RACHAPPA SATTAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On an earlier date of hearing 1 had recorded the facts of the case and the question at issue, it is as follows :

(2.) Sec. 5 of the Act provides for provisions of the Land Acquisition Act being applied mutatis mutandis in respect of enquiry and award by the Deputy Commissioner, the reference to Court, the apportionment of amount and the payment of amount in respect of lands acquired under this Act. In other words, when Sec. 5 of the Act speaks of enquiry and award by the Deputy Commissioner, it does not speak of possession or the manner in which possession should be taken. It may be presumed that an award has been made because without an award possession cannot be taken in terms of the provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act But in terms of the provisions of the Act, it is not implicit that award shall be made first before taking possession. Sub-sec. (6) and (7) of Sec. 3 of the Act makes that abundantly clear. It is only under Sec. 4 of the Act that compensation to the land owner whose land has been acquired is required to be paid. It again means, in accordance with Sec, 5 of the Act, procedure to be followed is that under the Land Acquisition Act for enquiry, passing of award etc. but that does not include the provisions relating to taking of possession of land as contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, reliance placed by the learned Government Pleader on the decision of this Court in Muninanjappa v State of Karnataka and another (1980(1) Karnataka Law Journal, 191) really does not assist to support the contention that withdrawal notification now published in 1981 should be upheld by this Court.

(3.) In any event, this Court cannot make any declaration or set aside that notification as the same is not challenged in this proceeding.