K B LAXMINARANIAH Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has, in this writ petition challenged the Notification dt.21st of June 1963, issued by respondent No.2, the City Improvement Trust Board, Mysore under S.16(1) of the City of Mysore Improvement Act, 1903 and the Notification dt.23/24th of August 19G6 (published by the Mysore Gazette dt.22-9-1966), issued by the Government of Mysore under S.18(l) and (2) of the Act in so far as they relate to the petitioner's lands bearing S.Nos.155 and 156 situated in Maragowdanahalli village Mysore Taluk.

(2.) Respondent No.2 the City Improvement Trust Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) prepared a scheme for the formation of a lay out of sites by the side of Bannimantap in the City of Mysore under S.14 of the City of Mysore Improvement Act 1903 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). After completion of the said scheme the Board issued a Notification as required by S.16 of the Act. The said Notification recites the fact of a scheme having been made and also contains a statement specifying the lands proposed to be acquired The said Notification was duly published in the Mysore Gazette. Section 16(2) of the Act contemplates notice being given to every person whose name appears in the assessment list of the Municipality or local body concerned or in the land revenue register as being primarily liable to pay the property tax or land revenue assessment on any building or land which it is proposed to acquire in executing the scheme. Within 30 days of the service of the notice, the person so served is entitled, if he dissents from the acquisition to express his opposition to the same and convey the reasons therefor. Section 17 of the Act requires the Board to consider the representatons received in response to the notice issued under S.16 and to modify the scheme if considered necessary in the light of the representations received. After inserting in the scheme the modifications as the Board thinks fit, it has to apply to the Government for sanction of the scheme. After receipt of the sanction of the Government, the Chairman is required under S.18 of the Act to forward a declaration for Notification under the signature of the Secretary to the Government stating the fact of such sanction and that the land proposed to be acquired by the Board for the purposes of the Scheme is required for a public purpose. The declaration is required to be published in the Mysore Gazette.S.180) (c) of the Act provides that such a declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose and that the Board shall, upon the publication of the said declaration, proceed to execute the scheme. In this case, after considering the objections received, the Board secured sanction of the Government. Thereafter a Notification was issued under S.18(1) (2) of the Act declaring that the properties specified in the schedule are needed for a public purpose, viz., for the formation of the lay out of the sites by the side of Bannimantap. S.?3 of the Act provides that the acquisition otherwise than by agreement of land within or without the City under this Act shall be regulated by the provisions, so far as they are applicable, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Therefore, the further proceedings in regard to determination of compensation have to be taken as per the provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act.

(3.) The first submission of Shri S.K.Venkataranga Iyengar, learned Counsel for Petitioner is that the Notification issued under S.18 of the Act in this case is invalid as the petitioner was not served with any notice as required by S.16(2) of the Act to enable him to submit his objections to the scheme and proposed acquisition of his lands. The assertion made by the petitioner in his affidavit that no such notice was given, has been controverted in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Board bv its Chairman It is necessary to note that the petitioner has produced as per Ext.B along with the writ petition, his objections presented before the Board. Though it does not bear any date, there cannot be any doubt that it is an objection to a notice received by the petitioner under S.16(2) of the Act, inasmuch as the petitioner has specially stated that the objections are In response to the notice under S.16(2) of the Act. As the Board had not placed anv material in regard to the service of the notice, we called upon the Board to produce evidence, if they possess any in regard to the service of notice on the petitioner under Section 16 (2) of the Act. The Counsel for the Board has, along with his memo dated the 2nd of November, 1971, produced the copy of the notice served on the petitioner on 18-8-1963. It bears the signature of the petitioner as well as the date of service of notice. We are, therefore, of opinion that the service of notice under S.16(2) of the Act on the petitioner is conclusively established in this case.