# K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS (DEAD) BY LRS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA& ORS. ETC

- **Citation:** [2015] 11 S.C.R. 974
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2015-12-16
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 7372-7 428 of 2004
- **Bench:** RANJAN GOGOi, N.V. Ramana
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/k-b-ramachandra-raje-urs-dead-by-lrs-v-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-30344
- **Pages:** 30

## Headnote

Mysore Improvement Act, 1903:
Object of the Act- Discussed.
s.16(1) -Acquisition of 94 acres 28 gunthas of land
located in Vijayashreepura village adjoining Vijaynagar
Extension and allotment of 55 acres of land to respondent
D no.28 - Challenged by appellant-writ petitioner - Single
judge of High Court held acquisition proceedings and
allotment of 55 acres of land as illegal - However, in view of
long eclipse of time and in view of interim order that any
E construction raised by respondent no. 28 would be at his risk
and cost and all other relevant facts and circumstances of
the case, single judge moulded the relief by refusing to quash
the acquisition notifications though holding the acquisition
itself to be untenable in law- Respondent no. 28 was directed
F ·to handover land to MUDA -Appellant was held entitled to
compensation under Land Acquisition Act- Division Bench
of the High Court reversed the findings as to legality and
validity of acquisition as well as allotment of land to
respondent no.28 -On appeal, held: In the instant case,
G mandatory requirement of existence of plan/development
scheme prior to publication of the preliminary notification ul
s. 16(1) was not followed- Further, s. 18 requires issuance of
notification only after sanction of government which was not
obtained in the instant case, thus there was clear infringement
H
974
K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS (DEAD) BY LRS. v.
975
STATE OF KARNATAKA
Of mandatory requirement of s. 18 of the Act - Sequence of A
events demonstrates that State action did not conform to the
requirements of law - The 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 B
- However, even before the award was passed and land had
· vesting in the government, possession of land was handed
over by MUDA to respondent no.28 - Notwithstanding the
illegality in the allotment made and the risk undertaken by
the respondent no. 28 in raising the constructions despite the C
interim order, a full-fledged academic campus came up on
the 55 acres of land - Large number of persons were utilizing
the benefit of the said infrastructure and facilities provided
therein and the infrastructure raised on the allotted land 0
provided avenues of employment to many which fact could
not be overlooked - However, there are large tracts of vacant
land within the said 55 acres notwithstanding the constructions
raised - In such circumstances, respondent no.28 asked to
surrender to MUDA a compact area of a minimum of 15 E
acres - Insofar as the remaining 40 acres of land allotted to
respondent no. 28 is concerned, the compensation, in respect
thereof, to be paid to the person/persons entitled to receive
such compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.
Writ jurisdiction: Delay in approaching court - Held:
Delay should not come in the way of an adjudication of writ
petition on merits - While exercising jurisdiction u!Arl.226,
High Court is not bound by any strict rule of limitation -
F
Constitution oflndia, 1950-Art. 226.
G
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. 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 H
976
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 11 S.C.R.
A 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. 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
B limits of the area comprised therein and to name a place
where particulars of the scheme; a map of 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
C and inspected. Under Section 16(1)(b), the notification
is required to be published i

## Text

_Characters 0–39,929 of 56,120. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39929 for what follows._

[2015) 11 S.C.R. 974
A
K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS (DEAD) BY LRS.
B
c
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA& ORS. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7372-7 428 of 2004)
DECEMBER 16, 2015
[RANJAN GOGOi AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.]
Mysore Improvement Act, 1903:
Object of the Act- Discussed.
s.16(1) -Acquisition of 94 acres 28 gunthas of land
located in Vijayashreepura village adjoining Vijaynagar
Extension and allotment of 55 acres of land to respondent
D no.28 - Challenged by appellant-writ petitioner - Single
judge of High Court held acquisition proceedings and
allotment of 55 acres of land as illegal - However, in view of
long eclipse of time and in view of interim order that any
E construction raised by respondent no. 28 would be at his risk
and cost and all other relevant facts and circumstances of
the case, single judge moulded the relief by refusing to quash
the acquisition notifications though holding the acquisition
itself to be untenable in law- Respondent no. 28 was directed
F ·to handover land to MUDA -Appellant was held entitled to
compensation under Land Acquisition Act- Division Bench
of the High Court reversed the findings as to legality and
validity of acquisition as well as allotment of land to
respondent no.28 -On appeal, held: In the instant case,
G mandatory requirement of existence of plan/development
scheme prior to publication of the preliminary notification ul
s. 16(1) was not followed- Further, s. 18 requires issuance of
notification only after sanction of government which was not
obtained in the instant case, thus there was clear infringement
H
974
K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS (DEAD) BY LRS. v.
975
STATE OF KARNATAKA
Of mandatory requirement of s. 18 of the Act - Sequence of A
events demonstrates that State action did not conform to the
requirements of law - The 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 B
- However, even before the award was passed and land had
· vesting in the government, possession of land was handed
over by MUDA to respondent no.28 - Notwithstanding the
illegality in the allotment made and the risk undertaken by
the respondent no. 28 in raising the constructions despite the C
interim order, a full-fledged academic campus came up on
the 55 acres of land - Large number of persons were utilizing
the benefit of the said infrastructure and facilities provided
therein and the infrastructure raised on the allotted land 0
provided avenues of employment to many which fact could
not be overlooked - However, there are large tracts of vacant
land within the said 55 acres notwithstanding the constructions
raised - In such circumstances, respondent no.28 asked to
surrender to MUDA a compact area of a minimum of 15 E
acres - Insofar as the remaining 40 acres of land allotted to
respondent no. 28 is concerned, the compensation, in respect
thereof, to be paid to the person/persons entitled to receive
such compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.
Writ jurisdiction: Delay in approaching court - Held:
Delay should not come in the way of an adjudication of writ
petition on merits - While exercising jurisdiction u!Arl.226,
High Court is not bound by any strict rule of limitation -
F
Constitution oflndia, 1950-Art. 226.
G
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. 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 H
976
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 11 S.C.R.
A 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. 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
B limits of the area comprised therein and to name a place
where particulars of the scheme; a map of 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
C and inspected. Under Section 16(1)(b), the notification
is required to be published in the Gazette. Within a period
of 30 days following the publication of the notification in
the Gazette, the Board is required to serve notice on
0
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 objections/representations received in
E 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
F 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. Under Section
G 23 ofthe 1903Act, acquisition of land, if resorted to, has
to follow the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
[Paras 14, 16, 17] [991-B; 992-C-H; 993-A-B]
2. In view of the clear language of Section 16(1) of
H the 1903 Act and the scheme of the 1903 Act, there is no
K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS (DEAD) BY LRS. v.
977
STATE OF KARNATAKA
doubt that the requirement of the existence of the plan/ A
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 B
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 Section 17 of the 1903 Act In fact, the C
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 D
sanction by the Government.". There is, therefore, a
clear infringement of the mandatory requirement un'der
Section 18 of the 1903 Act. The correspondence between
the respondent No.28-society and the State of Karnataka
would go to show that the provisions of the 1903 Act in E
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 said requirement to be in S.No.1 of Vijayasreepura,
Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk. The communications on F
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, even before the notification dated G
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
H
978
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 11 S.C.R.
A 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, the Board informed the
Government that the remaining area of land can be
utilized for developing a layout and a separate scheme
B will be prepared and approval of the Government sought
for with regard to final notification. Thereafter, on 28th
May, 1988, 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.28C 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.
0
Furthermore, the Government approval to the resolution
of the Board to handover 55 acres of land to 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
E provisions contained in Section 23(4) of the 1903 Act
inasmuch as the said provision of the 1903 Act
contemplates vesting of the land in the Government after
an award is pa·ssed and compensation is paid and only
on such vesting of the land in the Government the same
F 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
G Government could have approved the Board's
Resolution to allot the land to Respondent No.28 and
how the possl'ssion of the land could have been handed
over by MUDA to the respondent No.28-Society on 26th
September, 1988. [Para 19] [993-H, 994-A-H; 995-A-G]
H
K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS (DEAD) BY LRS. v.
