M. MANIKLAL versus THE STATE OF MYSORE

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 165 · Decided: 23-11-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA, V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
165 
M. MANIKLAL 
v. 
THE STATE OF MYSORE 
November 23, 1976 
[H. R. KHANNA AND V. R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.] 
City of Bangalore Improvement Act 1945, Section 15(3), 16(2)- Rule 10-
Notici; of a~quisi!ion ~o persons in Revenue register-Whether person whose 
land is acquired 1s entitled to allotment of plot in housing scheme. 
A 
B 
The appellant purchased Tue land i,n question from Giliteppa arid Nanjappa 
during the pendency of the land acquisition proceedings under the city of 
C 
Bangalore Improvem~nt Act 1945. 
The acquisition was for building a house 
colo~y by the Housmg Board whose statutory responsibility is to implement 
housmg schemes. 
The appellant challenged the acauisition before the High 
Court by filing a writ petition. 
The High Court dismissed the writ petition. 
In an appeal by special leave the appellant contended : 
1. There was non-compliance with the mandatbry requirement of s. 
16(2) of the Act which requires· the service of notice on "every person 
whose name appears in the Land Revenue Register as being primarily 
liable to pay the properf~ '!'alt or land revenue". 
2. Section 15 ( 3) provides that the main scheme may provide for the 
construction of buildings for the proper and working classes includ-
ing the whole or part of such classes to be displaced il\ the execution 
of this echeme. The appellant whose land is acquired being displaced 
is entitled to allotment of land for construction of a building for his 
OW!! 
rcsld~nce. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
D 
E 
HELD : (1) The High Court on evidence rightly held that in the revenue 
register the names of predecessors in title of Giliteppa and Nanjappa were shown 
and that he was given due notice. 
The document prod need by the appellant 
was not the revenue register as contemplated by section 16(2). [167A-C, Fl 
F 
(2) Section 15 (3) does not impose a. compulsory duty or a righi in the 
appellant to claim a plot. 
It is clear from rule 10 made under the Act that 
the person displeced by the acguisition may be accommodated. 
However, this 
is a beneficient consideration and not a necessary obligation. [168A-CJ 
[The Court observed that in case any land is available, and if the appellant 
fulfils the other criteria prescribed by the rules the respondent may ·consider his 
G 
cl~mJ 
· 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1948 of 1968. 
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated the 21st Sept., 1967 
L1f the Mysore High Court in W.P. No. 1168/65. 
S. V, Gupte with S. S. Javali and B. Dutta for the appellant. 
N. Nettar and K. R. Nagaraja, for respondents. 
H 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
166 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1977] 2 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KRISHNA IYER, J. Two short legal issues-both apparently devoid 
of merit-were urged unsuccessfully before the High Court and repeat-
ed, with a somewhat similar fate, before us, if we may anticipate our 
conclusion. A Judgment of affirmation may usefully be an abbrevia-
tion and so, we shall briefly deal with Shri Gupte's twin submissions 
on behalf of the appellant writ petitioner. The appeal is by special 
leave and the subject-matter is land compulsorily acquired under the 
City of Bangalore Improvement Act 1945 (for short the Improve-
ment Act) (Mysore Act V of 1945). 
A concise narration of the necessary facts may con~·eniently be 
compressed into a paragraph or two.. 
The appellant purchased two 
portions of S. No. 211 within the District of Bangalore from 
twn 
persons Giliteppa and Nanjappa during the pendency of land acq?isi-
tion proceedings under the Improvement Act. 
These 
?roceedmgs 
were for acquisition of land in S. No. 211 for making a lay-out plan 
for a building colony. This limited objective was completed after due 
formalities were complied with and thereafter the land was made over 
to the Housing Board whose statutory responsibility is to implement 
housing schemes. 
We are told that houses have been built on the 
land already althougfi there is some doubt as to whether 5 acres out 
of the total extent still remain vacant. If the contentions of the appel-
lant are sound the whole scheme wiH be shot down, ·a 
disaster 
a 
socially conscious court should try to avert unless compelled by funda-
mental leg<tl ·laws. 
What, then, are the alleged vital weaknesses in the acquisition pro-
ceedings which vitiate them altogether ? Firstly, a technicality techni-
caJly countered; and secondly, a compassionate consideration which 
has no invalid a tory effect. 
The

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