Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 58 (KAR)

A. P. M. C. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

1997-01-24

CHANDRASHEKARAIAH

body1997
CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, J. ( 1 ) THE Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as "apmc') petitioner has challenged the Order dated 9. 9. 1992 (Annexure-E) passed by the State government, in this Writ Petition. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are:the lands in Survey No. 6/4 measuring 23 guntas and in Survey No. 14/1b measuring 1 acre 28 guntas situate in Byatrayanpura village, along with other lands were proposed for acquisition in the preliminary notification dated 31. 3. 1987 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') for the purpose of establishing a sub-market yard by the APMC. This notification was followed by a final notification dated 12. 5. 1988 issued under Section 6 (1) of the Act. These two notifications were challenged by the 4th respondent before this Court in wp. No. 1284/89. The said Writ Petition was dismissed as not pressed reserving liberty to approach the State Government for withdrawal of acquisition proceedings. Thereafter, the 4th respondent made an application before the Government under Section 15-A read with Section 48 (1) of the Act, requesting for withdrawal of the acquisition proceedings. The Government on the said application issued notice to the petitioner calling upon it to appear before the government to have its say on 6. 8. 1992. The petitioner has produced a copy of the said notice issued by the State Government. Pursuant to the said notice the petitioner appeared before the state Government. Thereafter the State Government passed an order deciding to take steps to drop the acquisition proceedings relating to lands in survey Nos. 6/1 and 14/1b of Byatrayanpura village. This order has been challenged by the petitioner who is the beneficiary of the acquisition on the ground that the Government has no power to take any steps to drop the acquisition proceedings under Section 15a of the Act, after the issuance of final notification under Section 6 of the Act. ( 3 ) SRI B. V. Acharya, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submitted that even though the Government has passed an order under Section 15a of the Act, it is virtually an order passed under Section 48 (1) of the Act, inasmuch as the power to withdraw the proceedings is traceable only to Section 48 (1) of the Act. ( 4 ) IN the light of the said submission, it is necessary to consider the scope of Section 15a of the act. ( 5 ) SECTION 15a of the Act, confers revisional power on the State Government to call for the records of any proceedings of its subordinate officers for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of the proceedings. This power is in the nature of supervisory power for the purpose of satisfying the legality or propriety of the proceedings, of the Deputy Commissioner. e. , L. A. O. Section 15a was inserted into the Central Act by State Act No. 17 of 1961. Section 15a of the Act, reads as. follows: 15a:- Power of State Government to call for proceedings and pass orders thereon.- The State government may, at any time before an award is made by the Deputy Commissioner under section 11, call for and examine the record of any order passed by the Deputy Commissioner or of any inquiry or proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed and as to the regularity of such proceedings. If, in any case, it shall appear to the State Government that any order or proceedings so called for should be notified, annulled or reversed, it may pass such order thereon as it deems fit. " a reading of the above, it is clear that the State Government may at any time before passing an award by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 11 of the Act, call for and examine the record of any proceedings or the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. In the instant case after the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner to the State Government as required by Section 5a of the Act, the State Government after satisfying that the land is required for a public purpose issued the notification under Section 6 (1) of the Act. This notification is by the State government and it is not a proceeding or the act of any of its subordinate officers. ( 6 ) FROM the facts of this case, it is dear, the 4th respondent has filed the Writ Petition challenging the acquisition proceedings before this Court. The said Writ Petition was withdrawn reserving liberty to approach the State Government for withdrawal of the acquisition proceedings. ( 6 ) FROM the facts of this case, it is dear, the 4th respondent has filed the Writ Petition challenging the acquisition proceedings before this Court. The said Writ Petition was withdrawn reserving liberty to approach the State Government for withdrawal of the acquisition proceedings. Thereafter, the 4th respondent has filed an application under Section 15a read with Section 48 (1) of the Act, before the State Government. On that application, notice was issued by the state Government to the petitioner