VIJAYA LEASING LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Writ Petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the Learned Single Judge dated 26th August 2002 passed in W. P. No. 2565 of 2001 has preferred this writ appeal.

(2.) THE appellant is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act. An immovable property admeasuring 21480 Sq. Ft comprised in sites bearing No. 526, 527, 528, 529, 530, 531 and 532 carved out in Survey No. 57 of Tippasandra, K. R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk which land is hereinafter shortly referred to as the schedule land originally belonged to one late A. Thimma Reddy, son of Muniswamappa. The scheduled land was sold by A. Thimma Reddy to the vendors of the writ petitioner. The petitioner company purchased the schedule land under two registered sale-deeds dated 28-11-1995. After the State Government in exercise of its eminent domain power initiated the proceedings to acquire the schedule land for a public purpose, to wit, formation of HAL II stage layout by issuing Section 4 (1) Notification on 21-9-1967 and Section 6 (1) declaration on 15-7-1971 and when the acquisition proceedings were in pipeline, the vendors of the writ petitioner, it seems, made an application to the State Government for denotifying the acquisition of the schedule land. Accordingly, the State Government having satisfied itself that the physical possession of the schedule land was not taken over, issued a Notification under sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the Act on 5-10-1999 and the same was published in the Official Gazette on 6-10-1999. When the matter stood thus, as per the BDA, having realised that even before the date of Section 48 (1) Notification, the physical possession of the schedule land was taken by it, it addressed a letter to the State Government complaining that the Notification under Section 48 (1) of the Act ought not to have been issued. That led to the State Government passing Annexure-F dated 27-6-2000 withdrawing the Notification issued by it under Section 48 (1) of the Act.

(3.) THE petitioner appellant being aggrieved by the order of the Government Annexure-F dated 27-6-2000 preferred writ petition No. 2565 of 2001. Before the learned single Judge, two fold contentions were raised to assail the validity of the impugned order. It was contended that the Government, having issued Notification under subsection (1) of Section 48 of the Act, lost the power to issue the impugned Notification and, therefore, the impugned Notification is one without authority of law. Alternatively, it was contended that even assuming that the State Government had power to issue the impugned Notification Annexure-F, the same is vitiated on account of utter violation of principles of natural justice in as much as the petitioner was not heard in the matter before the impugned Notification was issued. Learned Single Judge found merit both the contentions. The learned Judge held that the Government lacks power of review under the Act to review the order made under Section 48 (1) of the Act and that since the action of the State Government in issuing the Notification Annexure-F tantamounts to it exercising power of review, that action should be condemned as the one without authority of law. Learned Single Judge also held that the impugned Notification was issued without hearing the writ petitioner and therefore, it is vitiated for infraction of principles of natural justice.