Supreme Court of India
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.versusNARASIMHA MURTHY AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1995 INSC 453
- Decided
- 11 August 1995
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
Omission of the owner's name in a notification under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 does not invalidate the notification.
Summary
The State of Karnataka, under the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972, issued a notification under Section 3(1) announcing its intention to acquire land for house sites for the weaker sections. The land’s recorded owner was served notice, but the notification did not mention the name of the first respondent, a minor who had purchased the land. The first respondent, through his father, filed a writ petition challenging the notification, and the Karnataka High Court quashed it on the ground that the omission of his name rendered the notification void. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that Section 3(1) merely requires the State to announce its intention to acquire land and does not mandate the inclusion of the owner’s name; the owner is to be served notice under Section 3(2). Consequently, the omission did not vitiate the notification, and the writ petition was dismissed. The Court also reiterated that providing house sites to the poor is a public purpose protected by the fundamental right to shelter under Article 19(1).
Issues considered
- Whether the omission of the owner's name in a notification issued under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 vitiates the validity of the notification.
- Whether the requirement of naming the owner is a mandatory condition for the validity of a Section 3(1) notification.
Subjects
land acquisitionhouse sitesnotificationomission of namepublic purposeright to shelterArticle 19(1)Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act
Judgment
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. A
v.
- NARASIMHA MURTHY AND ORS.
AUGUST 11, 1995.
[K RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.) B
Kamataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 :
S.3-Notification issued under Sub-section (1) of S.3-0niission to
mention the name of party-Whether vitiates the validity of the notifica- C
tion-Held : No.
Subsequent to the issue of notification under S.3(1) of the Karnataka
Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972, when measurement
of the land was being taken the second respondent represented that the
first respondent, his minor son, had purchased the property. Final D
notification under S.3(4) of the Act was recommended. The first respon-
dent, through his father, filed a writ petition challenging the notification.
The Single Judge quashed the notification on the ground that the name of
the first respondent was not mentioned in the notification and therefore,
the notification was vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record.
On appeal, the Division Bench confirmed the order of the Single Judge. E
Hence this appeal.
On the question whether the omission to mention the name of the
first respondent in the notification under S.3(1) vitiated its validity;
Allowing the appeal, this Court F
HELD : 1. Right to shelter is a 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 houses. Acquisi-
tion of the land to provide house sites to the poor houseless is a public G
purpose as it is a constitutional duty of the State to provide house sites to
the poor. [653·A·B]
2. Admittedly the recorded owner was given notice and she did not
appear. Th~ mutation procetdings did not contain the name of the first
respondent nor was it effected in the record. Consequently, notice could not H
649
A
650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
be. issued to the first respondent. However, the final notification under
sub-section (4) of S.3 did contain the name of the first respondent. 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).
B (652-F; 653-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.7401 of
1995.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.2.86 of the Karnataka High
C Court in W.A. No. 332of1986.
M. Veerappa for the Appellant.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
D Leave granted.
By our order dated July 27, 1995 we had noted that the 1st respon-
dent 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-
E father from guardianship of the first respondent. To-day, we have passed
an order discharging the second respondent as guardian of the first respon-
dent.
The notification under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Acquisition of
Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 (for short, 'the Act') was publish-
F ed in the Gazette on February 3, 1975. When measurement of the land was
being taken, Venktappa, the second respondent, appeared before the
authorities concerned abd represented that the first respondent, his inll,ior
son had purchased the property from its owner, viz., Houlabi, wife of Khaja
Sab. Subsequently, he recommended to the Government to issue final
G notification under S~ction 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
H record. Thus, this appeal by special leave against the Division Bench order
,, STATE v. NARASIMHAMURTHY 651
dated February 19, 1986 passed in: Writ Appeal No. 332 of 1986. A
The question is whether the omission to mention the name of the 1st
respondent in the notification under Section 3(1) vitiates its validity. Sec-
tion 3 of the Act reads as follows :
"3. Acquisition of land. - (1) If at any time, in the opinion of the B
State Government any land is required for the purpose of providing
house sites to the weaker sections 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 c
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. D
(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.
E
(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 F
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-
section (5), the State Government may, by notice in writing, order G
any person who may be in possession of the land lo 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 H
652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A under sub-section (6), the State Government or any officer
authorised by the State Government in this behalf may tal<e pos-
session of the land and may for that purpose use such force as may
be necessary."
A reading of Section 3 (1) clearly indicates that if at any time State
B Government has the intention to acquire any land for the purpose of
providing house sites to the weaker sections of the people who are house-
less, 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 µame of the owner in the notification
C published under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. What Section 3
(1) envisages is that the notification should specify the Government's
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
D owner is not the occupier, upon the occupier -of the land and all such
persons known or believed to be interested therein, to show cause within
thirty days from the date of service of notice as to why the 1<µ1d 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
E persons known or belit?ved 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 the mutation proceedings or the occupier of the land or
person/persons known or believed to be interested in the land. Admittedly,
F 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.
It is stated in the Special Leave Petition that at the time when the
G 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
H . mutated in the revenue records except filing of the writ petition challenging
STATE v. NARASIMHA MURTIIY 653
the validity of the notification. A
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. Admit- B
tedly, final notification under sub-section (4) of Section 3 did contain the
name of the first respondent.
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 C
the owner, viz., the first respondent, published in the notification under
Section 3(1).
The appeal is accordingly allowed and the writ petition stands dis-
missed but, in the circumstances, without costs.
D
G.N. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "land acquisition"Sign in to search