B CHANGAIAH Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was the owner of 2 acres of land in S.Nos.3 and 4 of Laresandra village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. These lands, amongst others, were notified for acquisition. The preliminary notification was on 21-2-1963 under S. 16 of the City' of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945, (hereinafter called the Act) . The final notification is dated 27-10-1964 and marked as Annexure "B". It is stated by the petitioner in his affidavit in support of the petition that he had made an application for sanction of conversion of the above-said 2 acres of land to the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore Sub-Division, who by his Official Memorandum dated 15th October 1962, accorded sanction subject to certain conditions. It is pointed out that the said sanction was accorded after it was recommended by the second respondent by its letter dated 17-9-1962. The petitioner made an application on 4-11-1965 to the second respondent seeking grant of licence for the proposed wood industry and the building that he wanted to put up on the land in question. It is not disputed that there was no reply to his application by the City Improvement Trust Board. It is further alleged in the affidavit that after the final notification dated 27th October 1964, the second respondent has sanctioned private lay-outs in circumstances similar to those under which the petitioner has made the application on 4-11-1965. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to similar sanction as has been accorded to the several persons mentioned in paragraph 11 of the affidavit On the basis of these facts, the petitioner's contention is that as portions of the lands sought to be acquired under the notification afore-mentioned have been given up on account of sanction having been accorded to private schemes, it must be deemed that the entire scheme covered by the notification has been drooped, and that the public purpose for which the acquisition was proposed should bp deemed to have failed. The second contention is that sanction having been accorded to the persons named in paragraph 11 for forming lay-outs, the denial of the same right to the petitioner is unwarranted and discriminatory. Therefore, he seeks a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to grant the sanction sought by him to put up factory premises and building. The further prayer is that in view of the fact that a period of six months has expired after he made the application on 4-11-1965 as per Annexure "D", it must be deemed that the permission sought by him is sanctioned and therefore a direction may be issued to the second respondent to permit him to form a private lay-out on receiving the lay-out charges.

(2.) It is not clear from the affidavit of the petitioner as to the circumstances under which sanction was accorded to the persons mentioned in paragraph 11 of the affidavit. Under S.18, Clause (1) (c) of the Act, the declaration made under S.18(1) of the Act is conclusive evidence that the land is needed for public purposes. The fact that sanction has been given to certain persons to put up factories on some portions of the lands proposed to be acquired, does not indicate that the purpose of the acquisition has been abandoned or that the Trust Board has dropped the acquisition proceedings. It cannot be said that abandonment of the enforcement of the scheme in respect of portions of the lands notified for acquisition would amount to abandoning the proposal for acquisition altogether. In circumstances almost identical with the facts of this case, this Court, in M.Manicklal v. State of Mysore, (1967) 2 Mys.L.J. 239, has expressed its opinion in the following terms :-

(3.) On the question of discrimination, as we have already stated, the details and the circumstances under which sanction has been accorded for private lay-out in respect of other persons have not been set out. It cannot be said, and there is no material to hold that the persons who got sanction for the lay-outs as alleged in paragraph 11, got the sanction in exercise of any legal right. No provision has been shown to us, under which the petitioner has a legal right to get the sanction for the lay-out under S.25 of the Act.