MOOSA SALT WAKF Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the proceedings relating to the acquisition of 9746 sq. metres of land in premises Nos. 6 and 7, Cubbon Road, Civil Station, Bangalore.

(2.) The following are the essential facts of the case: Premises Nos. 6 and 7, Cubbon Road, Civil Station, Bangalore, belongs to a Wakf called "Mohammed Moosa Sait Wakf". It is stated that most of the beneficiaries of the Wakf are widows and orphans and persons in financial difficulties and who depend on the income of the Wakf. The said premises had been leased to one A.B.V. Gowda who has since deceased survived by his widow Yashoda Gowda, a daughter and a minor son. Permission for the said lease was granted by this Court in C.R.P. No. 713/1974 dated 25-7-1974.

(3.) The Notice dated 19-1-1987 was issued by respondent No. 1 purported to be under Section 7(1) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (Act 30 of 1952) to the petitioner in respect of 9746 sq. metres of land referred to earlier. The petitioner preferred objections to the said Notice on 22-5-1987. It is stated that the petitioner could not know the result of the proceedings after preferring the objections and therefore, filed a Memo on 19-11-1987 before respondent-1 requesting for a hearing before orders were passed. The Counsel appearing for the petitioner before the concerned authority also preferred an application for setting aside the ex parte order passed on 27-11-1987 and for consideration of the objections already filed by the petitioner in response to the Notice received by the petitioner under Section 7(1) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of immovable Property Act of 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act"). It is also stated that the Muthuvalli of the Wakf is an aged, sickly, diabetic patient residing at Madras. A copy of the application was made by the petitioner and a reply was received from respon-dent-1 dated 7-12-1987 and thereafter, another copy application was filed in order to obtain a copy of the order dated 7-9-1987. The petitioner filed a rejoinder on 21-2-1987 drawing the attention of respondent-1 to the provision of Section 12 of the Act to be read along with Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC and also requested an opportunity of hearing before orders were passed. At this stage, the petitioner received a Notice dated 16-3-1988 which was received by the petitioner actually on 22-3-1988. One more copy application was made by the petitioner in order to find out the nature of the orders passed by respondent-1. Even after a lapse of considerable time since copies were not received, the petitioner and his Advocate prevailed upon the authorities and were able to secure a copy of the order-sheet and order dated 7-9-1987. The corresponding entry of the remarks contained in the order sheet dated 7-9-1987 reads thus: