# M. MANIKLAL v. THE STATE OF MYSORE

- **Citation:** [1977] 2 S.C.R. 165
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976-11-23
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1948 of 1968
- **Bench:** H. R. Khanna, V. R. Krishna Iyer
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/m-maniklal-v-the-state-of-mysore-7020
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

City of Bangalore Improvement Act 1945, Section 15(3), 16(2)- Rule 10Notici; of a~quisi!ion ~o persons in Revenue register-Whether person whose
land is acquired 1s entitled to allotment of plot in housing scheme.
A
B
The appellant purchased Tue land i,n question from Giliteppa arid Nanjappa
during the pendency of the land acquisition proceedings under the city of
C
Bangalore Improvem~nt Act 1945.
The acquisition was for building a house
colo~y by the Housmg Board whose statutory responsibility is to implement
housmg schemes.
The appellant challenged the acauisition before the High
Court by filing a writ petition.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition.
In an appeal by special leave the appellant contended :
1. There was non-compliance with the mandatbry requirement of s.
16(2) of the Act which requires· the service of notice on "every person
whose name appears in the Land Revenue Register as being primarily
liable to pay the properf~ '!'alt or land revenue".
2. Section 15 ( 3) provides that the main scheme may provide for the
construction of buildings for the proper and working classes including the whole or part of such classes to be displaced il\ the execution
of this echeme. The appellant whose land is acquired being displaced
is entitled to allotment of land for construction of a building for his
OW!!
rcsld~nce.
Dismissing the appeal,
D
E
HELD : (1) The High Court on evidence rightly held that in the revenue
register the names of predecessors in title of Giliteppa and Nanjappa were shown
and that he was given due notice.
The document prod need by the appellant
was not the revenue register as contemplated by section 16(2). [167A-C, Fl
F
(2) Section 15 (3) does not impose a. compulsory duty or a righi in the
appellant to claim a plot.
It is clear from rule 10 made under the Act that
the person displeced by the acguisition may be accommodated.
However, this
is a beneficient consideration and not a necessary obligation. [168A-CJ
[The Court observed that in case any land is available, and if the appellant
fulfils the other criteria prescribed by the rules the respondent may ·consider his
G
cl~mJ
·

## Text

..
165
M. MANIKLAL
v.
THE STATE OF MYSORE
November 23, 1976
[H. R. KHANNA AND V. R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.]
City of Bangalore Improvement Act 1945, Section 15(3), 16(2)- Rule 10Notici; of a~quisi!ion ~o persons in Revenue register-Whether person whose
land is acquired 1s entitled to allotment of plot in housing scheme.
A
B
The appellant purchased Tue land i,n question from Giliteppa arid Nanjappa
during the pendency of the land acquisition proceedings under the city of
C
Bangalore Improvem~nt Act 1945.
The acquisition was for building a house
colo~y by the Housmg Board whose statutory responsibility is to implement
housmg schemes.
The appellant challenged the acauisition before the High
Court by filing a writ petition.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition.
In an appeal by special leave the appellant contended :
1. There was non-compliance with the mandatbry requirement of s.
16(2) of the Act which requires· the service of notice on "every person
whose name appears in the Land Revenue Register as being primarily
liable to pay the properf~ '!'alt or land revenue".
2. Section 15 ( 3) provides that the main scheme may provide for the
construction of buildings for the proper and working classes including the whole or part of such classes to be displaced il\ the execution
of this echeme. The appellant whose land is acquired being displaced
is entitled to allotment of land for construction of a building for his
OW!!
rcsld~nce.
Dismissing the appeal,
D
E
HELD : (1) The High Court on evidence rightly held that in the revenue
register the names of predecessors in title of Giliteppa and Nanjappa were shown
and that he was given due notice.
The document prod need by the appellant
was not the revenue register as contemplated by section 16(2). [167A-C, Fl
F
(2) Section 15 (3) does not impose a. compulsory duty or a righi in the
appellant to claim a plot.
It is clear from rule 10 made under the Act that
the person displeced by the acguisition may be accommodated.
However, this
is a beneficient consideration and not a necessary obligation. [168A-CJ
[The Court observed that in case any land is available, and if the appellant
fulfils the other criteria prescribed by the rules the respondent may ·consider his
G
cl~mJ
·
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1948 of 1968.
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated the 21st Sept., 1967
L1f the Mysore High Court in W.P. No. 1168/65.
S. V, Gupte with S. S. Javali and B. Dutta for the appellant.
N. Nettar and K. R. Nagaraja, for respondents.
H
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
166
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 2 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA IYER, J. Two short legal issues-both apparently devoid
of merit-were urged unsuccessfully before the High Court and repeated, with a somewhat similar fate, before us, if we may anticipate our
conclusion. A Judgment of affirmation may usefully be an abbreviation and so, we shall briefly deal with Shri Gupte's twin submissions
on behalf of the appellant writ petitioner. The appeal is by special
leave and the subject-matter is land compulsorily acquired under the
City of Bangalore Improvement Act 1945 (for short the Improvement Act) (Mysore Act V of 1945).
A concise narration of the necessary facts may con~·eniently be
compressed into a paragraph or two..
The appellant purchased two
portions of S. No. 211 within the District of Bangalore from
twn
persons Giliteppa and Nanjappa during the pendency of land acq?isition proceedings under the Improvement Act.
These
?roceedmgs
were for acquisition of land in S. No. 211 for making a lay-out plan
for a building colony. This limited objective was completed after due
formalities were complied with and thereafter the land was made over
to the Housing Board whose statutory responsibility is to implement
housing schemes.
We are told that houses have been built on the
land already althougfi there is some doubt as to whether 5 acres out
of the total extent still remain vacant. If the contentions of the appellant are sound the whole scheme wiH be shot down, ·a
disaster
a
socially conscious court should try to avert unless compelled by fundamental leg<tl ·laws.
What, then, are the alleged vital weaknesses in the acquisition proceedings which vitiate them altogether ? Firstly, a technicality technicaJly countered; and secondly, a compassionate consideration which
has no invalid a tory effect.
The appellant has urged before us that Section 16(2) of the Improvement Act has a mandatory requirement that service of notices
shall be effected on "every person whose name appears in the ....
. . . . . . . . in the land revenue register as being primarily liable to pay
the property tax or land revenue assessment on ........ land which
it is proposed to acquire in executing the scheme .......... " This
peremptory mandate has not been complied with and that is the first
vital flaw pressed before us.
The second contention is based upon
Section 15 ( 3) of the Improvement Act whereunder every improvement
schem~ "may provide for the construction of buildin~ 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."
'J'.his provision, it i~ argn~, olothes the appellant, in his capacity as a
displaced person with a nght to allotment of land for construction of
a building for his own residence.
We will presently consider these
two submissions seria~im.
To make short work of the first point we may straightway state
that the obligation under section 16(2) is to serve notices on persons
'Yhose names appear in the land revenue register as being primarily
liable to pay the land revenue assessment.
The complaint made is
that the predecessors of the appellant Giliteppa and Nanjappa were
M. MANIKLAL v. MYSORE (Krishna Iyer, !.)
167
entitled to notice under this provision and that they had not bee~ so
given. Of course, there is no affidavit from these two vendors of the
appellant that they have not received any notice. Apart from that the
burden is on the appellant to prove that his vendors were persons
whose names were borne on the land revenue register. This is a question
of fact but the moot point debated before the High Court was "Yhat
in law was the land revenue register. Certainly notice has been given
to Khatedars.
The return of the respondents states
that "notified
Khatedars were notified of the acquisition". Ex. R-1 produced alongwith the return shows one Somayaji as the Khatedar, not the vendors
of the appellant.
This disputed point was investigated by the High
Court with a thoroughness and intimate acquaintadce with the local
revenue laws which elicits our appreciation.
Considering the documentary evidence adduced and the authoritative revenue laws bearing on the subject and scanning the meaning of the entries in the
extracts befor;; Court, the learned Judges reached the conclusion that
the Khatta produced by the appellant was "a mere tentative compilation of information transmitted to the Revenue Department by the
lnams Abolition Department" and not "Khetwar Patrak" which was
the land revenue register within the meaning of section 16(2) of the
Improvement Act.
