{"id":158580,"date":"2000-12-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-12-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-govt-houseless-harijan-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-11-december-2000"},"modified":"2019-02-12T20:20:48","modified_gmt":"2019-02-12T14:50:48","slug":"state-govt-houseless-harijan-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-11-december-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-govt-houseless-harijan-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-11-december-2000","title":{"rendered":"State Govt. Houseless Harijan … vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 11 December, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Govt. Houseless Harijan … vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 11 December, 2000<\/div>\n
Author: R Pal<\/div>\n
Bench: Ruma Pal, A.P.Misra<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 5015 1999\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nSTATE GOVT.  HOUSELESS HARIJAN EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t11\/12\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nRuma Pal, A.P.Misra\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
L…..I………T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J<\/p>\n
      J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
      RUMA PAL, J.\n<\/p>\n
      The  question to be decided in this appeal relates  to
\nthe  rights  of the beneficiary of an acquisition under\t the@@
\n     JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
\nLand  Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act)@@
\nJJJJ
\nto  resist  withdrawal of acquisition proceedings.   In\t the
\ncourse\tof the arguments before us, we were of the view that
\nthe  original  records\tpertaining to this  case  should  be
\nproduced.   This  was directed on 14th September 2000.\t The
\nentire\trecords\t have  admittedly not been produced  by\t the
\nState  Government.   We\t have been informed by\tthe  learned
\ncounsel\t appearing  on behalf of the State that one  of\t the
\nfiles  pertaining  to  the case has been  destroyed  on\t 3rd
\nFebruary,  2000.  On the basis of the records we have  found
\nthat  the  appellant  is  a  Society  registered  under\t the
\nKarnataka  Societies  Registration  Act, 1961.\tIt  has\t 360
\nmembers all of whom are State Government Employees belonging
\nto  the Schedule Castes of Adidravida and Adikarnataka.\t  It
\nwanted\tto  provide house sites for its members all of\twhom
\nare  houseless.\t  In  1983,  the  appellant  approached\t the
\nGovernment  to acquire 15 acres of land at Maralur  village.
\nThe  land belonged to respondents Nos.\t5 to 7 herein.\tBy a
\nletter\tdated 10.1.1983 the Planning Authority wrote to\t the
\nAssistant Commissioner, Tumkur stating that a resolution had
\nbeen   passed  to  issue   no  objection  certificate  for
\nsuitability  of\t the land for house sites in favour  of\t the
\nappellant.   It\t further  said that the land  was  earmarked
\npartly\tfor  residential  and partly for open place  in\t the
\ndraft  lay  out plan of Tumkur.\t On 16.7.1984 a\t letter\t was
\nwritten\t by  the Assistant Commissioner to the appellant  in
\nwhich  the appellant had been asked to furnish the following
\nparticulars:   1.   The lists of members of the\t Association
\nwho are siteless and houseless.\t 2.  The financial soundness
\nof  the\t Association  by way of the shares  collected.\t The
\namount deposited in the Bank etc.;  3.\tThe audit report for
\nthe previous three years;  4.  Whether the area proposed for
\nacquisition  is\t treated  as residential in  the  plan\ti.e.
\noutline development plan, or comprehensive development plan,
\nprepared  by  the  Town\t Planning  Department  or  not;\t  5.
\nWhether\t the layout plan proposed by the association fits in
\nthe  comprehensive  plan of the city area, 6.\tWhether\t the
\nproposed  area\tis in excess\/less as compared to the  demand
\nbased on the number of eligible members.\n<\/p>\n
      On  17.8.1984  the  particulars  as  required  by\t the
\nAssistant  Commissioner\t were furnished including a copy  of
\nthe  lay  out plan.  According to the appellant,  the  State
\nGovernment  required the appellant to make a deposit towards
\nthe  cost  of  acquisition.   The  appellant  deposited\t the
\nrequired  amount  in 1984.  According to the appellant,\t the
\nState  Government granted prior approval to the\t acquisition
\nby  letter  dated 7th September 1986.  A notification  under
\nSection\t 4 (1) of the Act was published on 6th August  1987.
\nOn 9th July 1987, the appellant was called upon to deposit a
\nfurther\t sum  towards  the cost of acquisition by  the\tLand
\nAcquisition  Officer.  This amount was also deposited.\t The
\nrecords\t were then forwarded by the Assistant  Commissioner,
\nTumkur\tunder  cover  of a letter dated\t 19.11.1987  to\t the
\nRevenue\t Commissioner  and Secretary to Government,  Revenue
\nDepartment.  These were returned with the direction that the
\nrecommendation\tof  the District Level Committee  should  be
\nsubmitted.   According to the appellant, on 13th May 1988 it
\nwrote  to  the Assistant Commissioner,\tTumkur\tSub-Division
\ngiving particulars of the housing scheme and again enclosing
\na  proposed  lay  out plan.  A letter  dated  30.5.1988\t was
\nwritten\t by  the appellant to the  Divisional  Commissioner,
\nTumkur\trequesting  for expedition in which it was stated
\nthe  Association  has  already formed 361 sites as  per\t the
\ndraft  plan measuring East to West and North to South 30ft.x
\n40 ft.\trespectively apart from road and park in 15 acres of
\nland  acquired\tat SY No.49 as per the Government Order\t No.
\nRD\/45\/AQT\/83 dated 27.3.1987.  The District Level Committee
\nheld  a\t meeting on 17.6.1988.\tThe minutes of\tthe  meeting
\nshow  that before recommending the appellants case all\tthe
\naspects\t were considered and in particular :  An extent\t of
\n80 x 210 Sq.  feet has been left for public amenities as per
\nthe  site  plan,  which is enclosed in the file.   The\tTown
\nPlanning  Authority has pointed that 10% of the land  should
\nbe  left  for public amenities.\t The Society has  agreed  to
\nthis.\n<\/p>\n
      At  its  meeting\theld on 28.7.1988  the\tState  Level
\nCommittee  recommended the acquisition of the land in favour
\nof  the appellant for providing house sites to its  members.
