1995 JTR(SC) 806
1996 AIR(SC) 90 ; 1995 AIR(SCW) 3749 ; 1995 3 CCC(SC) 467 ; 1995 3 CurCC(SC) 467 ; 1995 6 JT 375 ; 1995 3 RRR 534 ; 1995 4 Scale 853 ; 1995 5 SCC 524 ; 1995 Supp2 SCR 649 ; 1995 KHC 925 ; 1995 2 KLT(Online) 1044
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.
State of Karnataka and others, Appellants
Versus
Narasimhamurthy and others, Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 358 of 1993,
D/- 7-3-1995.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.19(1)
KARNATAKA ACQUISITION OF LANDS FOR GRANT OF HOUSE SITES ACT : S.3(1), S.3(4), S.3(2)
LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.4, S.3(f), S.6
(A) The case centers on the interpretation of Section 3 of the Karnataka Acquisition of Lands for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972. Specifically, the court analyzed whether a notification issued under Section 3(1) must explicitly name the owner of the land to be valid. The court examined the sequential procedure established by the Act: Section 3(1) requires a notification of the State Government's intention to acquire land for house sites for the houseless; Section 3(2) mandates that upon such publication, notice must be served to the owner or occupier to show cause; and Section 3(4) requires a final declaration of acquisition. The dispute arose because the first respondent's name was omitted from the initial notification under Section 3(1), leading to a challenge regarding the validity of the acquisition process.
(B) The core legal principle is that a preliminary notification under Section 3(1) of the Act is intended to declare the government's intention to acquire specific land and does not legally necessitate the inclusion of the owner's name within that specific notification. The requirement to notify the owner is a subsequent procedural step under Section 3(2).
Facts of the case:
The State Government published a notification under Section 3(1) of the Act to acquire land for providing house sites to weaker sections. The recorded owner received notice, but the actual purchaser (the first respondent) did not, as the mutation proceedings had not been updated. The first respondent challenged the notification in the High Court, which quashed it on the grounds that the omission of the purchaser's name in the Section 3(1) notification vitiated the process. The State appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that Section 3(1) only requires the government to specify its intention to acquire the land and does not envisage the inclusion of the owner's name. The duty to notify the owner is governed by Section 3(2), which is based on known interests or revenue records. Since the mutation records still showed the previous owner, the failure to notify the new purchaser was not a fatal error. Furthermore, the Court noted that the right to shelter is a fundamental right under Article 19(1) of the Constitution, making the acquisition for the poor a valid public purpose.
Issues:
Whether the omission of the owner's name in the preliminary notification issued under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Acquisition of Lands for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972, renders the notification void and vitiates the land acquisition process.
Ratio Decidendi:
A notification under Section 3(1) is a notice of intention to acquire land and does not require the names of owners. The statutory requirement to notify the owner is a separate, follow-up action under Section 3(2). If the government serves notice to the person recorded as the owner in mutation proceedings, the failure to notify a subsequent purchaser whose name is not yet recorded does not invalidate the preliminary notification.
Result:
Appeal allowed; the High Court's order is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed.
(A) The case centers on the interpretation of Section 3 of the Karnataka Acquisition of Lands for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972. Specifically, the court analyzed whether a notification issued under Section 3(1) must explicitly name the owner of the land to be valid. The court examined the sequential procedure established by the Act: Section 3(1) requires a notification of the State Government's intention to acquire land for house sites for the houseless; Section 3(2) mandates that upon such publication, notice must be served to the owner or occupier to show cause; and Section 3(4) requires a final declaration of acquisition. The dispute arose because the first respondent's name was omitted from the initial notification under Section 3(1), leading to a challenge regarding the validity of the acquisition process.
(B) The core legal principle is that a preliminary notification under Section 3(1) of the Act is intended to declare the government's intention to acquire specific land and does not legally necessitate the inclusion of the owner's name within that specific notification. The requirement to notify the owner is a subsequent procedural step under Section 3(2).
Facts of the case:
The State Government published a notification under Section 3(1) of the Act to acquire land for providing house sites to weaker sections. The recorded owner received notice, but the actual purchaser (the first respondent) did not, as the mutation proceedings had not been updated. The first respondent challenged the notification in the High Court, which quashed it on the grounds that the omission of the purchaser's name in the Section 3(1) notification vitiated the process. The State appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that Section 3(1) only requires the government to specify its intention to acquire the land and does not envisage the inclusion of the owner's name. The duty to notify the owner is governed by Section 3(2), which is based on known interests or revenue records. Since the mutation records still showed the previous owner, the failure to notify the new purchaser was not a fatal error. Furthermore, the Court noted that the right to shelter is a fundamental right under Article 19(1) of the Constitution, making the acquisition for the poor a valid public purpose.
Issues:
Whether the omission of the owner's name in the preliminary notification issued under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Acquisition of Lands for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972, renders the notification void and vitiates the land acquisition process.