979
STATE OF KARNATAKA
3. While exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 A
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 the delayed approach to
reach the Court will not stand in the way of the exercise B
of jurisdiction by the Court. Insofar as the knowledge of
the appellant- writ petitioner with regard to the allotment
of the land to the .responde.nt 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.28C
Society had ~ttempted to raise construction on the land
that the fact of allotment of such land came to be known
to the writ petitioner- appellant. Delay should not come
in the way of an adjudication of the writ petition on merits. D
Therefore, the impugned acquisition by MUDA under the
provisions of the 1903 Act is invalid in law and has to be
so adjudged. [Para 21] [996-D-G; 997-8-C]
4.
The acquisition under the 1903 Act and the
allotment of 55 acres of land to the respondent No. 28 E
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, F
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 G
·moulded, in the light of all the relevant facts, essentially
lies in the realm of the discretion of the courts whose
ultimate duty is to uphold and further the mandate of law.
Out of the 94 acres and 28 guntas of land that was
acquired way back in 1985-88, 55 acres have been H
980
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 11 S.C.R.
A allotted to 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
B the remaining land. On the land not allotted to
respondent No. 28, no developmental work, in
consonance with the object of the 1903 Act has been
undertaken. However, keeping in mind that even if the
acquisition is set aside, re-acquisition can be resorted
C 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, it would be
just, fair and equitable to direct that the land vacant and
0
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
E proceedings connected to such encroachments will be
completed within six months by all such forums before
which the same may be pending. In the event, MUDA
does not consider it feasible to utilize the land for the
purpose of the Act the same be handed over to the
F person entitled to receive such possession depending
upon the outcome of Writ Appeal No. 1654 of 2008. [Paras
24, 25) [998-H; 999-A-C; E-G; 1000-A-E]
5. Notwithstanding the illegality in the allotment
G 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 have come up on the 55 acres of land; a large
number of persons are utilizing the benefit of the said
H infrastructure and facilities provided therein; that the
K.B. RAMACHANDRARAJE URS (DEAD) BYLRS. v.
981
STATE OF KARNATAKA
infrastructure raised on the allotted land is providing A
avenues of employment to many and a host of other such
circumstances cannot be overlooked by the Court.
However, even today there are large tracts of vacant land
within the said 55 acres . notwithstanding the
constructions raised. In such circumstances, B
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.
The return of the said land will be once again made to
the person or persons entitled to receive such C
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, the
compensation, in respect thereof, to be paid to the D
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
Single Judge of the High Court i.e. 22.02.2001 to be the . E
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 F
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. Further, alongwith the G
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 provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act. The provisions of Section 18 and other H
982
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 11 S.C.R.
A 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
B 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
C year. [Paras 26 and 27] [1000-G-H; 1001-E-F; G-H; 1002A-H]
D
E
F
G
H
The State of Bombay versus Ali Gulshan (1955)
2 SCR 867; Smt. Venkatamma and Ors. versus
City Improvement of Trust Board, Mysore and Ors.
(1973) 1 SCC 188; U.G Hospitals Private Limited
vs. State ofHaryana and Ors. (2011) 14 SCC 354;
Competent Authority vs. Barangore Jute Factory
and Ors. (2005) 13 SCC477: 2005 (5) Suppl. SCR
421; U. G Hospitals Pvt .. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana
and Ors. (2011) 14 SCC 354; Gaiv Dinshaw Irani
and Others vs. Tehmtan Irani and Ors. (2014) 8
SCC 294; Bhimandas Ambwani (Dead) Through
Lrs. vs. Delhi Power Company Limited (2013) 14
SCC 195: 2013 (1) SCR 996 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
(1955) 2 SCR 867
referred to.
Para 10
(1973) 1 sec 188
referred to.
Para 10
(2011) 14 sec 354
referred to.
Para 13
2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 421
referred to.
Para 24
(2011) 14 sec 354
referred to.
Para 24
(2014) 8 sec 294
referred to.
Para 24
K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS (DEAD) BY LRS. v.
983
STATE OF KARNATAKA
2013 (1) SCR 996
referred to.
Para 24
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 73727 428 of 2004 etc.
A
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.04.2004 of the
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal Nos.