\nOn  10th  August 1988, the State Government passed an  order
\ndirecting  the\tauthorities to issue the final\tnotification
\nunder  Section\t6 (1) of the Act.  As the  statutory  period
\nprovided  under\t Section 6(1-A) (which has been inserted  by
\nway  of\t amendment  in the State of Karnataka)\thad  already
\nexpired, a fresh Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act
\nwas  directed  to be issued.  Prior to the issuance  of\t the
\nNotification,  a  detailed note was prepared by\t the  Deputy
\nSecretary,  Revenue  Department which was forwarded  to\t the
\nSecretary.   On\t 1.2.90, the Secretary referred to his\tnote
\nand  proposed,\tWe  may\t give clearance in  favour  of\tthe
\nAssociation.   For approval. This was approved by the Chief
\nSecretary  and placed before the Minister for Revenue who in
\nturn  approved\tthe  note on 12th February  1990.   On\t14th
\nFebruary,  1990\t the Secretary, Revenue Department wrote  to
\nthe  Deputy  Commissioner,  Tumkur District:  Sub:   In\t the
\nmatter\tof acquisition of 15 Acres of land in Survey No.  49
\nof  Maralur  Village,  Tumkur Kasaba, for housing  sites  in
\nfavour\tof  Houseless  Harijan-Girian  Government  Employees
\nAssociation.\n<\/p>\n
      Ref:   1.\t  Your office letter No.   LAW\/CR\/130\/88-89,
\ndated 17.10.1989.\n<\/p>\n
      2.    Your  letter  No.\t LAW\/CR\/18\/88-\t 89,   dated
\n26.10.1989:  5.12.1989.\n<\/p>\n
      After  considering  in  great   detail,  the  proposal
\ncontained  in  your  letter  and  requisition  of  Houseless
\nGovernment  Servants  Association,  Tumkur   and  all  other
\naspects, the State Government has decided to commence afresh
\nthe  land acquisition proceedings.  Therefore, I am directed
\nto request you to take steps for issue of notification under
\nSection 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.\n<\/p>\n
      A\t second\t notification under Section 4(1) of the\t Act
\nwas  issued  on\t 27.2.90 proposing to acquire the  land\t for
\npublic\tpurpose for the benefit of the appellant for housing
\nits  members.\tAgain  the Government did  not\tpublish\t the
\ndeclaration  under  Section  6 of the Act  within  the\ttime
\nprescribed.   A\t letter\t was  written on  15.3.1991  by\t the
\nSecretary,  Revenue  Department\t addressed   to\t the  Deputy
\nCommissioner.\tThe  unofficial\t translation of\t the  letter
\nreads:\tSub:  Allotment of 15 Acres of Land in Survey No.49
\nin  the\t Village  Maralooru, Tumkur  Disrtrict\tto  Landless
\nScheduled  Castes State Government Employees Union (Regd.)
\nReg.\n<\/p>\n
      Inviting\tattention  to your letter No.LQCR-  72-90-91
\ndated  20th  November,\t1990  on the above  subject,  it  is
\nbrought\t to your notice that while keeping in mind the\tfact
\nthat  the  matter  of acquisition of these  lands  has\tbeen
\ndropped on earlier two occasions after the initiation of the
\nland   acquisition  proceedings,  on   examination  of\t the
\nobjections  of\tthe  land  owners,   again  the\t matter\t  of
\nacquisition of land for being allotted to landless Scheduled
\nCastes\tState  Government Employees Union has been  minutely
\nexamined in consultation with the Law Department.  According
\nto the opinion of the Law Department the acquisition of land
\nin  favour of the impugned Union is for a public cause.\t  In
\nview  of  this\tit  has been decided by\t the  Government  to
\nacquire\t 15  acres  of land of Survey No.  49  in  Maralooru
\nVillage,  Tumkur District\/(Kasha) in favour of the  Landless
\nScheduled  Caste  State Government Employees Union,  Tumkur.
\nThererore,  I  am  directed to convey the  approval  of\t the
\nGovernment  to\tinitiate  action for issue  of\tnotification
\nunder  Column  4(1) for acquisition of the  above  mentioned
\nland in favour of the above mentioned Union.\n<\/p>\n
      A\t  third\t  notification\tunder\tSection\t  4(1)\t was
\naccordingly  published on 22.7.1991.  This was challenged by
\nrespondents  5 to 7 before the High Court (Writ Petition No.
\n21438 of 1991).\t It was contended that the appellant was not
\nduly  registered under the Karnataka Societies\tRegistration
\nAct,  1960 and, therefore, it was not lawful to acquire\t the
\nland   for  it.\t  No  interim\torder  was  passed  and\t the
\nacquisition  proceedings  continued.  The respondent  owners
\nfiled  objections  to the acquisition.\tAll  the  objections
\nincluding  the objection relating to the non-registerability
\nof  the\t appellant under the Karnataka Society\tRegistration
\nAct  were  rejected.   According to the noting on  the\tfile
\ndated  23.11.1991  the land owner can question the validity
\nof  the\t registration  of  the Association  on\tthe  housing
\nactivities,  before the appropriate authority and not before
\nthis  authority.  Therefore, this objection is not tenable.
\nThe  rejection\tof  the owner- respondents  objection  under
\nSection\t 5-A  were  affirmed  on  3.12.1991  in\t the  report
\nprepared   by  Deputy  Secretary   to  Government,   Revenue
\nDepartment  which  was\tapproved  both by  the\tMinister  of
\nRevenue\t as  well  as  the Law\tMinister.   Directions\twere
\naccordingly  issued to proceed under Section 6(1) (a) of the
\nAct on 12.3.1992.  The final Notification under Section 6 of
\nthe  Act  was published on 15th May 1992 declaring that\t the
\nacquisition was for the public purpose of allotment of house
\nsites  to  the members of the appellant.  On  7th  September
\n1992,  the  Land  Acquisition Officer made the\tAward  under
\nSection\t 9 of the Act, issued a notice dated 15th  September
\n1992  and  directed  the appellant to  deposit\tthe  balance
\namount\trepresenting  the  difference  between\tthe  amounts
\nalready\t deposited  by the appellant and the amount  of\t the
\nAward.\tThe balance amount of Rs.7,36,231\/- was deposited on
\n19th  November 1992.  A further sum of Rs.65,926\/- was\talso
\ndeposited  on 4th January 1993 by the appellant pursuant  to
\nthe  directions of the Land Acquisition Officer.  The  total
\namount\tdeposited  by  the  appellant towards  the  cost  of
\nacquisition is Rs.19,01,915\/.  The Award was approved by the
\nDivisional  Commissioner  by his O.M.  dated 26th May  1993.
\nThe  approval records that an inquiry was held by the Deputy
\nCommissioner   and  Assistant\tCommissioner  regarding\t the
\nmembers\t of  the  Society  and\tthat  the  authorities\twere
\nsatisfied  that the appellant-Association consisted of SC\/ST
\nmembers.    According  to  the\t orders\t of  the  Divisional
\nCommissioner,  possession  of  the acquired land was  to  be
\nhanded\tover  to the appellant in accordance with  law.\t  At
\nthis  stage,  a\t letter\t was written by\t the  Department  of
\nRevenue to the Land Acquisition Officer directing him not to
\nhand  over  possession\tof the land to the  appellant  until
\nfurther\t orders.   According to the  appellant-Society,\t the
\nGovernments  volte-face\t was  because S.Shafiq\tAhmed,\tthe
\nlocal  M.L.A.(\trespondent  No.\t  2)  had  objected  to\t the
\nfinalisation  of the land acquisition proceedings in  favour
\nof  the\t appellant.  It is alleged that the respondent\tNo.2
\nhad  sent  his\tobjections  not\t  only\tto  the\t  Divisional
\nCommissioner but also to the Revenue Minister.\tThe Minister
\ninstructed   the  Revenue  Commission  to  stop\t  the\tland
\nacquisition   proceedings  which  in   turn  passed  on\t the
\ninstruction  to\t the Secretary to the Revenue Department  of
\nthe  State  Secretariat as a consequence whereof the  letter
\ndated  5th  July  1993 was written.  On 6th July  1993,\t the
\nrespondents  5,6 and 7 withdrew Writ Petition No.  21438\/91.
