2015 Supreme(SC) 1194

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, N.V. RAMANA, JJ.
K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS (DEAD) BY LRS. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. ETC. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7372-7428 OF 2004 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 453 OF 2007
Decided on : 16-12-2015

IMPORTANT POINT
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 eventual order that may be passed by the Court in a given case.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Jurisdiction – High Court not bound by any strict rule of limitation – If substantial issues of public importance touching upon fairness of governmental action arise the delayed approach to reach Court will not stand in way of exercise of jurisdiction by Court – Knowledge of appellant–writ petitioner with regard to allotment of land to respondent No.28-Society only in year 1994 when respondent No.28-Society attempted to raise construction on land, fact of allotment of such land came to be known to writ petitioner–appellant – Mere recital of fact that a part of land proposed for acquisition is contemplated to be allotted to Respondent No. 28 in order dated 31st July, 1987 rejecting objections filed by writ petitioner–appellant in response to notice issued under Section 16(2) of the 1903 Act, cannot conclusively prove that what was asserted in writ petition has to be necessarily understood to be false and incorrect – Held – Impugned acquisition by MUDA under the provisions of 1903 Act is invalid in law and has to be so adjudged. (Para 21)

       (b) City of Mysore Improvement Act, 1903 – S.16(1) – Preliminary notification dated 21st June, 1985 issued under Section 16(1) for proposing to acquire a total area of 94 acres 28 gunthas of land located in Vijayashreepura village, adjoining ‘Vijayanagar Extension’, as mentioned in Schedule for improvement of Mysore city challenged – Final notification dated 29th April, 1988 issued u/s18(1) and (2) of 1903 Act; awards relating to acquisition of land in question as well as Government approval dated 28th May, 1988 for allotment of 55 acres of land to respondent No.28 challenged in Writ Petition No.14726 of 1994 – Original records containing scheme as framed and communications and correspondence destroyed and such destruction had taken place during the pendency of present case, as admitted by Chief Secretary in his affidavit – Mandatory requirement of S.16(1) not followed – No material to show that question of modification(s) in scheme were duly considered the light of objections received and that scheme was sent to State Government for sanction as required under Section 17 of 1903 Act – Infringement of mandatory requirement under Section 18 of the 1903 Act – On 28th May, 1988,Government accorded its consent/approval to resolution dated 6th April, 1987 of board allotting 55 acres of land to respondent No.28-Society – Possession of said land given the respondent No.28-Society on 26th September, 1988 demonstrates State action which does not conform to requirements of law – Furthermore Government approval to resolution of Board to handover 55 acres of land to – Government approval to resolution of Board to handover 55 acres of land to respondent No.28-Society on 28th May, 1988 and handing over of possession of such land on 26th September, 1988 also contrary to specific provisions contained in Section 23(4) of 1903 Act – Claim of Respondents No. 4 to 27 to be occupancy tenants in respect of the entire land of 94 acres 28 gunthas rejected by Revenue Tribunal, presently pending in a writ appeal – Manner of exercise of judicial discretion in the facts surrounding particular cases in question – Held – All proceedings connected to encroachments to 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 land for purpose of Act same be handed over to person entitled to receive such possession depending upon outcome of Writ Appeal No. 1654 of 2008 – Allotment of 55 acres of land to respondent No. 28 having been found to be contrary to law consequential orders of handing over of possession of entire land should normally follow – Judicial power should not be destructive if Rule and Majesty of law can be upheld by suitable and appropriate adaptations and modifications in eventual order that may be passed by Court in a given case – Infrastructure raised on allotted land providing avenues of employment to many and a host of other such circumstances cannot be overlooked by the Court – Compensation to the person/persons entitled to receive such compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, will follow outcome of Writ Appeal No.1654 of 2008 – Direction, alongwith the market value of land as on said date i.e. 22.2.2001 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 Land Acquisition Act – Provisions of Section 18 and other provisions of Act for enhanced compensation also be applicable – Same directions and principles govern matter concerning compensation in respect of vacant land (16 acres 30 guntas) and land under encroachment are dealt with in terms of directions – Process of determination and grant of compensation to be completed by all forums within a period of one year – Appeals allowed to extent indicated. (Para 18 to 27)

       Facts of the case:

       The appellant is the writ petitioner who 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 (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.

       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.

       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.

       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 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 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.

        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 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.

       Findings of the Case:

       Impugned acquisition by MUDA under the provisions of the 1903 Act is invalid in law and has to be so adjudged.

       Result :  Appeals allowed in view of discussions made at paras 25 to 27