K RANGASWAMY Vs. STATE FB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of reference dated 8-8-1991 made by the Division Bench reads thus :

(2.) By reading the order of reference, in substance, we construe the question referred for the consideration of the Full Bench as : Whether service of individual notice under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by the Karnataka Act No. 17/61 is directory or mandatory ?

(3.) The Division Bench as indicated in the order of reference itself, felt difficulty in accepting the law laid down as to the service of individual notice under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) referring to (1984) 1 Kant LJ 521 : (AIR 1984 Kant 208) (State of Karnataka v. Kempaiah); (1987) 2 Kant LJ 133 (Bhoje Gowda alias Shivananjegowda v. State of Karnataka) and (1988) 1 Kant LJ 263 (Gangamma v. State of Karnataka) observing that those decisions render Section 4(1-A) as amended by Karnataka Act No.17/61 ineffective and that the effect of Section 45 has not been considered in those decisions. The Division Bench was also of the view that service of notice is the only procedural safeguard where the owner of the land is sought to be deprived of his valuable property. Hence, to have an authoritative pronouncement on the question as to service of individual notice is directory or mandatory the matter was referred to the Full Bench.