ACCHANAIK Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Art.226, the validity of the notification dt.26th April, 1973 issued by the State Govt under S.4 read with sub-sec(4) of S. 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter called 'the Act', fails for decision.

(2.) By the said notification, Sy No.9/7 belonging to the petitioner has been acquired for a public purpose to wit for village extension of ID.Halli Village. It is stated therein that in view of the urgency of the case, the provisons of S.5A of the Act shall not apply to the acquisition of the land. It is the contention of the petitioner that the purpose for which his land was sought to be acquired was not so urgent as to dispense with the enquiry ujs.5A and the decision of the Govt that it was an urgent matter was not based on relevant facts. The said notification is sought to be defended on behalf of the State by contending that this Court cannot go behind the notification as the opinion expressed by the Govt regarding the urgency of the matter was based on their subjective satisfaction. In support of the contention. Counsel for State relied upon the decision of this Court in Babu Devendrappa Yernal v. State of Mysore, 1974 (1) Mys.L.J. 354 and the decision of the Supreme Court in Raha Anand Brahma Sha v. State of U. P., AIR 1967 SC 1081.

(3.) The decision on the question turns on the scope and content of sub- secs(1) and (4) of S.17. They read: * * *