B
4001, 69.10-6939, 4002, 6137-6156 of2001 & 3525 of2002
With
C. A. No. 453 of 2007
A. K. Ganguli, V.Krishnamurthy, P. Vishwanatha Shetty, · C ·
Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Hutefa Ahmadi, T. Harish Kumar,
Geetha M.P., V. Vasudevan, Navneet Dugar, V.
Ramasubramanian, V. Balachandran, A. Lakshminarayanan,
Manu Nair, Saanjh N. Purohit, Vishal Nijhawan, S. S. Shroff
· (forSureshA. Shroff & Co.), M.A. Chinnasamy, C. Rubavathi, D ·
V. N. Raghupathy, B. S. Prasad,Anirudh Sanganeria, Chinmoy
Deshpande, Amjit Maqbool, Parikshit Angadi, Shailesh
Madiyal, Gautam Prabhakar, Shivani Srivastava, Ro.han
Sharma, S. N. Bhat, S. K. Kulkarni, Vijay Kumar, Anjana E
Chandrashekar, Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, Sheela Goel for
the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RANJAN GOGOi, J. 1. The appellant is the writ petitioner
who had instituted Writ Petition No.14726of1994 before the
F
High Court of Karnataka challenging t~erein the preliminary
notification dated 21st June, 1985 issued under Section 16(1)
of the City of Mysore Improvement Act, 1903 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the 1903 Act") for proposing to acquire a total G
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 29thApril, 1988 issued in
exercise of powers conferred under Section 18(1) and (2) of H
/
984
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 11 S.C.R.
A
the 1903Act; 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.28Society] was also challenged in the Writ Petition No.14726 of
B
1994 filed by the appellant.
3. The appellant as the writ petitioner had filed a second
writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No.31449of1994 by which the
public notice dated 27th June, 1994 inviting applications for
c 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
0
94 acres and 28 ~unthas was illegal and bad and so was the
allotment dated 26th 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 the
interim order dated 13th September, 1994 passed in Writ
E Petition No.14726of1994, wherein it was observed that any
construction raised by Respondent No. 28 will be at his risk
and cost and all other relevantfacts 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
F 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 resP.ondent 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
G Development Authority ("MUDA' for short). So far as the
appellant is concerned, it was held that he would be liable for
compensation 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
H
K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS (DEAD) BY LRS. v.
985
STATE OF KARNATAKA[RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
under the provisions of the 1903 Act or under the provisions of A
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 B
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 Division C
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 D
concerned and the consequential directions .
. 6. Aggrieved, these appeals have been filed by the writ
petitioners.
E
7. We have heard Shri A.K. Ganguli, learned Senior
Counsel appearing forthe 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, learned
F
Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.28-Society
and the learned counsels for rest of the contesting respondents.
8. ShriA.K. Ganguli, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the appellants has placed before the Court the Scheme G
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 H
986
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 11 S.C.R.
A
a condition precedent to the issuance of the Notification under
Section 16(1) of the 1903Act. In this regard, Shri Ganguli has
specifically pointed out the findings of the learned single judge
as recorded in paragraph 11 of the judgment and order dated
22nd February, 2001 to the effectthat on consideration of the
B 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
C for inspection/verification, no such scheme was actually
published. It is further submitted by Shri Ganguli that the
provisions of Section 17 of the 1903Act have been bypassed
and the final notification published under Section 18 of the 1903
Act does not have the required sanction of the Government
D inasmuch as the 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
E 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
F
operation of the provisions of Section 18(4) of the 1903Act,
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 respondent No.28-Society and
G 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.28Society. In this regard, Shri Ganguli has specifically drawn the
attention of the Court to the communications/correspondence
H
K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS (DEAD) BY LRS. v.
987
STATE OF KARNATAKA[RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
dated 09thApril, 1986, 20th May, 1986, 15th June, 1986, 20th A
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 ofVijayasreepura, Kasaba Hobli,
B
Mysore Taluk to the respondent No.28-Society. Shri Ganguli
has further submitted that 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 C
of Mysore as the preamble of the 1903 Act would indicate.
Shri Gang1:11i has further submitted that on the basis of the
correspondence exchanged between the respondent No.28Society and the respondent State as early as on 6th April, 1987 D
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 1903Act. In this regard, it
is pointed outthatthe Notification under Section 16(1) earlier
published on 21.6.1985 was gazetted subsequently on 30th
E
April, 1987. It is also pointed out that 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.
