LexVENKATASWAMAPPA versus THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (REVENUE)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A VENKATASWAMAPPA v. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) AUGUST 28, 1996 B [K. RAMASWAMY AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4(1), SA, 6(1), 32(j)(vi)---Land acquired for allotment to C House Building Co-operative Society-Notification published-Enquiry con- ducted-Appellant participated in the enqui!fBefore declarations could be taken up, he filed Wiit petition-Dismissed by Single Judge and Division Bench-On appeal held since lands of appellants were acquired for such or similar public pU!pose, present notification cannot be said to be ma/a fide-Notification sent for publication in the Gazettl~Siniultaneously direc- D tions were given for publication in newspapers-In one of the newspapers publication was made p1ior to the publication in Gazette-It is only an ilregulality in the procedural steps and does not vitiate the validity of the notification-The entire time taken from date of filing the wlit petitions till date of receipt of order of Supreme Court stands excluded and the limitation E of one year would stalt thereafter only-Hence notification under S. 4( 1) has not lapsed-Govt. to consider the objections filed in the enquiry under S.SA and to have the declaration under S.6 published if it feels that public pwpose still subsists. The Collector (Dist1ict Magistrate) Allahabad & Anr. v. Raja Ram F Jaiswal Etc., [1985] 3 SCR 995, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1006-25 of 1990. From the Judgment and Order dated 17.7.89 of the Karnataka High G Court in W.A. Nos. 877-90/89 in W.P. Nos. 5316-35 of 1989. M.N. Shroff for the Appellant. M. Veerappa for the Respondent. H R.S. Hegde for K.R. Nagaraja for the Respondent No. 2. 330 • VENKATASWAMN'PAv. SPL. DY. COMMNR.(REVENUE) 331 The following Order of the Court was delivered : These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court made on July 17, 1989 in Writ Appeals Nos. 877-896/89 dismissing the appeal in limine and confirming the judg- ment and order of the learned single judge dated March 30, 1989 made in Writ petition Nos. 5316-35/89. The appellants have challenged the validity of the notification pub- lished under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894, (for short, A B the "Act") acquiring 80 acres of land in favour of the second respondent - N.T.I. House Building Cooperative Society. Notification under Section 4(1) C was published on February 23, 1989. Enquiry under Section 5-A was conducted. The appellant participated in the enquiry. Before the declara- tion could be taken up, the appellants filed the writ petiLion in March 1989 challenging the validity of the notification. Before the learned single Judge, the appellants had taken five grounds of objections as enumerated in para 2 of the judgment of the learned single Judge. He dealt with each of the D points separately and negatived the same. The Division Bench summarily dismissed the appeal. Thus, these appeal by special leave. It is strenuously contended for the appellants that since some of the lands of the appellants were acquired, one on March 2, 1973 for defence E purposes and second on July 28, 1988 for the HMI House Building Cooperative Society, the acquisition of the lands under this notification is mala fide and, there'fore, is not valid in law. We find no force in the contention. Providing house sites for construction of houses for the mem- bers of the second respondent, Co-operative Society registered under State Cooperative Societies' Act, is a public purpose is not in question and F cannot be questioned in view of the enlarged definition of 'public purpose' under Section 32(f)(vi) of the Act as amended by Act No. 68 of 1984. Therefore, so long as providing house sites to the members of the Coopera- tive Society is a 'public purpose', the contention that on earlier occasion also some of the lands belonging to the appellants were acquired for such G or some other public purpose, cannot be held to be ma/a fide. It is next contended that alternative lands are available and the lands in question are not fit for construction. That question was gone into by the learned single Judge and was negatived. Jt is a question of fact in each case. The serious contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is H 332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A that while the notification under Section 4(1) of the Ac
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.