Page 1

1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7372-7428 OF 2004 K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS  (DEAD) BY LRS.     ...APPELLANTS

VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.  ETC.      ...RESPONDENTS

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 453 OF 2007

[PRADEEP KUMAR & ORS.  VERSUS  

MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.]

JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. The  appellant  is  the  writ  petitioner  who  had  instituted  Writ  Petition No.14726 of 1994 before the High  Court of Karnataka challenging therein the  preliminary  notification  dated  21st June,  1985  issued  under  Section  16(1)  of  the  City  of  Mysore  Improvement  Act,  1903

Page 2

2

(hereinafter  referred  to  as  'the  1903  Act”)  for  proposing  to  acquire  a  total  area  of  94  acres  28  gunthas  of  land  located  in  Vijayashreepura  village,  adjoining the ‘Vijayanagar Extension’, as  mentioned  in  the  Schedule  thereto  for  improvement of Mysore city.

2. The final notification dated 29th  

April, 1988 issued in exercise of powers  conferred under Section 18(1) and (2) of  the 1903 Act; the awards relating to the  acquisition of land in question as well as  the  Government  approval  dated  28th May,  1988 for allotment of 55 acres of land to  the  respondent  No.28  –  J.S.S.  Mahavidyapeetha  [for  short  “respondent  No.28-Society] was also challenged in the  Writ  Petition  No.14726  of  1994  filed  by  the appellant.

Page 3

3

3.    The  appellant  as  the  writ  petitioner  had  filed  a  second  writ  petition  i.e.  Writ  Petition  No.31449  of  1994 by which the public notice dated 27th  

June,  1994  inviting  applications  for  regularization  of  unauthorized  constructions  made  in  several  villages  including  in  the  Vijayashreepura  village  was challenged.  

4. The  learned  single  judge  by  judgment  and  order  dated  22nd February,  2001 held that the impugned acquisition of  94 acres and 28 gunthas was illegal and  bad  and  so  was  the  allotment  dated  26  th    

September, 1988  of 55 acres of land made  in  favour  of  the  respondent  No.28  -Society.  However, in view of the long  eclipse  of  time  and  taking  into  account

Page 4

4

the  interim  order  dated  13th September,  1994 passed in Writ Petition No.14726 of  1994,  wherein  it  was  observed  that  any  construction raised by Respondent No. 28  will be at his risk and cost and all other  relevant  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case, the learned single judge thought it  proper to mould the relief in the present  case by refusing to quash and set aside  the  acquisition  notifications  though  holding  the  acquisition  itself  to  be  untenable in law.   However, the order of  allotment of 55 acres of land in favour of  the  respondent  No.28  made  out  of  the  acquired land was interfered with and the  said respondent was directed to handover  the land to the Mysore Urban Development  Authority (“MUDA' for short).  So far as  the  appellant  is  concerned,  it  was  held  that he would be liable for compensation

Page 5

5

under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.  As  for  the  reliefs  sought  in  Writ  Petition  No.31449  of  1994  the  same  was  allowed  holding that the MUDA was not authorized  either  under  the  provisions  of  the  1903  Act  or  under  the  provisions  of  the  Karnataka (Regularization of Unauthorised  Constructions in Urban Areas) Act, 1991 to  regularize the unauthorized constructions  upon the land in question.   

5. Appeals  were  filed  against  the  said  order  by  the  appellant  –  writ  petitioner as well as a group of persons  who were shown as occupancy tenants of a  part  of  the  land  in  the  impugned  preliminary notification issued under the  provisions of the 1903 Act.  Some of the  subsequent  purchasers  of  the  plots  from  such occupancy tenants had also moved the

Page 6

6

Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court.   The  Division Bench of the High Court by the  impugned common judgment and order dated  08.04.2004  reversed  the  findings  of  the  learned  single  judge  as  to  the  legality  and validity of the acquisition as well as  allotment  of  the  land  to  the  respondent  No.28-Society  is  concerned  and  the  consequential directions.

6. Aggrieved, these appeals have been  filed by the writ petitioners.

7. We have heard Shri A.K. Ganguli,  learned Senior Counsel appearing for the  appellants,  Shri  Basavaprabhu  S.  Patil,  learned Senior Counsel appearing for the  State  of  Karnataka,  Shri  P.  Vishwanatha  Shetty,  learned  Senior  Counsel  appearing  for  the  MUDA  and  Shri  Huzefa  Ahmadi,

Page 7

7

learned Senior Counsel appearing for the  respondent  No.28-Society  and  the  learned  counsels  for  rest  of  the  contesting  respondents.   

