SIDDALINGAPPA Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MANDYA AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is the owner of a land bearing Survey No. 228 in the village of Siramalli, in the district of Mandya, challenges in this case the proceedings commenced under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition of an area of 2 acres and 15 guntas of land out of that survey number. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on June 20, 1960, and, after the consideration of the objections produced by the petitioner to the proposed acquisition, and, after affording him the bearing enjoined by Section 5-A of the Act, the final notification declaring that the acquisition is for a public purpose was made under Section 6 of the Act on April 27, 1961. Before that final notification was made, by an order made by the Deputy Commissioner sanctioning under the Act on March 11, 1961, the objection preferred by the petitioner to the acquisition was overruled. It is seen thereafter and even before the notification under Section 6 was made, that this writ petition was presented to this Court calling in question the acquisition proceedings and their continuance.

(2.) The first criticism made of the acquisition proceedings is that the land which was proposed to be acquired was by no means suitable for the purpose for which it was proposed to be acquired, namely, the extension of a Harijan colony. It was said that there were other lands which were enjoying a better elevation and situation which were more suitable for the extension of the Harijan colony and that survey No. 228 which was at a lower level and which was malarious was not fit for the occupation of Harijans. It was said that even when proceedings were commenced in the year 1946 for the acquisition of a portion of survey No. 228, the investigation into the suitability of the land revealed that that land was not suitable for the Harijans and that accordingly the acquisition had been dropped in the year 1955. Even on the second occasion when the acquisition was commenced, for the same reason it was said that the acquisition proceedings were discontinued in May 1958. It was, therefore, asked why once again on the third occasion in June 1960, so soon after the acquisition had been dropped on the second occasion, further proceedings should have been commenced for the acquisition of the same land which was found unsuitable at least twice.

(3.) The answer to this submission made is that it is not for us to say whether the land which was proposed to be acquired was or was not suitable for the Harijans and that it was entirely within the power of the Deputy Commissioner hearing an objection under Section 5-A to record his own opinion about it and if he recorded an opinion that the land was suitable for the purpose for which it was proposed to be acquired, his finding to that effect which jg a finding essentially on a question of fact is not open to discussion in this Court.