\nThe appellant filed a writ petition challenging the legality
\nof  the\t letter\t dated 5th July 1993.  Although\t an  interim
\norder  had been granted not to take further action  pursuant
\nto  the\t letter,  in  the office  note\tdated  25.6.93,\t the
\nMinister  of  Revenue has recorded, In view of the  opinion
\noffered\t by the Law Deptt., it is not permissible to acquire
\nland on behalf of the Govt.  Houseless employees Association
\nregistered   under  Sec.   3  of  the  Karnataka   Societies
\nRegistration  Act.  Hence withdrawal notification u\/s  48(1)
\nof  the\t LA Act may be issued. And on 2nd August 1993,\tthe
\nGovernment  issued a Notification under Section 48(1) of the
\nAct  withdrawing the acquisition.  This was published in the
\nOfficial  Gazette on 5th August 1993.  The appellant amended
\nthe writ application by seeking quashing of the Notification
\ndated  2nd  August  1993.  A second writ petition  was\talso
\nfiled  by the appellant for the same reliefs.  However\tboth
\nwrit  petitions were dismissed.\t It is not necessary for  us
\nto  consider  the  order  dismissing  the  second  petition.
\nSuffice\t it to say that by virtue of an order passed by this
\nCourt, the appellant was permitted to proceed with the first
\nwrit  petition\tfiled  by  it on 9th July  1993.   The\twrit
\npetition  was  dismissed  by the Single Judge  holding\tthat
\nthere  was  no\tapproval to the\t acquisition  under  Section
\n3(f)(iv)  of the Act and that the letter dated 7th September
\n1986 relied upon by the appellant in this connection did not
\namount\tto  such approval.  It was also held that  malafides
\nhad  not  been established, as respondent No.  2 had  filed
\nstatement  of  objections denying all such allegations\tand
\nthat  the  appellant  had  not\tproduced  any  material\t to
\nestablish  that the release from the acquisition was at\t the
\ninstance of the second respondent in collusion with the land
\nowners.\t The Single Judge also held that the Government had
\nthe  absolute  power to withdraw from the acquisition  since
\npossession  had not been handed over to the appellant.\t The
\nappellants  appeal  was given short shrift by the  Division
\nBench  of the High Court.  It was said that no reasons\twere
\nrequired  to be given by the Government when it withdrew the
\nacquisition proceedings in the absence of any pleadings with
\nrespect to malafides.  It was also said that the decision of
\nthis  Court  in Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bombay  V.
\nGodrej\t& Boyce<\/a> 1988 (1) SCR 590 which had been relied\tupon
\nby  the appellant did not apply as this Court had, according
\nto  the\t High Court, held that reasons were required  to  be
\ngiven by the Government for withdrawing from the acquisition
\nonly  in  connection with acquisition proceedings  initiated
\nunder  Part  VIII  of  the Act and not in  cases  where\t the
\nproceedings  had  been\tinitiated  under  Part\tII.   Before
\nconcluding the narration of facts, we note that according to
\nthe  appellant,\t during the pendency of\t these\tproceedings,
\nrespondents 5, 6 and 7 sold the land to the respondents 8 to\n<\/p>\n
34.   The respondents 5,6 and 7 have denied this.  We do not
\npropose\t to  go into this dispute.  The arguments have\tbeen
\nwide ranging and the parties have submitted written notes of
\ntheir  arguments.  But the basic grievance of the  appellant
\nis  that the order withdrawing the acquisition under Section
\n48(1)  of  the Act was passed without any notice or  hearing
\nthe appellant.\tAccording to the appellant, the right of the
\nbeneficiary  to be heard has been recognized by the decision
\nof  this Court in Larsen & Toubro Ltd.\tv.  State of Gujarat
\nand  Others<\/a> 1998 (4) SCC 387.  According to the respondents,
\nthe decision in Larsen & Toubro Ltd.  is limited to the case
\nof  a  company\tfor  which  land  had  been  acquired  after
\nformalities  under  Part VII of the Act had been  completed.
\nIt  was\t submitted  that the principles of  natural  justice
\nshould\tnot be extended to withdrawal of an acquisition\t for
\npublic\tpurpose.  This Court has consistently held that\t the
\nrequirements  of natural justice will be read into statutory
\nprovisions  unless  excluded  expressly\t  or  by   necessary
\nimplication.   In the case of Union of India V.\t Col.\tJ.N.
\nSinha<\/a>  1970 (2) SCC 458, this Court said:  .  It is true@@
\n\t    JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
\nthat  if a statutory provision can be read consistently with
\nthe  principles of natural justice, the courts should do  so
\nbecause\t it  must be presumed that the Legislatures and\t the
\nstatutory  authorities intend to act in accordance with\t the
\nprinciples  of natural justice.\t But if on the other hand  a
\nstatutory  provision  either  specifically or  by  necessary
\nimplication  excludes  the  application of any\tor  all\t the
\nprinciples  of natural justice then the court cannot  ignore
\nthe  mandate  of the Legislature or the statutory  authority
\nand  read  into\t the concerned provision the  principles  of
\nnatural justice.\n<\/p>\n
      The  Constitution\t Bench\tin Olga\t Tellis\t V.   Bombay
\nMunicipal  Corporation<\/a>\t1985 (3) SCC 545 placed the onus  to
\nprove  the exclusion of the rules of natural justice by\t way
\nof  exception  and not as a general rule on the\t person\t who
\nasserted  it.\tThe  ordinary\trule  which  regulates\tall
\nprocedure  is that persons who are likely to be affected  by
\nthe proposed action must be afforded an opportunity of being
\nheard  as  to  why  that action should not  be\ttaken.\t The
\nhearing may be given individually or collectively, depending
\nupon  the  facts of each situation.  A departure  from\tthis
\nfundamental  rule of natural justice may be presumed to have
\nbeen intended by the Legislature only in circumstances which
\nwarrant it.  Such circumstances must be shown to exist, when
\nso  required,  the burden being upon those who affirm  their
\nexistence.\n<\/p>\n
      Both  these  views were affirmed by  the\tConstitution
\nBench  in  C.B.\t Gautam V.  Union of India<\/a> 1993 (1) SCC\t 78.