8. Shri A.K. Ganguli, learned Senior  Counsel appearing for the appellants has  placed before the Court the Scheme under  the 1903 Act to contend that the entire  process of acquisition resorted to in the  present case is contrary to the provisions  of  the  1903  Act.   Specifically  it  is  argued  by  Shri  Ganguli  that  the  preliminary  notification  dated  21st June,  1985  was  issued  even  prior  to  the  publication  of  a  Scheme  which  is  a  condition precedent to the issuance of the  Notification  under  Section  16(1)  of  the  1903 Act.  In this regard, Shri Ganguli  has specifically pointed out the findings

Page 8

8

of the learned single judge as recorded in  paragraph  11  of  the  judgment  and  order  dated  22nd February,  2001  to  the  effect  that on consideration of the relevant file  it  is  clear  that  no  scheme  was  in  existence  or  available  at  the  point  of  time contemplated by the Act i.e. before  the  dates  of  the  Notification  under  Section  16(1)  of  the  Act.  According  to  Shri Ganguli, though there is a reference  in the Notification dated 21st June, 1985  that  the  Scheme  is  available  for  inspection/verification,  no  such  scheme  was  actually  published.   It  is  further  submitted  by  Shri  Ganguli  that  the  provisions of Section 17 of the 1903 Act  have  been  bypassed  and  the  final  notification published under Section 18 of  the 1903 Act does not have the required  sanction of the Government inasmuch as the

Page 9

9

Notification itself states that the said  notification is subject to approval of the  Government.  Shri  Ganguli  has  further  submitted that no notice contemplated by  Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition  Act,  1894  was  issued  to  the  appellants.  Though under Section 23 of the 1903 Act  the  land  vests  in  the  Government  only  after publication of the award and payment  of  costs  of  acquisition  and  only  thereafter  the  land  could  have  been  transferred to MUDA, in the instant case,  even before such vesting had taken place  by operation of the provisions of Section  18(4)  of  the  1903  Act,  the  land  was  allotted  to  respondent  No.28-Society  by  MUDA.   In  fact,  with  regard  to  such  allotment,  Shri  Ganguli  has  drawn  our  attention to the several communications on  record  by  and  between  the  MUDA  and  the

Page 10

10

respondent  No.28-Society  and  the  functionaries of the State of Karnataka to  show  that  the  sole  object  of  the  acquisition  under  the  1903  Act  was  for  allotment of the land in question to the  respondent No.28-Society.  In this regard,  Shri  Ganguli  has  specifically  drawn  the  attention  of  the  Court  to  the  communications/correspondence  dated  09th  

April,  1986,  20th May,  1986,  15th June,  1986,  20th September,  1986,  8th November,  1986, 26th November, 1986 and 18th December,  1986  exchanged  between  the  respondent  No.28-Society, the Chief Minister and the  Minister  of  Urban  Development  of  the  Government of Karnataka for allotment of  100  acres  of  land  in  S.No.1  of  Vijayasreepura, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk  to  the  respondent  No.28-Society.  Shri  Ganguli  has  further  submitted  that

Page 11

11

acquisition of land under the 1903 Act for  the purpose of benefiting the respondent  No.28-Society is not contemplated inasmuch  as acquisition of land under the 1903 Act  is for improvement and future expansion of  the city of Mysore as the preamble of the  1903 Act would indicate.  Shri Ganguli has  further submitted that on the basis of the  correspondence  exchanged  between  the  respondent  No.28-Society  and  the  respondent State as early as on 6th April,  1987  the  Board  has  passed  a  resolution  allotting  55  acres  of  land  to  the  respondent No.28-Society out of 94 acres  and  28  gunthas  notified  under  Section  16(1) of the 1903 Act.  In this regard, it  is pointed out that the Notification under  Section  16(1)  earlier  published  on  21.6.1985 was gazetted subsequently on 30th  

April, 1987.  It is also pointed out that

Page 12

12

the  real  purpose  of  the  acquisition  is  evident from the draft notification dated  20th August, 1987 under Section 18 of the  Act which is in the following terms:

“the  properties  specified  below, the same, a little more  or less are needed for a public  purpose to wit for formation of  a  layout  of  sites  and  for  development  of  Jayachamarajendra  College  of  Engineering.”

The  aforesaid  recital  was  subsequently  corrected  in  the  Final  Notification dated 29th April, 1988 issued  under  Section  18  wherein  the  words  “for  development of  Jayachamarajendra College  of Engineering” were dropped.  

9. The  arguments  advanced  on  behalf  of  the  appellants  have  been  refuted  by  Shri Basavaprabhu S. Patil, learned Senior

Page 13

13

Counsel  appearing  for  the  State  of  Karnataka,  Shri  P.  Vishwanatha  Shetty,  learned Senior Counsel appearing for the  MUDA  and  Shri  Huzefa  Ahmadi,  learned  Senior  Counsel  appearing  for  the  respondent No.28-Society.   