calling upon it to appear before the Government. Thereafter, after hearing all the parties an order was passed allowing the application filed by the 4th respondent under Section 15a of the Act. This order in my opinion is without jurisdiction, since the Government has no power to take any decision either to cancel the notification issued under section 6 (1) of the Act, or to withdraw the acquisition as the said notification is not a proceedings of any subordinate officer of the State Government. Further, under Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act, when once the notification is issued under Section 6 (1) of the Act, it becomes conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose. This shows that once the land is declared to be required for public purpose by the State Government, the same cannot be interfered with by the State under Section 15a of the Act. ( 7 ) THE power which has been conferred on the State Government both under Section 15a and 48 (1) of the Act, operate in a different field. The power under Section 15a of the Act, can be exercised by the State Government in order to satisfy itself regarding the legality and propriety of the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner. Whereas, under Section 48 (1) of the Act, the state Government has got absolute power to withdraw the acquisition proceedings without even affording an opportunity of hearing to any of the parties and without assigning any reasons, provided the Government in its wisdom feels that the said land is not required for a public purpose. Further, the power that can be exercised under Section 48 (1) of the Act should be before taking possession of the land. ( 8 ) IN the instant case, the Government has not passed any order withdrawing the acquisition proceedings. Further, the power that can be exercised under Section 48 (1) of the Act should be before taking possession of the land. ( 8 ) IN the instant case, the Government has not passed any order withdrawing the acquisition proceedings. A reading of the Order passed by the State Government under Section 15a of the act, it is clear that the Government has directed the authorities to take appropriate steps to withdraw the acquisition proceedings relating to the land referred to above. This direction could be complied with only by issuing notification under Section 48 (1) of the Act In the instant case, there is no such notification issued under Section 48 (1) of the Act. This Court in the case of madaiah SIDDALINGAIAH v. STATE OF MYSORE AND ORS,. AIR 1972 Mys. 9, has held thus:" it is therefore clear from the above statutory prescription that any cancellation of notification for acquisition can only be done by a fresh notification issued under Section 48 of the Act, read with Rule 8 (b) of the Rules. There is no notification in the instant case. " in the instant case also, there is no notification under Section 48 (1) of the Act. Therefore, there is no withdrawal of acquisition proceedings by the State Government under Section 48 (1) of the act. Hence, I am of the considered view, that the decision taken by the Government under section 15a of the Act, deciding to take steps to withdraw the acquisition proceeding is neither a decision taken by the State Government under Section 15a of the Act, nor it can be constructed as a decision under Section 48 (1) of the Act. ( 9 ) THE Learned Counsel for the 4th respondent nextly contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the Writ Petition challenging the Order passed by the State Government under section 15a of the Act. From the facts it is seen that on an application filed by the 4th respondent under Section 15a of the Act, the Government issued notice to the petitioner calling upon it to appear before it. Thereafter, after hearing the petitioner the Government has passed the order by allowing the said application. Further the petitioner is a beneficiary as the proposed acquisition is for the benefit of the petitioner to establish a sub-market yard. Thereafter, after hearing the petitioner the Government has passed the order by allowing the said application. Further the petitioner is a beneficiary as the proposed acquisition is for the benefit of the petitioner to establish a sub-market yard. Therefore, I am of the view, that the petitioner can maintain the Writ Petition as it was party before the Government in the application filed by the 4th respondent under Section 15a of the Act, and also because of the fact the land proposed is for the benefit of the petitioner. The lands referred to above along with other lands were notified for acquisition for the purpose of establishing a sub-market yard. When such being the case it is not known whether the sub-market yard could be established excluding the lands of the 4th respondent. The Government also has not considered this aspect of the matter in its order which is impugned in this Writ Petition. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons stated above, Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 9. 9. 1992 (Annexure-E) passed by the Government is quashed. Rule is made absolute. ( 11 ) PARTIES to bear their own costs.