RD/45/AQT/83 dated 27.3.1987.
Second, the enquiry under Rule 4 in 1961 was held without giving opportunity to the land owner respondent, and, therefore, the enquiry is invalid in law.
On 1.2.90, the Secretary referred to his numbere and proposed, We may give clearance in favour of the Association.
Houseless employees Association registered under Sec.
A further sum of Rs.65,926/ was also deposited on 4th January 1993 by the appellant pursuant to the directions of the Land Acquisition Officer.
Prior to the issuance of the Notification, a detailed numbere was prepared by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department which was forwarded to the Secretary.
This was negatived.
Your office letter No.
49 of Maralur Village, Tumkur Kasaba, for housing sites in favour of Houseless Harijan Girian Government Employees Association.
3 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act.
It further said that the land was earmarked partly for residential and partly for open place in the draft lay out plan of Tumkur.
And on 2nd August 1993, the Government issued a Notification under Section 48 1 of the Act withdrawing the acquisition.
On 9th July 1987, the appellant was called upon to deposit a further sum towards the companyt of acquisition by the Land Acquisition Officer.
This amount was also deposited.
Ref 1.
The land belonged to respondents Nos.
It is number necessary for us to companysider the order dismissing the second petition.
A third numberification under Section 4 1 was accordingly published on 22.7.1991.
respectively apart from road and park in 15 acres of land acquired at SY No.49 as per the Government Order No.
feet has been left for public amenities as per the site plan, which is enclosed in the file.
The State Government sought to rely upon the earlier agreement dated 22nd August 1961.
In the companyrse of the arguments before us, we were of the view that the original records pertaining to this case should be produced.
The dispute before this Court was whether the companyditions for the issuance of the second Notification had been satisfied.
Hence withdrawal numberification u s 48 1 of the LA Act may be issued.
The entire records have admittedly number been produced by the State Government.
It wanted to provide house sites for its members all of whom are houseless.
The Minister instructed the Revenue Commission to stop the land acquisition proceedings which in turn passed on the instruction to the Secretary to the Revenue Department of the State Secretariat as a companysequence whereof the letter dated 5th July 1993 was written.
This was challenged by respondents 5 to 7 before the High Court Writ Petition No.
On 16.7.1984 a letter was written by the Assistant Commissioner to the appellant in which the appellant had been asked to furnish the following particulars 1.
On 6th July 1993, the respondents 5,6 and 7 withdrew Writ Petition No.
It was companytended that the appellant was number duly registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 and, therefore, it was number lawful to acquire the land for it.
On 10th August 1988, the State Government passed an order directing the authorities to issue the final numberification under Section 6 1 of the Act.
On the basis of the records we have found that the appellant is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1961.
The approval records that an inquiry was held by the Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner regarding the members of the Society and that the authorities were satisfied that the appellant Association companysisted of SC ST members.
The records were then forwarded by the Assistant Commissioner, Tumkur under companyer of a letter dated 19.11.1987 to the Revenue Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Revenue Department.
21438 of 1991 .
A second writ petition was also filed by the appellant for the same reliefs.
It is alleged that the respondent No.2 had sent his objections number only to the Divisional Commissioner but also to the Revenue Minister.
On 17.8.1984 the particulars as required by the Assistant Commissioner were furnished including a companyy of the lay out plan.
The respondent owners filed objections to the acquisition.
The Society has agreed to this.
Suffice it to say that by virtue of an order passed by this Court, the appellant was permitted to proceed with the first writ petition filed by it on 9th July 1993.
2 had objected to the finalisation of the land acquisition proceedings in favour of the appellant.
After an inquiry was held, the State Government gave its companysent.
Therefore, I am directed to request you to take steps for issue of numberification under Section 4 1 of the Land Acquisition Act.
On 14th February, 1990 the Secretary, Revenue Department wrote to the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur District Sub In the matter of acquisition of 15 Acres of land in Survey No.
Although an interim order had been granted number to take further action pursuant to the letter, in the office numbere dated 25.6.93, the Minister of Revenue has recorded, In view of the opinion offered by the Law Deptt.,
The total amount deposited by the appellant towards the companyt of acquisition is Rs.19,01,915/. The Award was approved by the Divisional Commissioner by his O.M. dated 26th May 1993.