10. The  arguments  advanced  on  behalf  of  the  respondents  may  be  summarized  as  hereunder.

The  respondents  contend  that  the  acquisition of the land for the respondent  No.28-Society  for  the  purposes  of  development of Engineering College is not  foreign to the provisions of the 1903 Act.  In  fact,  according  to  the  learned  counsels, the object of the 1903 Act is to  acquire land for a public purpose as in  the  case  of  acquisition  under  the  Land  Acquisition  Act,  1894.   Relying  on  a

Page 14

14

decision  of  this  Court  in  The  State  of  Bombay  versus  Ali Gulshan  1  , it is pointed  out that acquisition of land for setting  up of educational institutions by private  benefactors is a public purpose.  Reliance  in this regard has also been placed on a  judgment of this Court in Smt. Venkatamma  and  others  versus  City  Improvement  of  Trust Board, Mysore and others  2    to contend  that it has been held by this Court that  acquisition  under  the  1903  Act  is  permissible  even  for  a  private  organization  as  long  as  the  purpose  of  such  acquisition  is  improvement  of  the  city of Mysore.  It is contended that the  development of the Engineering College on  the outskirts of the city of the Mysore  would  certainly  be  a  step  in  the  development of the city of Mysore.  

1 [(1955) 2 SCR 867] 2 [(1973) 1 SCC 188]

Page 15

15

11. The  learned  counsels  for  the  respondents have further contended that it  would not be correct to contend that no  scheme was in existence on the date when  the  preliminary  notification  dated  21st  

June, 1985 was issued or on the date of  publication  of  the  said  notification  in  the Gazette i.e. 30th April, 1987.  Insofar  as  the  findings  of  the  learned  single  judge in this regard are concerned it is  contended  that  the  reference  to  the  Notifications by the learned single judge  in  paragraph  11  of  his  judgment  are  in  respect of the notification as corrected  after  the  stage  of  consideration  of  objections under Section 16(2) was over.  Viewed in this light, the dates mentioned  by  the  learned  single  judge  are  not  in  respect of the Notification under Section

Page 16

16

16(1) of the Act of 1903. In any case,  according  to  the  learned  counsels,  the  appellant did not take any objections with  regard to the availability of the Scheme  in  the  objections  filed  by  him  on  12th  

June,  1987.   In  fact,  in  the  said  objections the appellant had accepted the  acquisition sought to be made and had only  prayed that out of 94 acres and 28 gunthas  sought to be acquired an area 20 acres of  land be made available to him to enable  him  to  tide  over  his  personal  difficulties.    It  is  further  contended  that in the writ petition filed also, no  specific  objection  in  this  regard  was  taken.  

12.  According to the learned counsels for  the  respondents  the  writ  petition  is  inordinately delayed.  The writ petition

Page 17

17

has been filed in the year 1994 though the  acquisition of land was finalized in the  year 1988 and, in fact, the possession of  the land to the respondent No.28-Society  was  handed  over  as  far  back  as  on  26th  

September,  1988.   It  is  further  pointed  out that the fact that the acquisition was  being  made,  in  part,  for  the  respondent  No.28-Society  is  amply  clear  from  the  recitals contained in the order dated 31st  

July, 1987, by which the objections of the  appellant  under  Section  16(2)  was  rejected.   In  this  regard,  it  is  also  pointed  out  that  in  the  course  of  the  objection  hearing  the  appellant  was  represented  by  his  counsel.   It  is  therefore  contended  that  the  statement  made  by  the  writ  petitioner  –  appellant  that he came to know about the allotment  of  the  land  for  the  respondent  No.28-

Page 18

18

Society  when  the  said  Society  had  made  attempts to construct a wall on the land  in the year 1994 is wholly incorrect and  the entire premise on the basis of which  the writ petition has been filed is false.  Therefore, on the aforesaid twin grounds  of delay and lack of bona fides of the  writ petitioner, the present appeals are  liable  to  be  dismissed.  It  is  further  submitted by the learned counsels for the  respondents that the slight infirmities in  the process of acquisition as pointed out  on  behalf  of  the  appellants  are  minor  deviations  from  the  process  contemplated  under  the  1903  Act  and  the  State  Government on 28th May, 1988 accorded its  consent to the resolution dated 6th April,  1987 of the Board allotting 55 acres of  land to the respondent No.28-Society.

