THIMME GOWDA Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question raised in this petition under Art.226 is whether the public purpose to provide sites to siteless peojple can be said to be so urgent as to dispense with the requirement of enquiry under S 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act') .

(2.) The petitioner is the owner of S.No.121/1 situate at Madenahalli village of Maddur Taluk. An extent of 1 acre 24 guntas of land in the said survey number, was sought to be acquired for the public purpose, to wit, to provide sites to siteless people. The Government issued a notification dt. 9-1- 1973 under S.4 of the Act The Government further directed that in view of the urgency of the case, the provisions of S.5A shall not apply to the acquisition. The Government exercised their power under S 17(4) of the Act The petitioner challenges the validity of the said notification.

(3.) The main grievance of the petitioner, is that there was no urgency in the matter so as to dispense the enquiry under S 5A of the Act and therefore the notification was invalid. In support of that contention, Counsel for the petitioner has referred me to some proceedings of the Group Pan. 1972, resolved to recommend to the Government to acquire lands in S. Nos.118, 119. 156 and 123 for the purpose of extension of the village. On receipt of the said recommendation, the Government after about 7 months, Issued the impugned notification. By the impugned notification, the Government have not proposed to acquire any of the lands recommended by the Group Panrhayat It is not known ho v the Government came to the conclusion that the petitioner's land is more suitable for providing sites to the siteless.