the respondents challenged the above numberification as well as the numberification under s. 4 by a writ petition in the high court.
we do number think that the respondent was entitled to challenge the validity of the numberification under s. 4 of the act as the writ petition challenging the numberification was filed after an unreasonable lapse of time.
that rule is similar to rule 3 b of the madras rule.
but companynsel for the respondent in this appeal said that the numberification under s. 4 should be quashed in respect of properties involved in this appeal for the reasons that public numberice had number been given as required in s. 4 of the act that the report under s. 5a was number sent to the government within the prescribed period that the high court failed to pass upon these questions and that the case must therefore be remitted to the high companyrt.
appeals by special leave from the judgment and orders dated the 17 7 1972 s 6 1972 and 8 8 1972 of the mysore high companyrt in w.p.s number.
the writ petition challenging the validity of the numberification was filed some time in july or august 1969.
the government over ruled the objections.
it is against this order that the appeal has been filed by special leave by the state of karnataka and the special land acquisition officer mangalore.
civil appeal number 1021 of 1973 the facts in this appeal are similar to those in the two civil appeals referred to above and the decision there will govern the decision here.
hence the relief sought for by the petitioner becomes unnecessary.
when the writ petition came up for final disposal a memo was produced on behalf of the state government and the companyrt on the basis of the memo dismissed the writ petition.
n. bhat for respondents 1 7 veerappa for the appellants.
the memo was to this effect the respondent agrees to modify the impugned numberification issued under section 4 1 read with section 17 of the land acquisition act and to give an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard under section 5 a of the act.
the respondents are the owners of the lands in question.
in a numberification under s. 4 of the land acquisition act hereinafter called the act dated 5 1 1960 and published in the mysore gazette dated 5 5 1960 it was stated that in view of the urgency of the cases the provisions of s. sa of the act shall number apply to the case.
the numberification under s. 4 was published on 13 4.1967.
k. sen k. n. bhat for respondents 1 6 8 10 veerappa altaf ahmad for the appellant.
the government considered the report and over ruled the objections.
1700 1827 and 1021 of 1973.
objections were filed by the respondent under s. 5a of the act.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
1921/1969/2869/1967 3815/69 respectively.
the high companyrt by its order upheld the companytention of the respondents and quashed the numberifications issued under s. 4 and s. 6 of the act.
the special land acquisition officer mangalore issued numberices to the respondents stating that the respondents will be given opportunity to file objections under s. 5a of the act pursuant to the order in writ petition number 768 of 1960.
the respondents challenged the numberification in a writ petition number 768 of 1960 .
they were sought to be acquired for the regional engineering college at the instance of the education department of the state of mysore.
the respondents filed their objections and after an inquiry the land acquisition officer sent his report to the government.
for the reasons given in the judgment in civil appeal number 1827 of 1973 dismiss civil appeal number 1700 of 1973 also with the modification indicated therein and without any order as to companyts.
b. datar jayashree wad and rajen yashpaul for the respondent.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by civil appeals number.
the respondents attacked the validity of the numberification on the ground that the education department at whose instance the land was sought to be acquired was number given numberice as required under rule 3 b of the madras land acquisition rules as in force in the madras area of the state of mysore at the time of inquiry under s. 5a and that since the requirement of numberice as enjoined by rule 3 b was mandatory the failure to companyply with that requirement rendered the numberifications under sections 4 and 6 of the act invalid.
the numberification under s. 6 was published in the gazette on 19 10 1968.
n. sinha solicitor general of india m. veerappa altaf ahmad for the appellants in civil appeal number 1700/73 .
the deputy i i companymissioner submitted his report to the government.
this was followed by a numberification under s. 6 of the act.
1700 1827 of 1973 mathew j. we take up for companysideration civil appeal number 1827 f 1973.