\nAdmittedly,  the ap\tpellant was given no opportunity  of
\nbeing heard before the decision was taken by the respondent-
\nSection\t authorities to withdraw the acquisition in exercise
\nof  48 (1) of the Act.\tSection 48 (1) of the Act  provides:\n<\/p>\n
48.    Completion  of  acquisition   not  compulsory,\tbut
\ncompensation to be awarded when not completed.\t (1) Except
\nin the case provided for in Section 36, the Government shall
\nbe  at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition of any\tland
\nof which possession has not been taken.\n<\/p>\n
      The  section does not in terms exclude the  principles
\nof natural justice.  However, the section has been construed
\nto  exclude  the  owners  right\t to  be\t heard\tbefore\tthe
\nacquisition  is\t withdrawn.   This  is\tbecause\t the  owners
\ngrievances  are\t redressable  under  Section  48  (2).\t No
\nirreparable  prejudice\tis caused to the owner of  the\tland
\nand,  if  at  all  the\towner has  suffered  any  damage  in
\nconsequence of the acquisition proceedings or incurred costs
\nin  relation  thereto, he will be paid compensation  thereof
\nunder  Section\t48 (2) of the Act. [See:  Amar Nath  Ashram
\nTrust Society V.  Governor of U.P 1988 1 SCC 591 at p.\t596]
\n.  [See:  also Special Land Acquisition Collector v.  Godrej
\nBoyce<\/a>  :  1988 1 SCR 590].  But as far as the beneficiary of
\nthe  acquisition is concerned there is no similar  statutory
\nprovision.   In\t contrast  with\t  the  owners  position\t the
\nbeneficiary  of\t the acquisition may by withdrawal from\t the
\nacquisition   suffer   substantial   loss  without   redress
\nparticularly  when it may have deposited compensation  money
\ntowards\t the  cost  of\tthe acquisition and  the  steps\t for
\nacquisition  under the Act have substantially been proceeded
\nwith.\tAn  opportunity\t of  being   heard  may\t allow\t the
\nbeneficiary  not  only to counter the basis for\t withdrawal,
\nbut also, if the circumstances permitted, to cure any defect
\nor  shortcoming and fill any lacuna.  No reason has been put
\nforward by the respondents to exclude the application of the
\nprinciple  of natural justice to Section 48 (1) of the\tAct.
\nThe decision in Larsen & Toubro which relied upon an earlier
\ndecision  in  Amarnath Ashram Trust Society and\t Another  V.
\nGovernor  of  U.P.   and  Others<\/a>  (supra)  to  hold  that  a
\nbeneficiary  has  a right to be heard before a\tnotification
\nunder  Section\t48  (1)\t is issued, does not  appear  to  be
\nlimited\t to acquisition for companies under Part VII of\t the
\nAct  as\t is  contended\tby   the  respondents  although\t the
\nacquisition in that case had been made for a company for the
\npurpose\t of  setting up a housing colony.  Both\t cases\thave
\nalso  drawn a distinction between the rights of an owner and
\nthe  beneficiary of the acquisition to object to  withdrawal
\nfrom the acquisition for the reasons noted earlier..  It may
\nbe noted that as in the case of the company, under Section 3\n<\/p>\n
(f)(vi) the prior approval to the acquisition is required if
\nan acquisition is made for the purpose of providing land for
\ncarrying  out, inter-alia, any housing scheme sponsored by a
\nSociety registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860.
\nThis  approval\tmust be made after adequate enquiry.   Again
\nthe issuance of the Notification under Section 4 is followed
\nby  filing  and hearing of objections under Section 5 -A  by
\nthe  Collector.\t  With the publication of declaration  under
\nSection\t 6,  the Collector is to take steps for\t holding  an
\ninquiry\t under\tSection\t 9 after giving notice\tto  all\t the
\npersons\t interested.   After  completing the  inquiry  under
\nSection\t 11, the Collector is required to pass an Award with
\nthe  approval of the State government giving  (i) the  true
\narea  of  the  land;   (ii) the compensation  which  in\t his
\nopinion should be allowed for the land;\t and<\/p>\n
      (iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among
\nall  the  persons known or believed to be interested in\t the
\nland,  of  whom,  or of whose claims,  he  has\tinformation,
\nwhether or not they have respectively appeared before him.\n<\/p>\n
      All these steps had been taken in the Appellants case
\n.  As said in Larsen & Toubro:\tAfter having done all this,
\nthe  State Government cannot unilaterally and without notice
\nto  the company withdraw from acquisition.  Opportunity\t has
\nto  be\tgiven  to  the company to  show\t cause\tagainst\t the
\nproposed  action  of the State Government to  withdraw\tfrom
\nacquisition.\n<\/p>\n
      A\t distinction may perhaps be drawn with beneficiaries
\nwho do not bear the cost of acquisition as the appellant has
\ndone  in this case.  But in the circumstances of this  case,
\nthe  State  Government\tcould not have\twithdrawn  from\t the
\nacquisition  without hearing the appellant.  This finding is
\nsufficient  to decide the appeal in favour of the appellant.
\nIn  any event the decision to withdraw the acquisition under
\nSection 48(1) is justiciable.  This Court in Amarnaths case
\nsaid:\t.  the decision of the Government to withdraw from
\nacquisition  was  based upon a misconception of the  correct
\nlegal  position.   Such\t a decision has to  be\tregarded  as
\narbitrary  and not bona fide.  Particularly in a case  where
\nas  a result of a decision taken by the Government the other
\nparty is likely to be prejudicially affected, the Government
\nhas  to\t exercise its power bona fide and  not\tarbitrarily.
\nEven  though  Section 48 of the Act confers upon  the  State
\nwide discretion it does not permit it to act in an arbitrary
\nmanner.\t  Though  the State cannot be compelled\t to  acquire
\nland  compulsorily  for a company its decision\tto  withdraw
\nfrom  acquisition can be challenged on the ground that power
\nhas  been  exercised  mala fide or in an  arbitrary  manner.
