DODDE GOWDA KAPANI Vs. STATE OF MYSORE AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This concerns proceedings relating to the acquisition of a property belonging to the petitioner. After the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published, the petitioner objected to the acquisition and when he was not afforded a hearing under Section 5A of the Act, he approached the Government who directed the Deputy Commissioner to afford that opportunity to the petitioner and to proceed with the matter according to law. When the matter came back before the Deputy Commissioner in that way, the case was posted to 16-3-1960. It was adjourned to 15th April 1960, again to April 28, 1960 and again to May 12, 1960. On the last date of hearing the order made by the Deputy Commissioner was as follows:

(2.) It is asserted by the petitioner that when the case was adjourned from April 28, 1960 to May 12, 1960, no intimation of that date of hearing was given either to the petitioner or his counsel. His case is that on April 15, 1960, on behalf of the petitioner, an adjournment was prayed for and that the matter was accordingly adjourned to April 28, 1960 and that on April 28, 1960 when both the petitioner and his counsel proceeded to the office of the Deputy Commissioner they found that the Deputy Commissioner was absent from headquarters. What is slated In the affidavit of the petitioner is that they were informed by the concerned clerk that they would be intimated about the adjourned date of hearing in due course. These allegations made by the petitioner in his affidavit are repudiated in the counter affidavit produced of which the deponent is an under-secretary of the State. What is stated in that counter affidavit is that the counsel for the petitioner was intimated that the matter had been adjourned to May 12, 1960. We do find in the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner an entry to the effect that when the case was adjourned from April 28, 1960 to May 12, 1960, notice of the adjourned date of hearing was issued to the counsel.

(3.) In that state of the materials before us, it would not be possible for the petitioner to contend that neither he nor his counsel had information about the adjourned date of hearing. If the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner state that intimation was issued to the counsel, we must presume that that intimation was issued.