Judgment

DWIVEDI, J. :- These two appeals are filed against the judgment of the Mysore High Court dismissing the writ petitions of the appellants, Smt. Venkatamma and certain other persons are the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 1488 of 1968. U. L. Vishwanatha Rao and certain other persons are the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 1489 of 1968.

2. The dispute in the appeals relates to the acquisition of certain premises belonging to the appellants. Those premises have been acquired by the Board of Trustees for the improvement of the City of Mysore constituted under the City of Mysore Improvement Act, 1903, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Pursuant to the acquisition, awards determining compensation were given in due course. The appellants filed writ petitions challenging the legality of the acquisition and awards and prayed for the quashing of the notification acquiring the premises and the awards. The High Court dismissed in toto the writ petition of Smt. Venkatamma and others. The writ petition of U. L. Vishwanatha Rao and others was partly allowed in respect of certain premises.

3. Section 14 (1) of the Act enables the Board of Trustees (hereinafter called the Board) to draw up schemes called as the "improvement schemes" for the improvement or expansion or both of the areas to which the Act applies. It also enables the Board to undertake "any work" and incur any expenditure for the improvement or development of any such area and for the framing and execution of such improvement schemes as may be necessary from time to time. Section 15 (1) provides that every improvement scheme under Section 14 shall provide for the acquisition of any land which will, in the opinion of the Board, be necessary for or affected by the execution of the scheme. Section 15 (1) (b) provides that the scheme shall make provisions for "the construction and reconstruction of buildings and the formation and alteration of streets." Section 15 (2) (d) enacts that the scheme may provide for "the establishment or construction of markets." Section 16 (1) requires the Board to publish a notification concerning the scheme in the Gazette. There is provision for the filing of objections to the scheme by the persons affected thereby. Section 17 provides for the hearing of those objections by the Board. After the objections have been disposed of, the Board shall apply to the Government for the approval of the scheme. After approval has been granted it shall be notified in the Gazette.

4. Facts in the two appeals are common except for the difference in the dates and the number of the premises. The appeal of Smt. Venkatamma will be treated as the leading case and the facts are taken from that case. The notification under Section 16 is dated October 30, 1945. It was published in the Gazette on November 22, 1945. The notification under Section 18 was issued on July 23, 1959. The award determining compensation was given on May 18, 1964.

5. The first argument is that notification issued under Section 16 did not state that the premises were required for shopping sites. Accordingly the appellant could not file an objection against the acquisition of premises for shopping sites. As the appellant did not get effective opportunity of hearing against the scheme, the notifications under Section 16 and Sec. 18 are illegal.

6. The notification under Section 16 specified the purpose of acquisition as "forming a straight Road Scheme from Elgin fountain to District office and from Kothwal Krishniah s street to Chamundeswari Road." The notification under Section 18 declared that the acquisitions were being made "for the second stage of the Straight Road Scheme." There is no mention of the purpose of shopping sites in the notification. But the objection now taken before us was never before raised by the appellants. It was not raised even in the High Court. It is borne out from the record that the scheme did include a provision for the acquisition of land for shopping sites. The Governmen