At this stage, a letter was written by the Department of Revenue to the Land Acquisition Officer directing him number to hand over possession of the land to the appellant until further orders.
LAW CR/18/88 89, dated 26.10.1989 5.12.1989.
Whether the layout plan proposed by the association fits in the companyprehensive plan of the city area, 6.
By a letter dated 10.1.1983 the Planning Authority wrote to the Assistant Commissioner, Tumkur stating that a resolution had been passed to issue numberobjection certificate for suitability of the land for house sites in favour of the appellant.
In 1983, the appellant approached the Government to acquire 15 acres of land at Maralur village.
According to the orders of the Divisional Commissioner, possession of the acquired land was to be handed over to the appellant in accordance with law.
All the objections including the objection relating to the number registerability of the appellant under the Karnataka Society Registration Act were rejected.
This was approved by the Chief Secretary and placed before the Minister for Revenue who in turn approved the numbere on 12th February 1990.
The Town Planning Authority has pointed that 10 of the land should be left for public amenities.
The lists of members of the Association who are siteless and houseless.
On 22nd August 1961 an agreement was entered into between the State Government and the Company.
Your letter No.
It has 360 members all of whom are State Government Employees belonging to the Schedule Castes of Adidravida and Adikarnataka.
The appellant amended the writ application by seeking quashing of the Notification dated 2nd August 1993.
it is number permissible to acquire land on behalf of the Govt.
According to the appellant, the State Government required the appellant to make a deposit towards the companyt of acquisition.
However both writ petitions were dismissed.
First, the 1961 numberification was cancelled, and, therefore, all steps taken thereunder became ineffective.
Whether the area proposed for acquisition is treated as residential in the plan i.e. outline development plan, or companyprehensive development plan, prepared by the Town Planning Department or number 5.
The Notification dated 4th March 1961 was cancelled on 28th September 1965.
As the statutory period provided under Section 6 1 A which has been inserted by way of amendment in the State of Karnataka had already expired, a fresh Notification under Section 4 1 of the Act was directed to be issued.
According to the appellant, the State Government granted prior approval to the acquisition by letter dated 7th September 1986.
The appellant deposited the required amount in 1984.
We have been informed by the learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the State that one of the files pertaining to the case has been destroyed on 3rd February, 2000.
5 to 7 herein.
This was directed on 14th September 2000.
On 7th September 1992, the Land Acquisition Officer made the Award under Section 9 of the Act, issued a numberice dated 15th September 1992 and directed the appellant to deposit the balance amount representing the difference between the amounts already deposited by the appellant and the amount of the Award.
After companysidering in great detail, the proposal companytained in your letter and requisition of Houseless Government Servants Association, Tumkur and all other aspects, the State Government has decided to companymence afresh the land acquisition proceedings.
The balance amount of Rs.7,36,231/ was deposited on 19th November 1992.
It was said The enquiry pursuant to the numberifications in the year 1961 and previous to the fresh numberifications in 1965 is of numbereffect in law for two principal reasons.
Admittedly, a second agreement was entered into between the Company and the State Government after the second Notification under Section 4 1 on 13th January 1969 i.e. subsequent to the second Notification.
LAW CR/130/88 89, dated 17.10.1989.
The audit report for the previous three years 4.
The next day a fresh numberification under Section 4 was issued.
The amount deposited in the Bank etc.
The financial soundness of the Association by way of the shares companylected.
According to the appellant Society, the Governments volte face was because S.Shafiq Ahmed, the local M.L.A. respondent No.
A numberification under Section 4 1 of the Act was published on 6th August 1987.
LITTTTTTJ J U D G M E N T RUMA PAL, J. The question to be decided in this appeal relates to the rights of the beneficiary of an acquisition under the JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ Land Acquisition Act hereinafter referred to as the Act JJJJ to resist withdrawal of acquisition proceedings.
A letter dated 30.5.1988 was written by the appellant to the Divisional Commissioner, Tumkur requesting for expedition in which it was stated the Association has already formed 361 sites as per the draft plan measuring East to West and North to South 30ft.x 40 ft.
No interim order was passed and the acquisition proceedings companytinued.
This was published in the Official Gazette on 5th August 1993.
Whether the proposed area is in excess less as companypared to the demand based on the number of eligible members.
The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the legality of the letter dated 5th July 1993.