\nTherefore,  we\tcannot accept the submission of the  learned
\ncounsel\t for  the  State that the discretion  of  the  State
\nGovernment in this behalf is absolute and not justiciable at
\nall.\n<\/p>\n
      These  observations were noted with approval in Larsen@@
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t      JJJJJJ
\n&  Toubro.(supra)  In the notification under  Section  48(1)@@
\nJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
\nimpugned  in this appeal no reason whatsoever has been given
\nfor  withdrawal of the acquisition.  All that said is:\t In
\nexercise  of  the  powers conferred by\tSub-section  (1)  of
\nSection 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, (Central act 1
\nof  1894)  as amended by Karnataka Act No.  17 of 1961,\t the
\nGovernment of Karnataka hereby withdraw from the acquisition
\nof  the\t Land specified below in the schedule in respect  of
\nwhich  a Notification No.  RD:177:AQT:91 dated 15th May 1992
\nissued\tunder  Section\t6 of the Land  Acquisition  Act\t was
\npublished  in Karnataka Gazette dated 21st May 1992 and\t 3rd
\nSeptember  1992\t as required for public purpose, namely\t for
\nformation  and\tdistribution  to the  Members  of  Houseless
\nHarijans Employees Association [R] Tumkur. In the affidavit
\naffirmed on behalf of respondents, 1,3 and 4 on 3rd December@@
\n\t\t\t\t       JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
\n1998  it is said that the decision to withdraw was taken  on@@
\nJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
\nthe  basis  of the opinion of the Law Department.   The\t Law
\nDepartment  had opined that the acquisition had been  sought
\nto  be\tmade for a public purpose in terms of Section 3\t (f)\n<\/p>\n
(vi)  of  the Act, which required the housing scheme  to  be
\nsponsored  by  any  society registered under  the  Societies
\nRegistration  Act.   According\tto  the\t Law  Department,  a
\nsociety\t could be registered only in respect of the  objects
\nspecified  in  clauses\t(a)  to\t (g) of\t Section  3  of\t the
\nKarnataka  Society  Registration Act.  None of\tthe  objects
\nmentioned  in the Memorandum of Association of the appellant
\nfell within these clauses of Section 3 of the State act.  In
\nthe  result,  the  acquisition\tof land on  behalf  of\tthe
\nSociety\t in question for the purpose of forming layouts\t and
\ndistribution  of  sites\t to  its   members  (which  are\t not
\ncontemplated  under  Section  3 of the K.S.R.  Act)  is\t not
\npermissible.   Section\t 3(f)  of   the\t Act  defines\tthe
\nexpressions  public  purposes  as  including,  inter-alia:\n<\/p>\n
(vi) the provision of land for carrying out any educational,
\nhousing,  health  or  slum  clearance  scheme  sponsored  by
\nGovernment or by any authority established by Government for
\ncarrying out any such scheme, or, with the prior approval of
\nthe  appropriate  Government,  by a local  authority,  or  a
\nsociety\t registered  under the Societies  Registration\tAct,
\n1860,  or under any corresponding law for the time being  in
\nforce  in  a  State, or a co-operative\tsociety\t within\t the
\nmeaning\t of  any law relating to co-operative societies\t for
\nthe time being in force in any State;\n<\/p>\n
      but   does  not  include\t acquisition  of  land\t for
\nCompanies.\n<\/p>\n
      In  order\t therefore that an acquisition may be for  a
\npublic purpose within the meaning of sub-section 3(f)(vi) as
\nfar  as the case before us is concerned, the acquisition (1)
\nshould\thave  been  done  with the  prior  approval  of\t the
\nappropriate Government;\t (2) must have provided for land for
\nany  housing  scheme and (3) the housing scheme should\thave
\nbeen  sponsored by a Society registered under the  Societies
\nRegistration Act, 1860 or any other corresponding law in the
\nState.\t Of  these three requirements, according to the\t Law
\nDepartment,  the third requirement was lacking.\t The opinion
\nof  the\t Law  Department and consequently the basis  of\t the
\nimpugned  order\t are  unacceptable   for  several   reasons.
\nAdmittedly  the appellant is registered under the  Karnataka
\nSocieties   Registration  Act.\t What\tappears\t to  be\t the
\ncontention  of\tthe respondents is that the appellant  could
\nnot  have  been\t registered  under the\tState  Act.   It  is
\nnobodys\t case that the registration of the appellant has in
\nfact  been  withdrawn or cancelled under the Karnataka\tAct.
\nSection\t 3  of the Karnataka Act specifies the Societies  to
\nwhich  the  Karnataka  Act applies.  The Societies  must  be
\nformed\tfor any one or more of the seven objects  mentioned.
\nThe  last two objects mentioned in the Karnataka Act are  in
\nfact  included\tin  the\t Memorandum of\tAssociation  of\t the
\nappellant  as  being  two  of the aims and  objects  of\t the
\nappellant.   The opinion of the Law Department that none  of
\nthe  objects  of  the  Appellant  were\twithin\tthe  objects
\nspecified  in Section 3 was factually incorrect.  It has not
\nbeen  shown that if some of the objects with which a Society
\nis  established\t are  invalid  and  others  are\t valid,\t the
\nregistration  of the Society is ipso facto vitiated.  On the
\ncontrary,  it  appears\tfrom the records that  on  petitions
\nbeing\tfiled\tfor   cancellation    of   the\t appellants
\nregistration,  by letter dated 23rd March 1991, the District
\nRegistrar   did\t not  cancel   the  registration  but  said,
\nTherefore, it is hereby endorsed that the objects which are
\nin  accordance with Section 3 of the said Act are valid\t and
\nremained  (sic) not valid. Thus, it cannot be asserted with
\nany  certainty\tthat the appellant could not have  been\t and
\ncannot\tcontinue  to be registered under the Karnataka\tAct.
\nIt  is to be noted that under Section 8 (2) of the Karnataka
\nAct, a society may be registered only after the Registrar is
\nsatisfied that all the requirements of the Act and the rules
\nmade thereunder have been complied with.  One cannot assume,
\nthat  the appellants case did not come within Section 3 (f)\n<\/p>\n
(vi)  of the Act.  It is therefore unnecessary to  determine
\nwhether there is a conflict between Section 3 (f)(vi) of the
\nAct  and Section 3 of the Karnataka Act nor do we propose to
\ndecide\twhich of the two would prevail under Article 254  of
\nthe  Constitution.  Indeed the learned Single Judge found no
\nimpediment  in\tan  acquisition for  the  appellant  despite
\nSection\t 3  of\tthe Karnataka Act when he  said:   all\tthe
\nmembers\t of the Society belong to the weaker section of\t the
\nsociety\t and  they do not have residential sites to  have  a
\nroof  over  their  head.   When such being the\tcase  it  is
\nappropriate  for  the  State  Government to  take  steps  to
\nacquire\t lands\thaving\tgot   deposited\t substantial  amount
\ntowards\t the  cost  of acquisition with a  view\t to  acquire
\ncertain\t extent of land to provide residential sites to\t the
\nmembers\t of  the  society.  Therefore, in the event  if\t the
\npetitioner society come forward with a scheme and submit the
\nsame  to the State Government, the State Government may take
\nnecessary  steps  to initiate acquisition proceedings  after
\nsanctioning   the   prior    approval\t provided   if\t the
\npetitioner-society does not withdraw the amount so deposited
\nby it for the purpose of acquisition of the land.\n<\/p>\n
      In  fact\tneither\t the Single Judge nor  the  Division
\nBench  of the High Court appear to have accepted this reason
\nas  ground  for withdrawing the\t acquisition.\tFurthermore,
\nthis  very objection had been considered at every level\t and
\nrejected  on 14th November 1991 after which the Notification
