HMT LTD. AND ANR. versus MUDAPPA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 363 · Decided: 08-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

HMT LTD. AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
MUDAPPA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 8, 2007 
(C.K.THAKKERANDLOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.] 
B 
Land Acquisition: 
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966: 
c 
Section 28(I)-Acquisition of land-For public purpose-Issue of 
preliminary notification-A part of the land was acquired for establishing a 
watch factory-However, the General Manager of the watch factory took 
possession of the entire land of the ow'1er-The owner filed a suit for 
declaration of title and possession of the excess /and-Trial Court decreed D 
the suit-Appeal thereagainst dismissed-Executing Court directed to hand 
over possession of the excess land to the owner-The revision was allowed 
and the matter was remanded to the Executing Court to afford an opportunity 
of hearing to the General Manager-Meanwhile, the General Manager 
requested the State Government to issue a notification under Section 28(/) 
to acquire land for a public purpose, i.e. for the purpose of developing E 
industry-However, Single Judge quashed the said preliminary notification 
on the ground of mala fide inasmuch as the authorities deprived the owner 
of the land who got a decree for possession in his favour-Correctness of-
Held: Passing of a decree by a competent court is one thing and exercise of 
statutory power by the authority is a/together a different thing~But, issuance F 
of a preliminary notification after a decree by a court of law would not ipso 
facto make it vulnerable and exercise of power mala fide-The power exercised 
by the State was statutory in nature and irrespective of a decree in favour 
of the owner, such notification could be issued-High Court judgment set 
aside-Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 
Words & Phrases: 
.... t 
"Malice in fact, malice in law" and legal "ma/a fide"-Meaning of-
Explained. 
363 
G 
H 
364 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
The respondents were owners of the suit land. The State Government 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
acquired a part of the said suit land for the purpose of establishing a watch 
factory of the appellant. However, the appellants took possession of the entire 
land of the respondents. 
The respondents filed a suit for declaration of title and possession of 
the land unauthorizedly taken over by the appellants. The trial court decreed 
the suit. The appeal was dismissed. The Executing Court directed the appellant 
to hand over possession of the excess land to the respondents. The revision 
was lillowed and the matter was remanded to the Executing Court to afford an 
opportunity to the appellants of hearing and to pass an appropriate order. 
Meanwhile, the appellants requested the State Government to issue a 
notification under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas 
Development Act, 1966 to acquire land for a public purpose, i.e. for the purpose 
of developing industry. 
The said notification was challenged before the High Court. A Single 
Judge of the High Court held that the power had been exercised by the 
authorities ma/a fide and quashed the notification on the ground that the 
authorities deprived the owners of the land who got a decree for possession 
in their favour. The Division Bench affirmed the decision of the Single Judge. 
Hence the appeal. 
The following question arose before the Court:-
Whether the actions of the State authorities in initiating acquisition 
proceedings under a valid law could be said to be illegal, unlawful or in ma/a 
fide exercise llf power? 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. The High Court was not right in quashing the notificatil'm 
issued under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, 
particularly when it was a preliminary notification reflecting the intention of 
G the State to acquire land for public purpose, i.e. for the purpose of developing 
industry. !Para 12] 1370-H; 371-AI 
H 
2. Passing of a decree by a competent court is one thing and exercise of 
statutory power by the authority is altogether a different thing. It is possible 
in a given case to come to a conclusion on the basis of evidence produced and 
)' 
• 
~ 
r 
j 
HMT LTD. v. MUDAPPA 
365 
material placed on record to conclude that the action has been taken ma/a A 
'-<: 
fide or for a collateral purpose or in colourable exercise of power. But, 
issuance of a preliminary notification after a decree by a court of law would 
not ipso facto make it vulnerable and exercise of power ma/a fide. Therefore, 
the authorities were right in raising a preliminary objection that t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.