Page 19

19

13. Lastly it is pointed out by Shri  Huzefa  Ahmadi,  learned  Senior  Counsel  appearing for the respondent No.28-Society  that  while  it  is  correct  that  in  the  interim order passed in the Writ Petition  on  13th September,  1994  it  was  observed  that  further  constructions,  if  raised,  would  be  at  the  risk  and  cost  of  the  respondent No.28 – Society, over a period  of time a full-fledged University campus  has come up on the land in question which  needs to be protected in the exercise of  the equitable jurisdiction of this Court.  In this regard, the decision of this Court  in  U.G. Hospitals Private Limited  versus  State  of  Haryana  and  others  3    has  been  relied  upon.  In  this  regard  Shri  Ahmadi  has  specifically  urged  that  construction  on the land allotted to respondent No.28  began  much  earlier  to  the  date  of  the  

3 [(2011) 14 SCC 354]

Page 20

20

interim order of the High Court. In fact  by  the  time  the  said  order  came  to  be  passed the respondent No.28 had no option  of turning back and it had no choice but  to go ahead in view of the stage at which  the construction stood and the commitments  already made.     

14. To  appreciate  the  rival  stand  advanced before us it will be useful to  notice the Scheme under the 1903 Act at  the outset.   

The 1903 Act has been enacted  for the  purpose  of  improvement  and  future  expansion of the city of Mysore.  Section  14 vests in the Board the power to draw up  detailed schemes for such improvement or  expansion or both, as may be, in respect  of  the  areas  to  which  the  1903  Act  applies.  

Page 21

21

15. Section  15   provides  for  the  particulars  to  be  provided  for  in  an  improvement scheme.  It reads as under:

15.  Particulars  to  be  provided  for in an improvement scheme.--  Every  improvement  scheme  under  Section  14.-  (1)  shall,  within  the  limits  of  the  areas  comprised in the scheme, provide  for.- (a)the  acquisition  of  any  land  which  will,  in  the  opinion  of  the Board, be necessary for or  affected by the execution of the  scheme. (b)re-laying out allot any land  including  the  construction  and  reconstruction of buildings and  the formation and alteration of  streets; (c) draining  streets  so  formed or altered; (2)may,  within  the  limits  aforesaid provide for.- (a)raising  any  land  which  the  board  may  deem  expedient  to  raise for the better drainage of  the locality;

Page 22

22

(b)forming  open  spaces  for  the  better  ventilation  of  the  area  comprised in the scheme or any  adjoining area; (c) the whole or any part of the  sanitary arrangements required; (d)the  establishment  or  construction  of  markets  and  other  public  requirements  or  conveniences; and (3)may,  within  and  without  the  limits  aforesaid,  provide  for  the  construction  of  buildings  for  the  accommodation  of  the  poorer  and  working  classes,  including the whole or part of  such classes to be displaced in  the  execution  of  the  scheme.  Such  accommodation  shall  be  deemed to include shops.”

16. After a Scheme is prepared, under  Section 16 the Board is obligated to draw  up a notification stating that the scheme  has  been  made;  the  limits  of  the  area  comprised  therein  and  to  name  a  place  where particulars of the scheme; a map of

Page 23

23

the  area  comprised  therein;  and  the  details of the land which is proposed to  be  acquired  or  in  respect  of  which  a  betterment fee is proposed to be imposed  may be seen and inspected.   Under Section  16(1)(b), the notification is required to  be  published  in  the  Gazette  and  also  posted  in  the  office  of  the  Deputy  Commissioner or Municipal Council or such  other place as may be considered necessary  under Section 16(2).  Within a period of  30 days following the publication of the  notification in the Gazette the Board is  required to serve notice on every person  whose name appears in the assessment list  of  the  Municipality  or  the  local  body  concerned or in the land revenue register  requiring such person to file objections,  if any.  Under Section 17 the Board is  obliged  to  consider  the

Page 24

24

objections/representations  received  in  response  to  the  communication/notices  issued  under  Section  16(2)  and  on  the  basis thereof carry out such modification  in the scheme earlier prepared as may be  necessary.   The  scheme  with  or  without  modifications is required to be forwarded  to  the  Government  for  sanction  and  on  receipt  thereof  a  ‘final’  notification  under Section 18 is required to be issued  stating  the  fact  of  such  sanction  and  mentioning  that  the  land  proposed  to  be  acquired by the Board for the purposes of  the  scheme  is  required  for  a  public  purpose. The said Notification is required  to be published in the Official Gazette.   

17. Under Section 23 of the 1903 Act,  acquisition of land, if resorted to, has  to  follow  the  provisions  of  the  Land

Page 25

25

Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 23, inter  alia,  provides  that  after  the  land  has  vested in the Government under Section 16  of  the  Land  Acquisition  Act,  1894  the  Deputy Commissioner shall upon payment of  cost of acquisition transfer the land to  the Board whereupon the land will vest in  the Board.  18. In the present case, the principal  ground  of  attack  on  behalf  of  the  appellants  is  that  there  was  no  scheme  prepared  and  the  reference  to  the  availability of a scheme for inspection in  the  preliminary  notification  dated  21st  

June, 1985 as published in the Gazette on  30th April, 1987 is a hollow declaration.  The findings of the learned single judge  in this regard has already been noted.  To  resolve  the  controversy,  this  Court  had  required the State to place before it the

