IMPORTANT POINTS
There must be some basis for forming an opinion “not to press the appeal”.
Legality and correctness of the impugned order has to be examined in the light of reasoning contained in the impugned order and not on the basis of acts done by parties after the order.

Headnote:(a) High Court Rules – Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) – High Court dismissing the appeal as not pressed and withdrawn – Held, there was no basis for forming an opinion “not to press the appeal” – Appellant has thus been deprived of its legal right of appeal on merits. (Para 27, 28)
       (b) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Any act done by the parties after the impugned order cannot be pressed into service to support the impugned order – Legality and correctness of the impugned order has to be examined in the light of reasoning contained in the impugned order. (Para 32)
       Facts of the case:
       The MUDA issued a notification proposing to acquire the large area of the land. The State Government approved the scheme framed by the MUDA mentioning therein that the lands in question are needed for public purpose, viz., “formation of Dattagalli extension”. This was followed by an award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) on 27.01.1994 wherein he determined the compensation payable to the landowners. This was followed by issuance of notices to the land owners calling upon the land owners to deliver possession of their respective lands. The MUDA then issued a notification on 18.09.2000 as required under Section 16 (2) of the LA Act.
       In 2001, the respondents (writ petitioners) felt aggrieved by the acquisition proceedings and filed writ petitions questioning the legality and correctness of the notification dated 19.12.1991 and consequential notifications issued thereafter in the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. The MUDA and State contested the writ petitions on several factual and legal grounds.
       The Single Judge allowed the writ petitions and quashed the entire acquisition proceedings inter alia on the ground that there was a delay on the part of the MUDA in taking possession of the acquired land and hence the acquisition proceedings are rendered illegal.
       The MUDA filed intra Court appeals which were dismissed as not pressed and withdrawn.
       Finding of the Court:
       Impugned order cannot be sustained.
       Result: Appeals allowed. The writ appeals restored to their original numbers.

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) S.L.P(C)No.……….(D.No.31403 of 2017) are directed against the final judgment and order dated 09.11.2016 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in W.A. Nos. 899/2016 and 982-987 of 2016 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellant herein and, in consequence, upheld the judgment dated 10.03.2016 of the Single Judge in W.P.Nos.38868-38874/2015 which had allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein.

2) So far as S.L.P.(C)No…….. (D.No.30522/2017) are concerned, these are] directed against the final judgment and order dated 20.10.2016 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in W.A. Nos. 6829-6830 of 2013 which arise out of the order dated 10.10.2013 of the Single Judge passed in writ petition Nos.27994/2001 and 18756/2001.

3) Leave granted.

4) In order to appreciate the issues involved in these appeals, few relevant facts need mention infra.

5) The appellantMysore Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "MUDA") was the respondent whereas the respondents herein were the writ petitioners before the High Court.

6) In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 17 (1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "The Karnataka Act"), the MUDA issued a notification No. LAQ 66/91-91 dated 19.12.1991 on completion of one development scheme prepared under Section 15/16 of the Karnataka Act.

7) By this notification, the MUDA proposed to acquire the large area of the land along with other adjoining lands situated in Dattagalli village (Karnataka). The notification was published in the official State gazette on 26.12.1991. The State Government vide its order dated 27.01.1992 approved the scheme framed by the MUDA under Section 18(3) of the Karnataka Act and issued final notification No.VaNaE 833 MIB 92 on 10.12.1992 mentioning therein that the lands in question are needed for public purpose, viz., “formation of Dattagalli extension”. This was followed by an award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) on 27.01.1994 wherein he determined the compensation payable to the landowners. This was followed by issuance of notices to the land owners under Section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the LA Act”) calling upon the land owners to deliver possession of their respective lands. The MUDA then issued a notification on 18.09.2000 as required under Section 16 (2) of the LA Act. In between, there was one litigation but it is not necessary to mention the same in detail.

8) In 2001, the respondents (writ petitioners) felt aggrieved by the acquisition proceedings and filed writ petitions questioning the legality and correctness of the notification dated 19.12.1991 and consequential notifications issued thereafter in the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. The MUDA and State contested the writ petitions on several factual and legal grounds.

9) By order dated 15.12.2003, the Single Judge allowed the writ petitions and quashed the entire acquisition proceedings inter alia on the ground that there was a delay on the part of the MUDA in taking possession of the acquired land and hence the acquisition proceedings are rendered illegal.

10) The MUDA felt aggrieved and filed intra Court appeals before the Division Bench out of which these SLPs arise. In the appeals, the writ petitioners as respondents, filed an application (I.A. No.11 of 2016) and prayed therein for dismissal of the MUDA’s appeals as having rendered infructuous. It was contended that the MUDA has resolved on 02.07.2016 to drop the lands in question from the acquisition proceedings and, therefore, in the light of such decision having been taken, there is no need to examine the legality and correctness of the order of the Single Judge impugned in the appeals on merits.

11) By impugned order in both the matters, the Division Bench dismissed the appeals as not pressed and withdrawn. The order impug

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2018 Supreme(SC) 873

IMPORTANT POINTSThere must be some basis for forming an opinion “not to press the appeal”.Legality and correctness of the impugned order has to be examined in the light of reasoning contained in the impugned order and not on the basis of acts done by parties after the order.

Judicial Analysis

IMPORTANT POINTS
There must be some basis for forming an opinion “not to press the appeal”.
Legality and correctness of the impugned order has to be examined in the light of reasoning contained in the impugned order and not on the basis of acts done by parties after the order.