Ratio Decidendi:
A notification under Section 3(1) is a notice of intention to acquire land and does not require the names of owners. The statutory requirement to notify the owner is a separate, follow-up action under Section 3(2). If the government serves notice to the person recorded as the owner in mutation proceedings, the failure to notify a subsequent purchaser whose name is not yet recorded does not invalidate the preliminary notification.
Result:
Appeal allowed; the High Court's order is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed.
M.Virappa
JUDGMENT :- Leave granted.
2. By our order dated July 27, 1995 we had noted that the 1st respondent after becoming major was duly served and was not represented by any counsel nor did he appear in person. We adjourned the matter to enable the State to remove the defect of having discharged the second respondent-father from guardianship of the first respondent. To-day, we have passed an order discharging the second respondent as guardian of the first respondent.
3. The notification under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Acquistion of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 (for short, the Act) was published in the Gazette on February 3, 1975. When measurement of the land was being taken, Venktappa, the second respondent, appeared before the authorities concerned and represented that the first respondent, his minor son had purchased the property from its owner, viz., Houlabi, wife of Khaja Sab. Subsequently, he recommended to the Government to issue final notification under Section 3(4) of the Act. The first respondent, through his father, challenged the notification in Writ Petition No. 12705 / 84. Learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court quashed the notification on the ground that the name of the first respondent was not mentioned in the notification as required by Section 3(1) and that, therefore, the notification is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of record. Thus, this appeal by special leave against the Division Bench order dated Feburary 19, 1986 passed in Writ Appeal No. 332 of 1986.
4. The question is whether the omission to mention the name of the 1st respondent in the notification under Section 3(1) vitiates its validity. Section 3 of the Act reads as follows;
"3. Acquisiton of land. - (1) If at any time, in the opinion of the State Government any land is required for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker scetions of people who are houseless, the State Government may, by notification, give notice of its intention to acquire such land.
(2) On the publication of a notification under sub-section (1), the State Government shall serve notice upon the owner or where the owner is not the occupier, on the occupier of the land and on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein to show cause, within thirty days from the date of service of the notice, why the land should not be acquired.
(3) After considering the cause, if any shown by the owner of the land and by any other person interested therein, and after giving such owner and person an opportunity of being heard, the State Government may pass such orders as it deems fit.
(4) After orders are passed under sub-section (3), where the State Government is satisfied that any land should be acquired for the purpose specified in the notification issued under sub-section (1) a declaration shall, by notification, be made to that effect.
(5) On the publication in the Official Gazette of the declaration under sub-section (4), the land shall vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances.
(6) Where any land is vested in the State Government under sub-serction (5), the State Government may, by notice in writing, order any person who may be in possession of the land to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government or any person duly authorised by it in this behalf within thirty days of the service of the notice.
(7).If any person refuses or fails to comply with any order made under sub-section (6), the State Government or officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf may take possession of the land and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary."
5. A reading of Section 3(1) clearly indicates that if any time State Government has the intention to acquire any land for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections of the people who are houseless, the State Government may, by notification, give notice of its intention to acquire such land. The notice as contemplated under sub-section(1) per se does not envisage to include the name of the owner in the notification published under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. What Section 3(1) envisages is that the notification should sepcify the Governments intention to acquire the land which is mandatory. Sub-section (2) of the Act postulates that on publication of a notification under sub-section (1) the State Government shall serve notice upon the owner or where the owner is not the occupier, upon the occupier of the land and all such persons known or blieved to be interested therein, to show cause within thirty days from the date of service of notice as to why the land should not be acquired. Therefore, when the follow up action is being taken under sub-section (2) of Section 3, notice shall be served upon the owner or where the owner is not the occupier, on the occupier of the land and all persons known or believed to be interested therein to show cause as to why the acquisition should not be proceeded with for the public purpose. In other words, the opportunity shall be given to the owner who is known by the entries in themutation proceedings or the occupier of the land or person / persons known or believed to be interested in the land. Admittedly, Houlabi (the recorded owner) was given notice and she did not appear. The mutation proceedings did not contain the name of the first respondent nor was it effected in the record. Consequently, notice could not be issued to the 1st respondent.
6. It is stated in the Special Leave Petition that at the time when the measurement was being taken, obviously, after the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, the second respondent had represented to the competent authority that the first respondent was the owner. Thereafter, it is also stated that he had not objected to the acquisition. No action had been taken to have the name mutated in the revenue records except filing of the writ petition challenging the validity of the notification.
7. Right to shelter is a fundamental right under Article 19(1) of the Constitution. To make the right meaningful to the poor, the State has to provide facilities and opportunity to build house. Acquisition of the land to provide house sites to the poor houseless is a public purpose as it is a constitutional duty of the State to provide house sites to the poor. Admittedly, final notification under sub-section (4) of Section 3 did contain the name of the first respondent.
8. Under these circumstances, the High Court was clearly in error in holding that the notification published under sub-section 3(1) of the Act. was vitiated by error of law on account of omission to have the name of the owner, viz., the first respondent, published in the notification under Section 3(1).
9. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the writ petition stands dismissed but in the circumstances, without costs.
Appeal allowed.