Page 26

26

records in original containing the scheme  as  framed  and  the  communications  and  correspondence  exchanged  in  this  regard.  The  Chief  Secretary  of  the  State  of  Karnataka  was  entrusted  with  the  responsibility of ensuring that the said  record is made available to the Court. In  the affidavit of Chief Secretary dated 29th  

October,  2015  it  has  been  admitted  that  the  said  record  has  been  destroyed  and  such  destruction  had  taken  place  during  the  pendency  of  the  present  case.   It  would hardly be necessary to state that in  view of the clear findings of the learned  single judge in this regard; the absence  of any positive material to show that a  scheme  as  framed  had  existed  at  the  relevant point of time; and the actions of  the  respondent  State  in  destroying  the  records can be led to only one conclusion

Page 27

27

which necessarily has to be adverse to the  respondents.   

19. In view of the clear language of  Section  16(1)  of  the  1903  Act  and  the  scheme of the 1903 Act there can be no  manner  of  doubt  that  the  requirement  of  the  existence  of  the  plan/development  scheme  prior  to  publication  of  the  preliminary  notification  under  Section  16(1)  of  the  1903  Act  is  a  mandatory  requirement.  From the facts placed before  the Court it is clear that such mandatory  requirement  has  not  been  followed.  Not  only that, there is no material to show  that the question of  modification(s) in  the  scheme  were  duly  considered  in  the  light of the objections received and that  the  scheme  was  sent  to  the  State  Government for sanction as required under

Page 28

28

Section 17 of the 1903 Act.  In fact, the  whole position is made abundantly clear by  the terms of the notification dated 29th  

April, 1988 under Section 18(1) and 18(2)  of the 1903 Act which recites that “This  development  scheme  is  subject  to  administrative  sanction  by  the  Government.”.    There  is,  therefore,  a  clear  infringement  of  the  mandatory  requirement under Section 18 of the 1903  Act.  The  correspondence  between  the  respondent No.28-society and the State of  Karnataka  referred  to  above  which  is  a  part of the record of the case, on which  there is no dispute, would go to show that  the provisions of the 1903 Act in respect  of 94 acres and 28 gunthas of land were  invoked at the request of the respondent  No.28-Society  who  wanted  allotment  of  a  total of 100 acres of land specifying the

Page 29

29

said  requirement  to  be  in  S.No.1  of  Vijayasreepura,  Kasaba  Hobli,  Mysore  Taluk.  The communications on record also  go to show that the Chief Minister of the  State had intervened and issued necessary  directions  in  this  regard  and  it  is  pursuant to the same that the provisions  of the 1903 Act were invoked to acquire  the land in question.  However, as already  referred to, even before the notification  dated 21st June, 1985 under Section 16(1)  of  the  1903  Act  was  published  in  the  Gazette  as  required  under  the  1903  Act  (published  on  30th April,  1987),  on  6th  

April,  1987  the  Board  had  passed  a  resolution allotting 55 acres of land to  the respondent No.28 – Society out of 94  acres  and  28  gunthas  covered  by  the  preliminary  notification  dated  21st June,  1985.  It is, thereafter, by letter dated

Page 30

30

2nd September, 1987 that the Board informed  the Government that the remaining area of  land  can  be  utilized  for  developing  a  layout  and  a  separate  scheme  will  be  prepared  and  approval  of  the  Government  sought  for  with  regard  to  final  notification.  Thereafter it appears that  on 28th May, 1988, which document is also  available  on  record,  the  Government  had  accorded  its  consent/approval  to  the  resolution  dated  6th April,  1987  of  the  board allotting 55 acres of land to the  respondent  No.28-Society.  Possession  of  the said land was given to the respondent  No.28-Society on 26th September, 1988.  The  above  sequence  of  events  demonstrates  State action which does not conform to the  requirements  of  law.  Furthermore,   the  Government approval to the resolution of  the Board to handover 55 acres of land to

Page 31

31

the respondent No.28-Society on 28th May,  1988  and  handing  over  of  possession  of  such land on 26th September, 1988 is also  contrary  to  the  specific  provisions  contained in Section 23(4) of the 1903 Act  inasmuch as the aforesaid provision of the  1903 Act contemplates vesting of the land  in the Government after an award is passed  and compensation is paid and only on such  vesting of the land in the Government the  same can be transferred to the Board. If  this is what the 1903 Act contemplates it  is difficult to understand how on 28th May,  1988, even before an award was passed and  the land had vested in the Government and  the question of transfer to the MUDA had  not  even  arisen  in  law,  the  Government  could have approved the Board’s Resolution  to allot the land to Respondent No.28 and  how the possession of the land could have

Page 32

32

been handed over by MUDA to the respondent  No.28-Society on 26th September, 1988.   

