P V AITHALA Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The lands belonging to the petitioners in this batch of 15 writ petitions have been acquired for the Mangalore Harbour Project. The common prayer made in these writ petitions to declare as void the first proviso to S.3(3) of the Land Acquisition (Mysore Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967 (Mysore Act 10 of 1968) is not pressed. Hence, the same is not considered, reserving liberty to raise that contention, if necessary, in appropriate proceedings.

(2.) In the first 8 writ petitions, there is a prayer for declaration that Ss.11, 16 and 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as in force in the State of Mysore, are void as offending the second proviso to Art.31A of the Constitution. In the first two writ petitions, there is a further prayer for quashing the notifications issued under S 6 of the Act.

(3.) The Land Acquisition Act 1894 which is a Central Act, was amended and extended to the entire State of Mysore, by Mysore Act 17 of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The said Act having received the assent of the President, came into force on the 24th of August, 1961. The lands of the petitioners have been acquired under the provisions of the said Act. The Mysore Land Reforms Act. 1961 came into force on the 2nd of October, 1965. The case of the petitioners in the first eight writ petitions is that the lands sought to be acquired arc under their personal cultivation and are within the celling limit applicable to them as per the provisions of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961. It was urged that Ss.11, 16 and 23 of the Act entitled the State to compulsorily acquire lands by paying compensation at a rate less than the market value of the lands It was submitted that the lands belonging to the petitioners come within the expression 'estate' as defined in clause(2) of Art.31A of the Constitution. The second proviso to Art.31A of the Constitution on which the petitioners have placed reliance, reads as follows :