\nunder  Section 6 was issued and published declaring that the
\nland was required for a public purpose.\t Once this was done,
\nunder sub-Section (3) of Section 6, the said declaration was
\nconclusive  evidence  that the land is needed for a  public
\npurpose…   The  stage\t for   questioning  the\t public
\npurpose\t aspect\t of the acquisition is over and\t cannot\t be
\nreopened  by the State nor can the respondents\/owners  raise
\nthis  issue  without  challenging   the\t Notification  under
\nSection\t 6.  They had challenged it under Art.\t226 but then
\nwithdrew  their\t writ petition.\t In this context it  may  be
\nnoted  that  the  appellants  allegation  that\tthe  sudden
\nvolte-face  of\tthe  State Government was by reason  of\t the
\npressure  brought by respondent No.  2 appears to have\tsome
\nsubstance.   Although the respondent No.  2, both before the
\nHigh  Court  and  before us, denied his involvement  in\t the
\nmatter,\t the  records reveal that at least by  letter  dated
\n30th December 1991, the respondent No.\t2 had written to the
\nRevenue\t Department espousing the cause of respondent owners
\nseeking\t withdrawal of the acquisition.\t The basis on  which
\nthe  learned  Single  Judge dismissed the  appellants  writ
\npetition  was that there was no approval of the\t appropriate
\nGovernment  to\tthe acquisition, namely, the absence of\t the
\nthird  factor noted above.  This was not the ground on which
\nwithdrawal from the acquisition had been made and it was not
\nopen  to the State Government to justify its decision on any
\nother  ground.\tAs held by this Court in Mohinder Singh Gill
\nand  Another v.\t The Chief Election Commissioner, New  Delhi
\nand  Others<\/a>  1978  (1)\tSCC  405 at  p.\t  417:\t ..when\t a
\nstatutory  functionary\tmakes  an  order  based\t on  certain
\ngrounds,  its  validity\t must be judged by  the\t reasons  so
\nmentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the
\nshape of affidavit or otherwise.  Otherwise, an order bad in
\nthe  beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account
\nof  a  challenge, get validated by additional grounds  later
\nbrought out.\n<\/p>\n
      Besides,\twhat had been stated in the affidavit of the
\nState-\trespondents  is\t  the petitioner  society  has\tnot
\nsubmitted  any\thousing scheme and as such there  could\t not
\nhave  been  prior approval from the Government.\t  In  other
\nwords, the fact of prior approval has not been denied.\tWhat
\nis  said is because no housing scheme had been submitted  by
\nthe  appellant\tthere could not have been prior\t approval.
\nNo  finding  was however given by the Single Judge on  this.
\nAll  that  was\tsaid  was:   The  learned  Govt.   Advocate
\nsubmitted  that\t in  the  instant case there  is  no  scheme
\nsubmitted  by  the society and there is no such approval  of
\nthe State Government.  If that is so, the entire acquisition
\nproceedings initiated treating it as a public purpose itself
\nis vitiated.\n<\/p>\n
      The  Division  Bench did not at all address itself  to
\nthis aspect of the matter.  In the absence of any finding on
\nthe  existence\tof the scheme, the submission of  the  State
\nGovernment  regarding  prior  approval\t should\t have\tbeen
\nrejected.   In\tfact it appears from the records  a  housing
\nscheme\thad been submitted by the appellant.  Apart from the
\nlay  out  plan, the number, the sizes and positions  of\t the
\nplots,\tthe  user,  the number of allottees,  the  basis  of
\nallotment, the finances for the purposes, the particulars of
\nthe membership had all been submitted by the appellant.\t The
\norganisational set up to administer the scheme was indicated
\nin  its\t Memorandum of Association, which also ensures\tthat
\nthe land would be utilised for the purposes for which it was
\nbeing\tacquired.   The\t clearance  of\tthe  Town   Planning
\nAuthority  had been obtained.  The particulars were verified
\nand  found satisfactory in all respects by the\tauthorities.
\nNothing\t more  could be asked for from the propounder  of  a
\nhousing\t scheme.   The respondents then submitted  that\t the
\nletter\tdated  15th  March, 1991 did not amount to  a  prior
\napproval  because ( i ) it did not indicate that the  scheme
\nwas approved (ii) it was not in accordance with Art.  166 of
\nthe Constitution and (iii ) the Government could not rely on
\nmaterial collected by it before the first notification under
\nSection\t 4(1)  of the Act was issued.  No form of the  prior
\napproval required under Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act has been
\nspecified  in  the  Act itself.\t What the section  in  terms
\nrequires  is  the prior approval to the acquisition for\t the
\npurpose\t specified.   This  was expressly given.   That\t the
\nletter\tdated 15.3.91 was issued by the Government is not in
\ndispute.   The\tlack of compliance with Article 166 did\t not
\nrender\tit a nullity.  As held by the Constitution Bench  of
\nthis  Court  in\t 1964 (6) SCR 368:   it\t is,  therefore,
\nsettled\t law that provisions of Art.166 of the\tConstitution
\nare  only  directory and not mandatory in character and,  if
\nthey  are  not\tcomplied with, it can be  established  as  a
\nquestion  of fact that the impugned order was issued in fact
\nby  the\t State\tGovernment or the  Governor…\t[See  also
\nDattatreya v.  The State of Bombay (1952 SCR 612) Major E.G.
\nBarsay v.  State of Bombay<\/a>:  AIR (1961) SC 1762]<\/p>\n
      No doubt, in Gulabra v.  State of Gujarat 1996 (2) SCC
\n26,  it was held that a decision of Revenue Minister was not
\nan  order  of the Government because of non compliance\twith
\nArticle\t 166.  But in that case there was a conflict between
\nthe  Revenue  Department and the Urban Development  &  Urban
\nHousing Department whether proceedings under S.\t 4(1) of the
\nAct  were to be dropped or not.\t The Revenue Minister was of
\nthe  view that it should be dropped.  The Urban\t Development
\nDepartment  disputed this.  The Rules of Business framed  by
\nthe  State under Art.  166(3) specifically provided that  in
\nsuch  a controversy , the matter was to be submitted to\t the
\nChief Minister for placing before the Cabinet.\tThis was not
\ndone  nor was the order of the Revenue Minister communicated
\nto  the\t appropriate  authority.    The\t Revenue  Ministers
\ndecision  which\t was  noted  on the file was  sought  to  be
\nenforced  by  the owners.  This was negatived by the  Court.
\nThe  decision  is  factually distinguishable and  cannot  be
\nconstrued  as  upsetting  the  settled\t law  as  noted\t  in
\nChitralekhas  case.   The  approval  in\t this  case  was  a
\nculmination of a lengthy exercise which started in 1983 with
\ntwo  prior  abortive attempts to complete  the\tacquisition.
\nThis  is  evident  from\t the language of  the  letter  dated
\n15.3.1991  itself.   The  genuineness  of the  need  of\t the
\nappellant  has\tnot  been doubted even by  the\tHigh  Court,
\nunlike the case of HMT House Building Cooperative Society v.
\nSyed  Khader & Ors.<\/a>  (1995)2 SCC 677 where it was found that
\nthe  Government had acted at the instance of a middleman and
\nthe  acquisition  was  sought for  the\tultimate  commercial
\nutilization  of the land.  But, the respondents contend, the
\nmaterials on which the appellant sought to rely to show that
\nthe prior approval in 1991 was granted after being satisfied
\nabout  the  housing  scheme,  were submitted  prior  to\t the
\nearlier\t notifications under Section 4(1).  According to the
\nrespondents, with the dropping of the earlier notifications,
\nthe  entire  proceedings  on the basis of  which  they\twere
\nissued\tbecame non est.\t They have cited State of Gujarat V.
