Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1980 DIGILAW 285 (KAR)

LINGEGOWDAH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

1980-09-30

K.S.PUTTASWAMY

body1980
K. S. PUTTASWAMY, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition under Ant. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the Notification No. RHS (2) 108/77-78 dated 13-10-78 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore district, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the D. C.) (Annexure-E) and the consesquent notice No. RHS 38178-79 dated 3-11-78 issued by the assistant Commissioner, Ramanagaram sub-Division, Ramanagaram (hereinafter referred to as the A. C.) (Annexure-F ). ( 2 ) AMONG others, the petitioner is the owner of an agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 481 measuring about 8 acres of Myalanaikanahalli village of Channapatna Taluk. ( 3 ) UNDER S. 3 (1) of the Karnataka acquisition of land for grant of House sites Act of 1972 (Karnataka Act No. 18 of 1973) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the D. C. by notification n. RHS (2) 108177-78 dated 30-7-77 proposed to acquire an extent of one acre in the aforesaid land, to which the petitioner objected on various" grounds. As required by the Act and the rules, the D. C. directed the a. C. to hold an inquiry and submit his recommendations. ( 4 ) BEFORE the A. C. the petitioner opposed the acquisition in conformity with his objections. On the suitability of the land or otherwise, various officers, in particular, the Block development Officer submitted his reports in that behalf. On an examination of the contentions and the reports received thereto, the A. C. by his report dated 16-5-78 recommended to the D. C. to acquire the aforesaid land. On an examination of the report of the A. C. and the records, the D. C. by his order No. RHS (2) 108177-78 dated 13-10-78 accorded sanction under s. 3 (3) of the Act for acquisition of the land and on the same day issued the final notification under S. 3 (4) of the act (Annexure-E ). ( 5 ) THE petitioner has asserted that the A. C. and the D. C. have: not considered, the recommendations of the various officers, the village panchayat and have been influenced by irrelevant considerations like the extent of land owned by him and the acquisition of the land is, therefore, vitiated. ( 5 ) THE petitioner has asserted that the A. C. and the D. C. have: not considered, the recommendations of the various officers, the village panchayat and have been influenced by irrelevant considerations like the extent of land owned by him and the acquisition of the land is, therefore, vitiated. ( 6 ) IN their return the respondents while denying the allegations of the petitioner, have asserted that the land acquired was the most suitable land for providing house sites to the houseless and siteless people of the village and the satisfaction of the authority was based on relevant considerations and material. ( 7 ) SRI Mohandas N. Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the A. C. and D. C. could not take into consideration the extent of land owned and the same was totally irrelevant in deciding the suitability of the land. ( 8 ) AT the hearing Sri M. H. Matigi, learned High Court Government pleader appearing for the respondents produced the records and supported the action of the A. C. and the D. C. ( 9 ) IN his report dated 16-5-1978 the a. C. among others stated that the petitioner was a sufficient holder owning 9 acres 01 gunta of land or a big land holder and, therefore, the land proposed be acquired. While according his sanction under S. 3 (3) of the Act, the D. C. among other factors has adverted to the extent of land owned by the petitioner. ( 10 ) S. 3 (1) of the Act provides for acquisition of land when it is necessary for providing house sites to the weaker sections of the people who are houseless. A, land can be acquired only when the authority is satisfied that that land alone is necessary for that purpose and not otherwise. ( 11 ) WHETHER a particular land is needed for providing housesites under the Act is primarily for the acquiring authority to decide. But, in deciding that question, the A. C. and more so the D. C. cannot take into consideration that the person from whom the lands are proposed to be acquired is a sufficient or a big land holder or that another person was not a sufficient holder. But, in deciding that question, the A. C. and more so the D. C. cannot take into consideration that the person from whom the lands are proposed to be acquired is a sufficient or a big land holder or that another person was not a sufficient holder. What is important is the land that is proposed for acquisition should be the most suitable land for providing house sites and not the extent of lands owned by one or the other. From the foregoing it follows that the A. C. and the D. C. have committed a manifest illegality and, therefore, the final notification is liable to be quashed. ( 12 ) SRI Hegde, next contends that the A. C and the D. C. committed a manifest illegality in not considering various reports submitted by the b. D. O. , Extension Officer and the panchayat. ( 13 ) BEFORE the A. C. , in more than one reference, the Block Development officer, Channapatna had reported that the land proposed was not suitable and other lands adjoining the road were more suitable. Even the panchayat of the village had opined in the same way. Both the A. C. and the d. C. have not even adverted to these reports and have not considered them, whether those reports should be accepted or rejected is primarily for the authorities to decide. Before rejecting a report of another officer, the D. C. if not the A. C. should at least give brief reasons for his disagreement. By their failure to consider the reports, the A. C. and the D. C. have committed a manifest illegality apparent on the face of the record. ( 14 ) AS the decision of the D. C. has been influenced by irrelevant considerations and non-consideration of the relevant reports, the interference of this court is called for. But, this does not justify this count to quash the preliminary notification issued by the D. C. and the proceedings there to before the A. C. and they are not interfered. But, this does not justify this count to quash the preliminary notification issued by the D. C. and the proceedings there to before the A. C. and they are not interfered. ( 15 ) IN the light of my above discussion, I quash the order No. RHS (2) 108/77-78 dated 13-10-78, final notification No. RHS (2) 108/77-78 dated 13th October, 1978 (Annexure-E) and the notice No. RHS 38 of 1977-78 dated 3-11-1978 (Annexure-F) issued by the A. C. But, this order does npt prevent the D. C. from re-examining the proposal on the basis of the preliminary notification already issued and the inquiry held by the A. C. and deciding the necessity or otherwise of the land on relevant considerations and material in accordance with law and the observations made in this order. ( 16 ) RULE issued is made absolute. Advocate's fee Rs. 100. 00. --- *** --- .