The High Co\irt concluded :
"We are of the opinion that the land revenue register to
which section 16(2) refers is no other than the register of
lands the Khetwar Patrak, and, that register is not the Khatta
which is something very different."
A
B
c
D
Further, on, after full discussion the Court crystallized its conclusions
E
thus :
·
"Even though a person 1i1ay be an occupant in the sense
in which that word has to be understood, so long.as it is not
proved that his name appears in the land revenue register, at
the material point of time, we should not pt'onounce against
the validity of the. acquisition or the publication of a declaration under section 18 on the slender foundation of insuffi--
cient material such as the certified· copy of a tentative Kha ta
which we have referred."
Indeed, the appellant produced some wrong documents but the Court
was too cute to be misled as is. evident from its observation :
F
"It emerges from the discussion so far made that that
G
land revenue register is no other than the register of lands
or the Khetwar Patrak which has· to be maintained in form
No. 1 which is set out in volume 2 of the Mysore Village
Manual at page 8(a), and, we do not have before us either
t~at register of lands or a certified copy of it and no explanation has been offered to us as to why the petitioner did not
obtain a copy of that register or produce it."
J'\fter hearing Shri Gup.te at ~ome .length we are not disposed to be
H
dislodged from the findmg pamstakmgly recorded by the High Court.
The first point, therefore, fails.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
168
SUfREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 2 S.C.R.
The only other point seriously pressed before us by Shri Gupte is
that under section 15 (3) there is an obligation on the part of the
Board of Trustees to provide a plot to the displaced appeUant. There
is nothing in Section 15(3) of the Improvement Act which warrants
such a compulsive duty or creates a right to claim a plot.
Of course,
the Board may consider providing some land for the persons from
whom acquisitions have been made. This is a beneficient considern-·
tion, not a necessary obligation.
That this, is so clear also from the
rules for the allotment of sites.
Rule 10 settles the principle
for
selection of applicants for allotment of sites. RuJe 10( 1) reads :
•
"10. Principles for selection of applicants for allotme11t
of sites.-( 1) The Board shall consider the case of each
applicant on its merits and shall have regard to the following
principles in making selection and fixing the priority for
aHotment :-
(i) applicants whose lands or houses have been icquirecf
by the Board provided they are otherwise qualified
for allotment;
(ii) the status of the applicant, that is, whether he
is
married or single and has dependent children;
(iii) the income of the applicant and his capacity to purchase a site and build a house thereon for his residence;
(iv) the number of years the applicant has been waiting
for allotment of a site and the fact that he did not
secure a site earlier though he is eligible and had
applied for a site."
The facts before us are that the lands acquired have afready beeir
transferred to the Housing Board and houses have already been built"
at least on a substantial part of the land. All that we can say, at this
stage, is that having regard to the compassionate factor
that the
appellant's lands have been acquired and he has perhaps been displaced from the entirety of bis building sites, it should be a fair gesture
on the part of the Housing Board if there are vacant lands still available-the order of stay granted by this Court is strongly suggestive
of some land being still available as not built upori-to consider the
claim of the appellant, if he applies within three months from today
for allotment of a site for a house, subject, of course, to his eligibility
for allotment arid other criteria for comparative evaluation of claims
prescribed by the rules in this behalf. It follows that beyond this is
not for the Court to direct and less than this is not fair play to the
appellant.
The High CCIUrt had gone into the question of delay disentitling
the appellant in maintaining his writ petition.
In the view that we
have already taken on the merits of the substantive points, we are not
M. MANIKLAL v. MYSORE (Krishna Iyer, J.)
169
called upon to consider the deadly effect of the delay such as there is
A.
between the dates of the acquisition notification and the institution of
the writ petition.
The appeal is dismissed but having consideration
for the conspectus of circumstances present in this case we d,irect that
the parties will bear' their own costs throughout. .
P.H.P.
Appeal dismi~sed.