20. In the light of the above facts  and the conclusions that we have reached  we do not consider it necessary to decide  the question as to whether the acquisition  of  land  for  the  purposes  of  Engineering  College is within the four corners of the  1903  Act  or  such  acquisition  is  alien/foreign thereto.  Even if this issue  is to be hypothetically answered in favour  of  the  MUDA  and  the  respondent  No.28- Society by holding the acquisition to be  for a purpose contemplated by the object  of the 1903 Act there is no escape from  the fact that the mandatory provisions of  the 1903 Act as detailed herein above have  been  breached  in  the  process  of  acquisition  which  has  to  result  in

Page 33

33

invalidation  of  the  same  and  the  acquisition made on the basis thereof.  

21. It has been vehemently argued on  behalf  of  the  respondents  that  the  writ  petition  ought  not  to  have  been  entertained  and  any  order  thereon  could  not have been passed as it is inordinately  delayed and the appellant has made certain  false statements in the pleadings before  the High Court details of which have been  mentioned  hereinabove.   This  issue  need  not detain the Court.  Time and again it  has  been  said  that  while  exercising  the  jurisdiction  under  Article  226  of  the  Constitution  of  India  the  High  Court  is  not  bound  by  any  strict  rule  of  limitation.   If  substantial  issues  of  public  importance  touching  upon  the  fairness of governmental action do arise

Page 34

34

the  delayed  approach  to  reach  the  Court  will not stand in the way of the exercise  of jurisdiction by the Court.  Insofar as  the  knowledge  of  the  appellant  –  writ  petitioner with regard to the allotment of  the land to the respondent No.28-Society  is concerned, what was claimed in the writ  petition is that it is only in the year  1994 when the respondent No.28-Society had  attempted  to  raise  construction  on  the  land that the fact of allotment of such  land  came  to  be  known  to  the  writ  petitioner – appellant.  A mere recital of  the fact that a part of the land proposed  for  acquisition  is  contemplated  to  be  allotted to the Respondent No. 28 in the  order dated 31st July, 1987 rejecting the  objections filed by the  writ petitioner –  appellant in response to the notice issued  under Section 16(2) of the 1903 Act, in

Page 35

35

our  considered  view,  cannot  conclusively  prove that what was asserted in the writ  petition has to be necessarily understood  to  be  false  and  incorrect.   At  the  highest,  the  fact  claimed  by  the  respondents  that  the  appellant  had  previous knowledge may be a probable fact.  The  converse  is  also  equally  probable.  Taking into account the above position and  the  contentious  issues  raised  and  the  conduct of the State Authorities and the  MUDA, we are of the view that the said  fact by itself i.e. delay should not come  in the way of an adjudication of the writ  petition  on  merits.  We,  therefore,  hold  that  the  impugned  acquisition  by  MUDA  under the provisions of the 1903 Act is  invalid in law and has to be so adjudged.  

22. There  is  one  incidental  but

Page 36

36

important  issue  that  needs  to  be  dealt  with at this stage.  Shri P. Vishwanatha  Shetty,  learned  Senior  Counsel  appearing  for  the  MUDA   has  vehemently  and  repeatedly urged that the appellant – writ  petitioner  is  not  the  owner  of  the  properties  and  the  same  are  State  properties  inasmuch  as  the  appellant  –  writ  petitioner  who  claims  to  be  a  descendant  of  the  Maharaja  of  Mysore  cannot have the benefit of suit property  as  the  same  was  not  included  as  the  private  property  of  the  Maharaja  in  the  instrument  of  accession  executed  at  the  time of merger of the princely State of  Mysore  with  the  Union.  Shri  Shetty  has  offered  to  lay  before  the  Court  the  relevant documents in this regard which,  according to him, would clearly disclose  the absence of ownership of the appellant

Page 37

37

–  writ  petitioner  in  the  property  in  question.   Shri  Shetty  has  further  submitted  that  the  above  determination  should  be  made  by  this  Court  in  the  exercise of its jurisdiction under Article  136 of the Constitution of India inasmuch  as  substantial  questions  of  public  interest arise therefrom as a person who  is  not  the  owner  is  claiming  properties  that belong to the State.  We are afraid  we cannot go into the said question as not  only the same was not an issue before the  High Court; it had not also been raised by  any person, body or authority in any forum  at  any  point  of  time.  It  is  an  issue  raised at the fag end of the lengthy oral  discourse made on behalf of the contesting  parties.  Furthermore,  the  above  stand  taken before this Court on the one hand  and resort to the process of acquisition

Page 38

38

on the other is also self-contradictory.  Except  what  is  stated  above,  we  do  not  wish to dilate on the said point and leave  the matter for a just determination by the  appropriate forum as and when the same is  raised by a person aggrieved, if at all so  raised.

