K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS (DEAD) BY LRS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA& ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2015] 11 S.C.R. 974 · Decided: 16-12-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Disposed off

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015) 11 S.C.R. 974 
A 
K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS (DEAD) BY LRS. 
B 
c 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA& ORS. ETC. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7372-7 428 of 2004) 
DECEMBER 16, 2015 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
Mysore Improvement Act, 1903: 
Object of the Act- Discussed. 
s.16(1) -Acquisition of 94 acres 28 gunthas of land 
located in Vijayashreepura village adjoining Vijaynagar 
Extension and allotment of 55 acres of land to respondent 
D no.28 - Challenged by appellant-writ petitioner - Single 
judge of High Court held acquisition proceedings and 
allotment of 55 acres of land as illegal - However, in view of 
long eclipse of time and in view of interim order that any 
E construction raised by respondent no. 28 would be at his risk 
and cost and all other relevant facts and circumstances of 
the case, single judge moulded the relief by refusing to quash 
the acquisition notifications though holding the acquisition 
itself to be untenable in law- Respondent no. 28 was directed 
F ·to handover land to MUDA -Appellant was held entitled to 
compensation under Land Acquisition Act- Division Bench 
of the High Court reversed the findings as to legality and 
validity of acquisition as well as allotment of land to 
respondent no.28 -On appeal, held: In the instant case, 
G mandatory requirement of existence of plan/development 
scheme prior to publication of the preliminary notification ul 
s. 16(1) was not followed- Further, s. 18 requires issuance of 
notification only after sanction of government which was not 
obtained in the instant case, thus there was clear infringement 
H 
974 
K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS (DEAD) BY LRS. v. 
975 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
Of mandatory requirement of s. 18 of the Act - Sequence of A 
events demonstrates that State action did not conform to the 
requirements of law - The Act contemplates vesting of the 
land in the Government after an award is passed and 
compensation is paid and only on such vesting of the land 
in the Government the same can be transferred to the Board B 
- However, even before the award was passed and land had 
· vesting in the government, possession of land was handed 
over by MUDA to respondent no.28 - Notwithstanding the 
illegality in the allotment made and the risk undertaken by 
the respondent no. 28 in raising the constructions despite the C 
interim order, a full-fledged academic campus came up on 
the 55 acres of land - Large number of persons were utilizing 
the benefit of the said infrastructure and facilities provided 
therein and the infrastructure raised on the allotted land 0 
provided avenues of employment to many which fact could 
not be overlooked - However, there are large tracts of vacant 
land within the said 55 acres notwithstanding the constructions 
raised - In such circumstances, respondent no.28 asked to 
surrender to MUDA a compact area of a minimum of 15 E 
acres - Insofar as the remaining 40 acres of land allotted to 
respondent no. 28 is concerned, the compensation, in respect 
thereof, to be paid to the person/persons entitled to receive 
such compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. 
Writ jurisdiction: Delay in approaching court - Held: 
Delay should not come in the way of an adjudication of writ 
petition on merits - While exercising jurisdiction u!Arl.226, 
High Court is not bound by any strict rule of limitation -
F 
Constitution oflndia, 1950-Art. 226. 
G 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The 1903 Act has been enacted for the 
purpose of improvement and future expansion of the city 
of Mysore. Section 14 vests in the Board the power to H 
976 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 
A draw up detailed schemes for such improvement or 
expansion or both, as may be, in respect of the areas to 
which the 1903 Act applies. After a Scheme is prepared, 
under Section 16, the Board is obligated to draw up a 
notification stating that the scheme has been made; the 
B limits of the area comprised therein and to name a place 
where particulars of the scheme; a map of the area 
comprised therein; and the details of the land which is 
proposed to be acquired or in respect of which a 
betterment fee is proposed to be imposed may be seen 
C and inspected. Under Section 16(1)(b), the notification 
is required to be published in the Gazette. Within a period 
of 30 days following the publication of the notification in 
the Gazette, the Board is required to serve notice on 
0 
every person whose name appears in the assessment 
list of the Munici

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