PILLAYYA NAGAMANGALA VENKATAPPA Vs. STATE OF MYSORERESENTED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are asked in this writ petition by the petitioner to quash an acquisition proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act the preliminary notification in which was published in the Gazette on January 28, 1960 and the final notification on October 7, 1965. There were many criticisms of the acquisition and the first submission made, on behalf of the petitioner by his learned Advocate Mr. Karanth was that the public notice which is directed by Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was not caused to be given. In the counter-affidavit produced on behalf of the City Improvement Trust Board for whose purposes Government commenced the impugned acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, the allegation that there was no public notice under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act was denied, and, Mr. Ron appearing for the City Improvement Trust Board informs us that the records relating to the public notice are now missing and that they could not be traced at this distance of time.

(2.) No one should feel surprised if the Trust Board is not able to prove by the Production of the necessary official record at this distance of time that the public notice which is directed by Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was indeed given. The preliminary notification was published on January 28, 1960 and this Writ petition was presented on June 16, 1966. We should presume that that public notice was given and we should not believe the allegation to the contrary.

(3.) Mr. Ron appearing for the City Improvement Trust Board brought to our notice that at least three persons produced objections to the acquisition of other lands which were proposed to be acquired under the same preliminary notification. They are: Chinnnappa, Papaiah and Muniswamappa who are the petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 968 and 964 of 1966. The record produced by Mr. Ron shows that those persons produced objections to the proposed acquisition and the fact that those three persons came to have knowledge of the acquisition in consequence of which they produced objections shows that public notice with respect to the acquisition must have been caused to be given. At this very late stage when the writ petition was presented, the petitioner could not be allowed to contend to the contrary especially since his allegation that no public notice was given is not supported by any other evidence such as the affidavits of the other residents of the village which he could have easily produced, but has not.