MADAIAH SIDDALINGAIAH Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a owner of a land bearing Survey No. 10 in Bilidale village, Kanaka-pura Taluka. He has questioned the validity of two Notifications issued by the Government under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (referred to as the Act). Comes of these Notifications have been produced along with the Petition and marked as Exhibits C and H. Exhibit-C is the Notification issued under Section 4 bearing No. RD 11 AQB 67 dated 21-2-1967 published in the Mysore Gazette on 6th of July 1967. Ex-hibit-H is the Notification under Section 6. issued pursuant to the Notification Exhibit-C, bearing No. RD 589 AQB 69, dated 7th February 1970, and the date of publication in the Mysore Gazette is not indicated in the said Exhibit.

(2.) Shri T. R. Subbanna. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, urged the following contentions:

(3.) We are unable to accept any of the above contentions. In regard to the first contention of the learned counsel, reliance is placed on Exhibit 'F'. which is a letter addressed to the Deputy Commissioner by the Secretary to the Government. It is no doubt true that the said communication refers to the dropping of the acquisition proceedings accompanied with a request to the Deputy Commissioner to take such steps as may be necessary for the cancellation of the present Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. In our opinion, this communication 'ex facie' does not indicate that such dropping of proceedings was ordered at the instance of the petitioner, nor is it a communication addressed to the petitioner putting him on notice of such dropping of proceedings. It is a part of the correspondence between the two officers of the Government and no reliance can be placed by the petitioner on the contents thereof. On this part of the submission, Shri Subbanna. ,the learned counsel, also relied on a judgment of this Court in Writ Petn. 2167 of 1964 pronounced on 7-2-1967 (Mvs). It is no doubt laid down therein that S. 48 of the Land Acquisition Act did not expressly enjoin the issuance of a Notification for a cancellation of the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. But this decision will not be of any assistance to the petitioner, in view of the fact that subsequent to the proceedings concerned in the said Writ petition, rules have been framed under the Land Acquisition. Act, in the year 1965. Rule 8 (b) of the said rules lays down that