1977 INSC 0057
                                            State of Mysore and Others

                                                           Vs

                                              Hutchappa and Another

                                   Civil Appeal Nos. 2298 and 2734 of 1968

                                   ( V.R. Krishna Iyer, Syed M. Fazal Ali JJ )

                                                      25.01.1977

                                                     JUDGMENT

KRISHNA IYER, J. ­

1. The short point which have been disposed of in the matter of minutes by this Court although
somehow it has evaded adjudication since 1968 is as to whether a Deputy Commissioner within the
meaning of Section 3(c) of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act includes an 'Assistant Commissioner'
in charge of a Sub Division of a district.

2. Certain land acquisition was started by the State for the purpose of constructing a Harijan colony
- a very laudable object indeed. In that behalf, the Assistant Commissioner in charge of the
Bangalore Circle (a district) took action. The High Court quashed the acquisition proceedings on the
ground that according to its construction of the definition of Section 3(c) of the Act, the Assistant
Commissioner could perform the functions of a Deputy Commissioner only if he were specially
vested with such power by a notification. The result was that the land acquisition proceedings were
quashed.

3. We see no force in the argument which has appealed to the High Court. It is easy to see from a
bare reading of Section 3(c) that the expression 'Deputy Commissioner' has been expressly made to
include an 'Assistant Commissioner' in charge of Sub Division; only other officers are required to be
specially appointed by the Government to perform the functions of a Deputy Commissioner. The
Assistant Commissioner does not require such separate empowerment or authorisation. The High
Court thus erred in its construction of Section 3(c) of the Act. We set aside the order of the High
Court and allow the appeals.

4. We will be failing in our duty if we do not observe that the State should have, immediately on the
judgment of the High Court against them, issued a notification empowering the Assistant
Commissioner in charge of the Sub Division to perform the functions of a Deputy Commissioner so
that while they were adjudicating the legal question in the High Court the urgent social objective of
the construction of a Harijan colony need not be held up. Very often litigation becomes an alibi for
official inaction. We hope that in this case the Harijan colony has come into being at least by now.

5. We allow the appeals but since the respondents are not represented, there will be no order as to
costs.

</html