GANESHA BESHAJA ASHRAM Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for a declaration that the provisions of Karnataka Improvement Boards Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are ineffective and inoperative as the Act was not reserved for consideration and assent of the President, because according to the petitioners, the said Act provides for compulsory acquisition of the property. They have also sought for quashing the Notification bearing No. SCM 39/79-80 dated Nil March, 1981 published in the Gazette of 4th June 1981 issued under sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act and the Notification bearing No.HUD 72 MIB. 81 dated 28th August 1982 published in the Gazette of 9th September 1982 issued under sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act. Under these Notifications the lands belonging to the petitioners are to be acquired by the Board for public purpose viz., for the purpose of the Scheme framed by the Board.

(2.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that Chapter III of the Act provides for acquisition of private property, as such, it falls under Article 31 (2) of the Constitution; that Article 31 was in operation when the Act was passed, as such, as required by Article 31 (3) of the Constitution, the Act ought to have been reserved for consideration of the President and the assent of the President ought to have been obtained: that as no assent of the President has been obtained, the law is ineffective as provided by Article 31 (3) of the Constitution; that on the date the impugned Notifications were issued the Board was not constituted therefore, the impugned Notifications issued for the purpose of the Scheme framed by the Board are illegal inasmuch as in the absence of the Constitution of the Board under the Act there could not have been any Scheme framed by the Board; that the Notifications do not provide the particulars of the Scheme, therefore, the petitioners could not effectively object to the Notifications; that at any rate the provisions contained in Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act ought to have been followed as the effect of the impugned Notifications is nothing but to acquire the lands in question; that in the absence of the procedure provided under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, the procedure provided in Chapter III of the Act is not reasonable and as such it is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution.

(3.) The State has not filed any Statement of Objections. However, the Improvement Board, Mangalore has filed the Statement of Objections in W.Ps. 4290 to 4300 of 1984. The records are also made available.