Chandra C. Mehta Vs. The State of Karnatka  INSC 412 (8
K. RAMASWAMY, K. SINGH N.P. (J) CITATION: 1994 SCC Supl. (2) 511
1. Leave granted.
appellant claimed that after he purchased the property on July 14, 1965 under a registered conveyance it
was converted for urban use. Notification issued under Section 17(1) of the
Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 for short 'the Act' was published in
the State Gazette.
Section 17(5), it is enjoined that every person whose name appears in the
assessment list of the local authority or land revenue record shall be served
with a notice so that he should make necessary objections to the notification
published under Section 17(1) of the Act. Though his name has been entered in
the revenue record, he has not been served with the notice under Section 17(5).
On the other hand when he approached the High Court and filed Writ Petition No.
131812 of 1984 questioning the validity of the notification published under
Section 17(1), a direction was issued on August 24, 1984 staying further proceedings yet the
declaration under Section 19 was published on January 8, 1985 without hearing him. Thus the declaration is void.
High Court, therefore, was wrong in dismissing the appellant's writ petition
and also the Writ Appeal No. 1721 of 1987 under the impugned order dated November 25, 1987.
P.S. Poti, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, contended that once his
name was entered in the revenue records, the appellant has a right to notice
under Section 17(5) and should be heard before declaration under Section 19 was
published. The absence thereof renders the notification under Section 17(1)
do not find any force in this contention. It is true that the Central Land
Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 as amended in 1984 has no application to the
acquisition under this Act. The procedure prescribed under Sections 4(1) and
6(2) is not attracted. Therefore, we are concerned only with the procedure prescribed
under the Act. Section 17(5) provides thus:
the thirty days next following the day on which such notification is published
in the Official Gazette the Authority shall serve a notice on every person
whose name appears in the assessment list of the local authority or in the land
revenue register as being primarily liable to pay the property tax or land
revenue assessment on any building or land which is proposed to be acquired in
executing the scheme or in regard to which the authority proposes to recover
betterment tax requiring such person to show cause within thirty days from the
date of the receipt of the 513 notice why such acquisition of the building or
land and the recovery of betterment tax should not be made."
reading clearly envisages that during the 30 days next following of which
notification under Section 17(1) was published, the land acquisition authority
shall serve a notice on every person, whose name appears in the assessment list
of the local authority or in the land revenue register and is primarily
responsible to pay land revenue assessment on any land or building which is
proposed to be acquired for executing the scheme. Sub-section (5) of Section 17
also enjoins that every person whose name so appears in the above registers
shall be served with a notice so that he can file, if so chooses, objections
against the acquisition, for the proposed development of the scheme, and after
considering his objections, if any, the declaration under Section 19 should be
made and published in accordance with the provisions of the Act. But existence
of the name of such person in the concerned record before publication of the
notification under Section 17(1) is a condition precedent.
authority is not required to make a roving inquiry as to Who is the person
entitled to a notice. The learned Single Judge noted thus:
counsel, however, submitted that the conversion certificate as per Annexure
'B', issued by the Deputy Commissioner and the licence of construction issued
which it can be inferred that the authorities of the Bangalore Development
Authority had the requisite knowledge about the petitioner's ownership in the
property. It is also submitted that in the earlier proceedings pertaining to
conversion referred to above the Deputy Commissioner had refused to grant
conversion at the instance of the Chairman of the C.I.T.B. In my view, these
two circumstances cannot be a substitute for the mandatory requirement in
sub-section (5) of Section 17 of the Act. That sub-section makes it clear that
notice is required to be served on the persons whose names are found in the
revenue register and who are primarily responsible for the payment of land
revenue. The knowledge of the authority by any other process cannot be treated
as making them responsible for serving notice in terms of sub-section (5) of
Section 17 of the Act. The knowledge of ownership or interest in collateral
proceedings is not the prescribed criteria. One who is responsible for the
payment of land revenue or property tax would alone be entitled to the notice,
under Section 17(5)."
Poti placed on record of this Court an entry in revenue record which would show
Sureshchandra C. Mehta, apart from original owner as owners. This document is
produced for the first time in this Court without an application under Order 41
Rule 27 CPC. This being primarily a finding of fact, we decline to go into it.
We hold that at the relevant time, the appellant's name was not in revenue
record and so he was not given notice under Section 17(5) before publication of
the notification under Section 17(1) of the Act. The interim direction granted
by the High Court was only not to dispossess the appellant and it does not
prevent the declaration under Section 19 being published.
we do not find any error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge as
confirmed on appeal. The appeal is dismissed but without costs.