N BOMMON BEHRAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying that this court should be pleased to strike down the proviso to Section 11 and Section 15-A of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act 17 of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). They have also prayed for a writ of prohibition against respondents 2 and 3 directing them not to follow the instructions given in letter No. RD 220 AQB '68 dated 29/30th August 1968 and to issue a mandamus directing them to maintain their own valuation expressed in the draft award dated 24th July 1968.

(2.) In order to appreciate the points urged on behalf of the petitioners, it is necessary to refer briefly to the relevant facts that have given rise to the writ petition. Certain lands which are owned by the petitioners were notified for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Act. The lands were required for the use of the Border Security Force under the control of the Central Government. Prior to the issue of this Notification on 1-5-1967, there were certain negotiations between the petitioners, the Chief Secretary to Government of Mysore and other officers at a meeting held on March 31, 1967. The petitioners handed over possession of the property on April 6, 1967. The preliminary notification was followed by the requisite declaration under the Section 6 of the Act by a Notification dated 1-7-1967. It appears that the petitioners claimed Rs. 18,83,650/- as compensation for their property. The Land Acquisition officer (respondent No. 3) prepared a draft award and made a reference to the State Government for approval, purporting to act under the proviso to Section 11 of the Act. Pending the award, the petitioners were paid a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- on September 21, 1967. It appears that in the draft award submitted for the approval of the State Government, respondent No. 3 assessed the amount of compensation at about Rupees 13,00,000/- or so. The Government did not approve the compensation assessed by Respondent No. 3. Accordingly the Secretary to the Government of Mysore in the Revenue Department addressed a communication dated 29/30th August, 1968 marked "Strictly Confidential" conveying the approval of the Government to the award for a total sum of Rs. 6,57,870.15 Ps. and called upon the Land Acquisition Officer to prepare a fresh draft of the award in accordance with the details given in their communication. The petitioners filed this writ petition on September 19, 1968 contending that the proviso to Section 11 of the Act was inconsistent with the main Section and that the State Government had no power to amend Section 11 of the Central Land Acquisition Act, so as to take away the real power of the Land Acquisition Officer as envisaged in the Central Act. It is also contended that the amendment is inconsistent with the main section and therefore ultra vires the provisions contained in the Central Act. The petitioners also contended that the communication dated 29/30th August, 1968 issued by the first respondent amounted to interference with the course of statutory duty and the statutory proceedings contemplated by Section 11 of the Act. They prayed that besides striking down the said communication, the court should direct the Land Acquisition Officer to ignore the instructions contained in the communication and to maintain the valuation made by her in the draft award dated 24th July, 1968. According to the petitioners, the impugned communication, if allowed to be acted upon by respondents 2 and 3, would work irreparable loss to them and that it was not within the competence of the State Government to issue instructions of the type contained in the said communication.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents it is admitted that the properties had been taken possession of by the concerned officers on April 6, 1967 and that the petitioners had been paid Rs. 6,50,000/- on September 21, 1967. It is also admitted that the impugned communication was issued by the State Government indicating that they approved the award only for the sum expressly stated therein and that the aforesaid communication was within the competence of the Government. They have further stated, while declining to sanction the draft as sent by the Land Acquisition Officer, that they had also indicated their reasons for proposing a modified estimate of compensation. They have denied the petitioners' allegation that there was a conspiracy between the State Government and the Officer of the Security Forces in order to bring down the valuation of the property. They maintain that the proviso to Section 11 is legal and that the action taken by the State Government is Well within the ambit of its power conferred by that proviso. They complain that the petitioners have not come with clean hands, suppressing the material facts in regard to the manner in which they had come in possession of the documents produced with the writ petition and that on that ground alone the writ petition was liable to be dismissed in limine. According to the respondents, the writ petition is premature and not maintainable. They have denied the other allegations of undue interference etc.