F
G
H
988
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 11 S.C.R.
A
9. The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants
have been refuted by Shri Basavaprabhu S. Patil, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka, Shri P.
Vishwanatha Shetty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
MUOI;\ and Shri Huzefa Ahmadi, learned Senior Counsel
B appearing for the respondent No.28-Society.
10. The arguments advanced on behalf of the
respondents may be summarized as hereunder.
c
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
o public purpose as in the case of acquisition under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. Relying on a decision of this Court in
The State of Bombav versus Ali Gulshanl, it is pointed out
that acquisition of land for setting up of educational institutions
by private benefactors is a public purpose. Reliance in this
E regard has also been placed on a judgment of this Court in
Smt. Venkatamma and others versus Citv Improvement of
Trust Board. Mvsore and others< 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
F 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 t~e city of the Mysore
would certainly be a step in the development of the city of
Mysore.
G
11. The learned counsels for the respondents have further
contended that it would not be correct to contend that no
1 [(1955) 2 SCR 867]
H
2 [(1973) 1 sec 1881
K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS (DEAD) BY LRS. v.
989
STATE OF KARNATAKA[RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
scheme was in existence on the date when the preliminary A ·
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
B
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 16(1) of the Act of 1903. In any case, according C
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 a(;quisition sought D
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.
E
12. According to the learned counsels for the
respondents the writ petition is inordinately delayed. The writ
petition has been filed in the year 1994 though the acquisition
of land was finalized in the year 1988 and, in fact, the F
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, G
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 H
990
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 11 S.C.R.
A
about the allotment of the land for the respondent No.28Society 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
B 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
C 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 ..
D
13. Lastly it is pointed out by Sh ri 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
E the respondent No.28 - Society, over a period of time a fullfledged 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
F
in U. G Hospitals Private Limited versus State of Harvana and
others'- has been relied upon. In this regard ShriAhmadi has
specifically urged that construction on the land allotted to
respondent No.28 began much earlier to the date of the interim
order of the High Court. In fact by the time the said order came
G 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.
H , [(2011) 14 sec 354J
K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS (DEAD) BY LRS. v.
. 991
STATE OF KARNATAKA[RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
14. To appreciate the rival stand advanced before us it A
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. B
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.
15, Section 15 provides for the particulars to be. provided c
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
D
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 tt\e 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;
(b) forming open spaces forthe better ventilation of the
area comprised in the scheme or any adjoining area;
(c) the whole·or any part of the sanitary arrangements
E
F
G
~u~d;
H
992
A
B
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 11 S.C.R.
(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
C 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 the area comprised therein; and the details of the
0
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
E
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
F
revenue register requiring such person to file objections, if any.
Under Section 17 the Board is obliged to consider the
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
G 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
H by the Board for the purposes of the scheme is required for a
K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS (DEAD) BY LRS. v.
993
STATE OF KARNATAKA[RANJAN GOGOi, J.)
public purpose. The said Notification is required to be A
published in the Official Gazette.
17. Under Section 23 of the 1903Act, acquisition of land,
if resorted to, has to follow the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 23, inter alia, provides that after B
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
c
in the preliminary notification dated 21st June, 1985 as
published in the Gazette on 30th April, 1987 is a hollow D
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 records
in original containing the scheme as framed and the
. communications and correspondence exchanged in this E
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. F
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 G ·
in destroying the records can be led to only one conclusion
wpich 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 H
994
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 11 S.C.R.
A
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
B 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 thatthe
scheme was sent to the State Government for sanction as
required under Section 17 of the 1903 Act. In fact, the whole
C position is made abundantly clear by the terms of the notification
dated 29th April, 1988 under Section 18(1) and 18(2) of ttte
1903 Act which recites that "This development scheme is
subject to administrative sanction by the Government.". There
0
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
E 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 said requirement to be in S.No.1 of
Vijayasreepura, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk.
The
F 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 ~ 903 Act were invoked to acquire the land in
question. However, as already referred to, even before the
G 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
H gunthas covered by the preliminary notification dated 21st
K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS (DEAD) BY LRS. v.
995
STATE OF KARNATAKA[RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
June, 1985.