\nPatel Chaturbhai Narsibhai<\/a> 1975 1 SCC 583 in support of this
\nsubmission.   The owner- respondents further submission was
\nthat  the acquisition was commenced under Part VII and\tthat
\nthe  material  gathered\t may  have   been  relevant  for  an
\nacquisition  under Part VII but could not be relied upon for
\nproceedings  under Part II.  These are not pleas which\twere
\ntaken  by  the respondents at any stage.  Both issues  raise@@
\n\t\t\t   JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
\nmixed  questions  of law and fact.  As far as  questions  of@@
\nJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
\nfact are involved we cannot entertain them and as principles
\nof  law\t both submissions are untenable.   Patel  Chaturbhai
\nNasirbhai  (supra)  cited  by  the  respondents\t dealt\twith
\nacquisition for a company in accordance with Part VII of the
\nAct  and the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963.\tPart
\nVII of the Act contains sections relevant to the acquisition
\nof land for Companies, namely, Section 38-A to Section 44-B.
\nSection\t 39 provides that the procedure commencing with\t the
\ndeclaration  under  Section  6\t and  terminating  with\t the
\ndistribution  of  compensation\tand possession of  the\tland
\nwould  not  put into force to acquire land for\tany  company
\nunder  Part-VII\t without:  (i) the previous consent  of\t the
\nappropriate Government, and<\/p>\n
      (ii) execution of an agreement between the company and
\nthe appropriate Government under Section 41.\n<\/p>\n
      It  is only after both the requirements are  satisfied
\nthat  further  steps  in  the acquisition of  land  for\t the
\ncompany\t can  be taken.\t In Patel Chaturbhai  Narsibhai\t and
\nOthers(supra)  the first notification under Section 4 of the
\nAct  was  issued  on 4th March 1961.  After an\tinquiry\t was
\nheld, the State Government gave its consent.  On 22nd August
\n1961  an  agreement  was  entered  into\t between  the  State
\nGovernment  and\t the  Company.\tOn 9th July 1965,  the\tLand
\nAcquisition  (Gujarat  Unification and Amendment) Act,\t1965
\ncame  into  force  amending  Section 39\t of  the  Act.\t The
\nNotification  dated  4th  March 1961 was cancelled  on\t28th
\nSeptember  1965.   The next day a fresh\t notification  under
\nSection\t 4  was issued.\t The dispute before this  Court\t was
\nwhether\t the  conditions  for  the issuance  of\t the  second
\nNotification  had  been\t satisfied.   Admittedly,  a  second
\nagreement was entered into between the Company and the State
\nGovernment after the second Notification under Section 4 (1)
\non  13th  January  1969\t i.e.\t subsequent  to\t the  second
\nNotification.\tThe State Government sought to rely upon the
\nearlier\t  agreement  dated  22nd   August  1961.   This\t was
\nnegatived.   It\t was  said:  The enquiry  pursuant  to\tthe
\nnotifications  in  the year 1961 and previous to  the  fresh
\nnotifications  in  1965\t is  of no effect  in  law  for\t two
\nprincipal  reasons.   First,  the   1961  notification\t was
\ncancelled, and, therefore, all steps taken thereunder became
\nineffective.   Second, the enquiry under Rule 4 in 1961\t was
\nheld   without\t giving\t opportunity  to  the\tland   owner
\nrespondent, and, therefore, the enquiry is invalid in law.\n<\/p>\n
      To  begin\t with  as  far\tas the\tcase  before  us  is
\nconcerned  there  is  no basis for the submission  that\t the
\nacquisition  was  originally commenced under Part VII.\t The
\nfirst Notification is not on record.  The State has given no
\nreason\tfor  destruction  of the file when  the\t matter\t was
\npending for consideration before this Court.  However, after
\nthe publication of the first notification under Section 4(1)
\non 6th August 1987 the respondents-owners had objected.\t The
\nobjections  included a submission that the Society is not  a
\nregistered  Society.   The  second objection  was  that\t the
\nacquisition  was not for a public purpose.  In dealing\twith
\nthese  objections  by letter dated 12th \/19th November\t1987
\nwritten by the Assistant Commissioner, Tumkur to the Revenue
\nCommissioner   it  was\taffirmed   that\t the  appellant\t was
\nregistered  and the purpose of acquisition is housing.\t As
\nsuch  the proposed acquisition falls under Section  3(e)(vi)
\nread  with  Section 3 (e) (vii).  Presumably the  Assistant
\nCommissioner  meant Section 3 (f) (vi) and 3(f) (vii).\t The
\nrespondents  then relied upon a letter dated 27th March 1987
\nsent  by  the  Under Secretary, Revenue\t Department  to\t the
\nSpecial\t Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur District, Tumkur  which
\nreads  as  follows:   While  returning the  records,  I\t am
\ndirected  to  convey the approval of Government to  initiate
\nacquisition  proceedings  under Karnataka  Land\t Acquisition
\n(Company)  Rules to acquire an extent of 15-00 acres of land
\nin  S.No.49  of Maralur village, Tumkur taluk in  favour  of
\nState Government Employees Association, Tumkur.\n<\/p>\n
      Whatever\tmay be said in the internal  correspondence,
\nthere  is  no  evidence that the matter was  proceeded\twith
\nunder  Part VII at all.\t After the first notification  under
\nSection 4(1) was issued by letter dated 16th April 1988 sent
\nby  the Under Secretary to the Deputy Commissioner,  Tumkur,
\nit  was stated:\t While enclosing the records received  from
\nthe  Assistant\tCommissioner, Tumkur under his letter  cited
\nabove,\t I   am\t directed  to\trequest\t you  to  send\t the
\nrecommendation\tof the District Level Committee\t constituted
\nin G.O.No.  RD 193 AQW 185, dated 20.1.1986, keeping in view
\nthe  guidelines\t issued\t in Circular of\t even  number  dated
\n23.4.1986,  including the existent of land to be acquired to
\nprovide house sites to its members.\n<\/p>\n
      It  was pursuant to this directive that enquiries were
\nheld  and  the District and State Level committees  enquired
\ninto  and verified the appellants case before  recommending
\nit.   The material was relevant not only to the question  of
\npublic purpose under Section 4 but could also form the basis
\nof  an approval under Section 3 (f)(vi).  It is not disputed
\nthat  the  material was considered when the second  and\t the
\nthird  notifications under Section 4(1) were issued and both
\nthese  Notifications clearly state that the acquisition\t was
\nbeing  made  for a public purpose and not under Part VII  of
\nthe  Act.  Therefore, even if the acquisition was originally
\ncommenced  under Part-VII it was continued under Part II.  A
\nconverse situation occurred in Amarnath Ashram Trust Society
\n(supra), where although the notification under Section 4 (1)
\nwas  issued  for  a public purpose,  the  declaration  under
\nSection\t  6  showed  that  it\twas  under  Part  VII.\t The
\ndeclaration  clearly referred to the inquiry made under Rule
\n4  of  the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 and\t the
\nagreement entered into between the appellant-Society and the
\nState.\tMoreover, it was not pleaded by the State before the
\nHigh Court that the acquisition was for a public purpose and
\nnot  under  Chapter VII of the Act.  Therefore, it was\theld
\nthat it was not open to the counsel for the state to raise a
\ncontention which was contrary to the case pleaded before the
\nHigh Court.  In this case the earlier notifications were not
\ncancelled  nor is there any question of any agreement  under
\nSection\t 41  being superseded by another.  No further  steps
\ncould  be taken on the earlier notifications only because of
\nadministrative\tdelay which crossed the period of limitation
\nprovided under Section 6(1)(A).\t While the proceedings under
\nSection 4 (1) may come to an end as a matter of law, it does
\nnot mean that the material on the basis of which the earlier
\nNotification was issued ceased to exist as a matter of fact.