We are told that the Respondents  No.  4  to  27  had  raised  a  claim  to  be  occupancy tenants in respect of the entire  land of 94 acres 28 gunthas.  The said  claim  had  been  rejected  by  the  learned  Revenue Tribunal. The matter is presently  pending  in  a  writ  appeal  before  the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  of  Karnataka  i.e.  Writ  Appeal  No.1654  of  2008.  As the said matter is pending, we  do not consider it necessary to go into  the  above  issue  except  to  state  the

Page 39

39

obvious, namely, that the judgment of the  High Court in the said writ appeal as and  when  passed  will  naturally  take  its  own  effect  in  accordance  with  law.  In  this  regard, we may also take note of the fact  that  it  is  admitted  by  Shri  Shetty,  learned Senior Counsel appearing for the  MUDA  that  out  of  remaining  40  acres  of  land approximately, about 16 acres and 30  gunthas  is  presently  lying  vacant  and  there  are  encroachers  on  the  remaining  land.   Insofar  as  the  encroachments  are  concerned,  we  need  hardly  to  emphasize  that  all  such  encroachments  need  to  be  dealt with in accordance with law so that  full  effect  of  this  order  and  the  consequential directions contained herein  can be given effect to.   

23. The  next  and  the  final  question

Page 40

40

that  needs  to  be  now  answered  is  the  relief(s) which should be accorded in the  present case.  

24.  The  acquisition under  the 1903  Act  and the allotment of 55 acres of land to  the respondent No. 28 having been found to  be contrary to law consequential orders of  handing over of possession of the entire  land should normally follow.  However, in  granting relief at the end of a protracted  litigation,  as  in  the  present  case,  the  Court  cannot  be  unmindful  of  facts  and  events that may have occurred during the  pendency  of  the  litigation.  It  may,  at  times,  become  necessary  to  balance  the  equities  having  regard  to  the  fact  situation  and  accordingly  mould  the  relief(s).   How  the  relief  is  to  be  moulded, in the light of all the relevant

Page 41

41

facts,  essentially  lies  in  the  realm  of  the  discretion  of  the  courts  whose  ultimate duty is to uphold and further the  mandate of law.  If the issue is viewed  from the aforesaid perspective the several  decisions  cited  on  behalf  of  the  respondents  in  this  regard,  particularly  by the respondent No. 28, i.e.,  Competent  Authority   Vs.    Barangore Jute Factory and    Others  4  ,  U.G.  Hospitals  Pvt.  Ltd.     Vs.    State of Haryana and Others  5   , Gaiv Dinshaw  Irani  and  Others    Vs.    Tehmtan  Irani  and    Others  6   and  Bhimandas  Ambwani  (Dead)  Through  Lrs.    Vs.    Delhi  Power  Company    Limited  7   can at best indicate the manner of  exercise of the judicial discretion in the  facts surrounding the particular cases in  question.

4 [(2005) 13 SCC 477] 5 [(2011) 14 SCC 354] 6 [(2014) 8 SCC 294] 7 [(2013) 14 SCC 195]

Page 42

42

25. Adverting to the facts of the present  case, we find that out of the 94 acres and  28 guntas of land that was acquired way  back  in  1985-88,  55  acres  have  been  allotted  to  the  respondent  No.  28.  The  layout proposed by MUDA was in respect of  the balance land i.e. about 40 acres. Of  the said approximately 40 acres of land,  according to the MUDA, about 16 acres and  30  guntas  is  presently  vacant  whereas  there are encroachments on the remaining  land.   Though  even  on  the  land  not  allotted  to  respondent  No.  28,  no  developmental work, in consonance with the  object of the 1903 Act has been undertaken  we  are  not  certain  if  the  same  is  on  account  of  the  smallness  of  the  area  available  or  for  any  other  good  and  acceptable reasons.  However, keeping in

Page 43

43

mind that even if we are to set aside the  acquisition,  re-acquisition  can  be  resorted to in which event the land would  continue to vest in the MUDA and the land  owner would be entitled to compensation,  though at an enhanced rate, we are of the  view  that  it  would  be  just,  fair  and  equitable to direct that the land vacant  as  on  today  and  all  such  lands  under  encroachments,  after  being  made  free  therefrom, may be retained by the MUDA for  developmental works in consonance with the  object(s) of the 1903 Act and the owner  thereof  be  entitled  to  compensation  in  terms of the directions that follow. All  proceedings  connected  to  such  encroachments will be completed within six  months  from  today  by  all  such  forums  before which the same may be pending. In  the  event  MUDA  does  not  consider  it

Page 44

44

feasible  to  utilize  the  land  for  the  purpose of the Act the same be handed over  to  the  person  entitled  to  receive  such  possession depending upon the outcome of  Writ Appeal No. 1654 of 2008.

