SARASWATHI PRINTING WORKS Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against an award made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mangajore Municipality in LAC. 43 of 1963. The petitioner is a tenant in a portion of the building which was also acquired at the instance of the owner, but had not been duly notified under the Land Acquisition Act.

(2.) The material facts are as follows: The Government by a Notification under S.6 of the Land Acquisition Act, bearing No.RD 65 LML 63 dated 17-1-1967, acquired portions measuring 11 cents and 1 cent of land out of site Nos.108/2 and 107/1B respectively. The lands are situate within the limits of Mangalore Municipality. There were buildings on these lands. The petitioner was a tenant in a portion of the said buildings. It would appear that a small portion of the said buildings was also projecting on the portions of the lands proposed to be acquired. After service of notices under Secs.9 and 10 of the Acquisition Act, the owner expressed a desire that the whole of the building might be acquired, presumably pursuant to the provisions of S.49 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer, accepted this view of the owner and proceeded to acquire; the remaining portion of the building, without reference to any further notification under Sec.4 or 6 of the Act or consent or sanction of the Government. On behalf of the petitioner, the acquisition as such was not questioned, but a claim for the value of the improvements had been advanced. Consequently, the Land Acquisition Officer made the impugned award.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioner, it has been urged that the award was invalid in that the Land Acquisition Officer had no jurisdiction to proceed with the acquisition in the absence of a, decision by the Government to acquire by the issue of appropriate Notification in that behalf under the relevant provisions of the Acquisition Act, notwithstanding the provisions of S.49 of that Act. Alternatively, it is contended that having regard to the provisions of sub-sees. (2) and (3) of S.49 and the definition of the expression 'land' in the Acquisition Act, the sanction of Government would still be necessary for such an acquisition. It was also argued that to hold that S.49(1)would enable such acquisition to be made by a Land Acquisition Officer on his own, although at the express desire of the owner, might lead to great abuse as in conceivable cases, of which the present case is one, it might lead to the incurring of a commitment, financial and otherwise, by the Government far beyond what was in its contemplation at the time the acquisition was actually proposed.