\nSection\t 4  (1)\t read  with Section 3 (f) (vi)\tof  the\t Act
\nindicates  that\t there\tare  two separate  functions  to  be
\nperformed  by the State Government.  Under Section 4 (1)  it
\nmust  prima  facie  come  to the conclusion  that  the\tland
\nproposed to be acquired is required for a public purpose and
\nunder  Section 3 (f)(vi), such tentative conclusion must  be
\ncoupled\t with specific approval to acquire the land for\t the
\npurposes specified for the benefit of the registered society
\nor  co- operative society, as the case may be.\tThe Act does
\nnot  specify  the  material on which  either  the  tentative
\nconclusion  to\tSection\t 4  (1) or  approval  under  Section
\n3(f)(vi) are to be based.  In M\/s Fomento Resorts and Hotels
\nLtd.   V.  Gustavo Ranato DA Cruz Pinto and Others<\/a> 1985\t (2)
\nSCC  152  it was held that the view of the  Government\tthat
\nland  is  needed either for public purpose or for a  company
\nmay  be based either on independent enquiry or from  reports
\nand  information received by the government or even from  an
\napplication  by the company concerned.\tThe same sources may
\nprovide\t information  for  granting   prior  approval  under
\nSection\t 3(f)  (vi).  There is no prohibition on  the  State
\nGovernment acting on the basis of material already on record
\nprovided  the material is sufficient, relevant and  genuine.
\nThe  material  in this case although collected prior to\t the
\nissuance  of  the  second  Notification was  all  these\t and
\naccording  to  the  letter  of\t approval,  the\t matter\t was
\nminutely  examined by the State Government in consultation
\nwith the Law Department before granting the approval for the
\nthird  and final notification in 1991.\tThe final submission
\nof  the\t owner respondents was that the present\t acquisition
\nwas  in fact being made under Part VII and that none of\t the
\nprovisions  in\tPart-VII  had\tbeen  followed.\t  The  third
\nNotification  ex facie states that it was issued for  public
\npurposes  under\t Part  II of the Act.  The  finding  of\t the
\nlearned\t Single\t Judge\talso  was:  it is  clear  that\tthe
\nacquisition  proceedings are initiated under Part II of\t the
\nAct  and  not under Part VII of the Act.  Furthermore,\tthe
\nonly  stumbling-block  raised by the  respondent-owners\t all
\nalong  was  the\t issue\tof the applicability  of  Section  3\n<\/p>\n
(f)(vi)\t only because the acquisition was under Part II.  It
\nwas  commenced\tand  continued as  such.   The\trespondents
\nargument  that the procedure followed was a hybrid procedure
\nof  Part II and Part VII, therefore, is erroneous.  From all
\nthis,  the  ultimate  position\twhich emerges  is  that\t the
\nacquisition   in  favour  of   the  appellant  was  properly
\ninitiated by publication of the Notification under Section 4
\n(1)  and  by  the declaration issued under Section  6.\t The
\nwithdrawal  of\tthe  acquisition under Section\t48  (1)\t was
\nvitiated  not  only because the appellant was not heard\t but
\nalso  because the reason for withdrawal was wrong.  The High
\nCourt  erred  in dismissing the appellants  writ  petition.
\nThe  decision  of the High Court is accordingly\t set  aside.
\nThe impugned Notification under Section 48(1) is quashed and
\nthe appeal is allowed with costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Govt. Houseless Harijan … vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 11 December, 2000 Author: R Pal Bench: Ruma Pal, A.P.Misra CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5015 1999 PETITIONER: STATE GOVT. HOUSELESS HARIJAN EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/12\/2000 BENCH: Ruma Pal, A.P.Misra JUDGMENT: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-158580","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Govt. Houseless Harijan ... vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 11 December, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-govt-houseless-harijan-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-11-december-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Govt. Houseless Harijan ... vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 11 December, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-govt-houseless-harijan-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-11-december-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-12-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-12T14:50:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"38 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-govt-houseless-harijan-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-11-december-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-govt-houseless-harijan-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-11-december-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Govt. Houseless Harijan … vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 11 December, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-12-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-12T14:50:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-govt-houseless-harijan-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-11-december-2000\"},\"wordCount\":7501,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-govt-houseless-harijan-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-11-december-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-govt-houseless-harijan-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-11-december-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-govt-houseless-harijan-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-11-december-2000\",\"name\":\"State Govt. Houseless Harijan ... vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 11 December, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-12-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-12T14:50:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-govt-houseless-harijan-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-11-december-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-govt-houseless-harijan-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-11-december-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-govt-houseless-harijan-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-11-december-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Govt. Houseless Harijan … vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 11 December, 2000\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Govt. Houseless Harijan ... vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 11 December, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-govt-houseless-harijan-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-11-december-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Govt. Houseless Harijan ... vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 11 December, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-govt-houseless-harijan-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-11-december-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-12-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-12T14:50:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"38 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-govt-houseless-harijan-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-11-december-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-govt-houseless-harijan-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-11-december-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Govt. Houseless Harijan … vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 11 December, 2000","datePublished":"2000-12-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-12T14:50:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-govt-houseless-harijan-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-11-december-2000"},"wordCount":7501,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-govt-houseless-harijan-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-11-december-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-govt-houseless-harijan-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-11-december-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-govt-houseless-harijan-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-11-december-2000","name":"State Govt. Houseless Harijan ... vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 11 December, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-12-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-12T14:50:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-govt-houseless-harijan-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-11-december-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-govt-houseless-harijan-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-11-december-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-govt-houseless-harijan-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-11-december-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Govt. Houseless Harijan … vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 11 December, 2000"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/158580","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=158580"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/158580\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=158580"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=158580"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=158580"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}