Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an Assistant Commissioner in charge of a Sub-Division falls within the expression "Deputy Commissioner" in Section 3(c) of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of conducting acquisition proceedings.
Analysis: Section 3(c) expressly included an Assistant Commissioner in charge of a Sub-Division within the definition of "Deputy Commissioner". On that construction, no separate notification or special authorisation was necessary for such an Assistant Commissioner to exercise the functions of a Deputy Commissioner. The contrary view adopted by the High Court read into the provision a requirement that was not present in its text.
Conclusion: The Assistant Commissioner was covered by the definition and could lawfully act in place of the Deputy Commissioner without separate empowerment, so the High Court's quashing of the acquisition proceedings was unsustainable in favour of the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The acquisition proceedings were restored and the appeals succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute expressly includes a particular officer within an office-holder's definition, that officer may exercise the statutory functions attached to the office without a separate notification or special authorisation unless the statute so requires.