of 1986. 
The question is whether the omission to mention the name of the 1st 
respondent in the notification under Section 3(1) vitiates its validity. Sec-
tion 3 of the Act reads as follows : 
"3. Acquisition of lan

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