MUTHYALA REDDY Vs. STATE OF MYSORERESENTED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is not necessary in this writ petition to embark upon a discussion as to the meaning to be given to the words 'land revenue register' occurring in section 16(2) since no argument was presented about it. A discussion of that question is not necessary since on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Mohandas Hegde did not assert that the petitioner's name had been entered in the land revenue register.

(2.) Now, section 16(2) on the constitutionality of which considerable argument was expended, provides principally for service of notices on persons interested in opposing the scheme for the implementation of which an acquisition is proposed to enable them to oppose the acquisition should they so desire.

(3.) It will be seen from its provisions that when a land is proposed to be acquired, the person on whom service of notice is enjoined by this sub-section is he whose name is entered in the land Revenue Register as the person primarily liable to pay the land revenue. It is that person who can object to the proposed acquisition and it is his objection that has to be considered and transmitted to Government under Section 17.