26. Insofar  as  the  55  acres  of  land  allotted  to  the  respondent  No.  28  is  concerned, we have taken note of the fact  that despite the interim order dated 13th  

September,  1994  passed  in  Writ  Petition  No.  14726  of  1994  by  the  High  Court  of  Karnataka,  referred  to  above,  the  respondent No. 28 has raised constructions  on the land.  It is not necessary for us  to go into the question as to whether such  constructions had to be raised as the said  respondent, by the time the interim order  came  to  be  passed,  was  committed  to  undertake  such  constructions  and  had  no

Page 45

45

choice  in  the  matter.   What  however  cannot  escape  from  notice  is  that  notwithstanding  the  illegality  in  the  allotment made and the risk undertaken by  the  respondent  No.  28  in  raising  the  constructions  despite  the  interim  order  dated 13th September, 1994, a full-fledged  academic  campus  consisting  of  several  buildings, details of which are mentioned  below,  have  come  up  on  the  land  in  question. 1. JSS Polytechnic 2. JSS Public School 3. JSS  Polytechnic  for  the  differently  

Abled 4. JSS Polytechnic for Women 5. JSS Polytechnic for Women’s Hostel 6. SJCE Ladies Hostel 7. JSS NODAL Centre 8. JSS-KSCA Cricket Ground

27.   The  judicial  power  should  not  be  destructive if the Rule and Majesty of law  can be upheld by suitable and appropriate  adaptations  and  modifications  in  the

Page 46

46

eventual order that may be passed by the  Court  in  a  given  case.   In  the  present  case, that a full-fledged academic campus  have come up on the 55 acres of land; that  a  large  number  of  persons  are  utilizing  the benefit of the said infrastructure and  facilities  provided  therein;  that  the  infrastructure raised on the allotted land  is providing avenues of employment to many  and  a  host  of  other  such  circumstances  cannot be overlooked by the Court.  On a  perusal of the materials laid before the  Court,  particularly,  the  Google  Map  showing the layout of the buildings on the  55 acres of land in question which, was  specifically sought for by the Court, we  find  that  even  today  there  are  large  tracts of vacant land within the said 55  acres  notwithstanding  the  constructions  raised. In such circumstances, it is our

Page 47

47

considered view that the respondent No.28  should  be  asked  to  surrender  to  MUDA  a  compact  area  of  a  minimum  of  15  acres,  which  vacant  land  the  MUDA  will  take  possession of within a month from today.  The return of the said land will be once  again  made  to  the  person  or  persons  entitled  to  receive  such  possession  depending upon the outcome of Writ Appeal  No.1654 of 2008. Insofar as the remaining  40  acres  of  land  allotted  to  respondent  No.28  is  concerned,  we  direct  that  compensation, in respect thereof, to the  person/persons  entitled  to  receive  such  compensation  under  the  Land  Acquisition  Act,  will  follow  the  outcome  of  Writ  Appeal No.1654 of 2008. The compensation  under the Act will be paid by taking the  date of the order of the learned Single  Judge of the High Court i.e. 22.02.2001 to

Page 48

48

be  the  date  of  the  Notification  under  Section  4  of  Land  Acquisition  Act.  The  aforesaid  date,  which  represents  the  midway  point  between  earlier  and  subsequent  dates  (the  earlier  date  of  notification  under  Section  16(1)  of  the  Act  of  1903  or  the  date  of  the  present  order) that could have been opted for, has  been preferred by the court to balance the  equities  in  a  situation  where  the  landowner  is  being  denied  the  return  of  the land and the beneficiary of an illegal  allotment is permitted to retain the same  (in  part)  in  larger  public  interest.  We  further direct that alongwith the market  value of the land as on the said date i.e.  22.2.2001 the person or persons found to  be  entitled  will  be  also  entitled  to  compensation  under  all  other  heads  including interest in accordance with the

Page 49

49

provisions  of  the  Land  Acquisition  Act.  The  provisions  of  Section  18  and  other  provisions  of  the  Act  for  enhanced  compensation will also be applicable.  The  same directions and principles will govern  the  matter  concerning  compensation  in  respect of the vacant land (16 acres 30  guntas)  and  the  land  under  encroachment  referred to above after such encroachments  are dealt with in terms of the directions  contained  herein.   In  view  of  the  long  efflux  of  time  the  process  of  determination  and  grant  of  compensation  shall be completed by all forums within a  period of one year from today.

28. Consequently and in the light of what  has been discussed above both the appeals  are allowed to the extent indicated.

Page 50

50

Civil Appeal No.453 of 2007 –

29. In the light of the above, Civil  Appeal No.453 of 2007 is disposed of.    

....................,J. (RANJAN GOGOI)

....................,J. (N.V. RAMANA)

NEW DELHI DECEMBER 16, 2015