LexMYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BY ITS COMMISSIONER versus VEER KUMAR JAIN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 4 S.C.R. 371
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BY ITS
A
COMMISSIONER
v.
VEER KUMAR JAIN & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2934 of 2010)
APRIL 1, 2010
B
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
c
ss. 16(2) and 48(1) - Notification withdrawing from
acquisition - Cancellation of - Acquisition of land for Mysore
Urban Development Authority- Notification dated 14.12.2000
issued uls 16(2) confirming possession of land having been
taken over - Later, Notification dated 15.9.2001 issued u/s 0
19(7) of Kamataka Urban Development Authorities Act and
uls 48(1) of the LA Act dropping acquisition proceedings in
regard to some of the lands - When MUDA came to know of
the land being denotified, it represented to Government which
by Notification dated 22. 7.2002 withdrew the Notification dated E
, ,15.9.2001 - Writ petition of land owners and purchaser
I aismissed - HELD: Order dated 22. 7.2002 is inextricably
linked to order dated 15.9.2001 which was invalid for the same
reasons as the order dated 22. 7.2002, namely, failure to
provide opportunity of hearing to aggrieved party - Further,
the order dated 22. 7.2002 was passed to set right the violation
F
of principles of natural justice in making the order dated
15.9.2001 - Therefore, interests of justice would be served if
both the notifications dated 22. 7. 2002 and 15. 9. 2001 are set
aside and the State Government is directed to consider the
request of the land owners for withdrawal from acquisition G
afresh after giving due hearing to the land owners (and also
the purchaser) and MUDA and then decide the matter in
accordance with law - Orders of the High Court modified
accordingly - Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act,
371
H
372
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 4 S.C.R.
A
1987 - ss.17(1) to (3) and 19(7) - Principles of natural justice
- Opportunity of hearing. [para 14-15]
S.L. Kapoor vs. Jagmohan & Ors. 1981 (1) SCR 746 =
1980 (4) SCC 379 ; State Bank of Patiala vs. S.K. Sharma
B 1996 (3) SCR 972 = 1996 (3) SCC 364; Managing Director
ECIL Hyderabad. Vs. B. Karunakar 1994 AIR 1074 = 1993 (2)
Suppl. SCR 576 = 1993 (4) SCC 727 ; C.B. Gautam vs.
U.0.1. 1992 (3) Suppl. SCR 12 = 1993 (1) SCC 78; Roshan
Deen vs. Preeti Lal 2001 (5) Suppl. SCR 23 = 2002 (1)
c
D
E
sec 100 - referred to.
Case Law Reference:
1981 (1) SCR 746
referred to
para 13
1996 (3) SCR 972
referred to
para 13
1993 (2) Suppl.
SCR 576
referred to
para 13
1992 (3) Suppl. SCR 12
referred to
para 13
2001 (S) Suppl. SCR 23
referred to
para 13
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
2934 of 2010.
From the Judgment & Order dated 4.12.2007 of the High
F
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in W.A. No. 1995 of 2007 (LB-
RES).
P. Vishwanatha Sheety, Vijaykumar L. Paradesi, K.V.
Bharathi Upadhyaya for the Appellant.
G
Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Aniruddha P. Mayee, Harsh
Khanna Rucha, A. Mayee for the Respondent.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
H
MYSORE URBAN DEV. AUTHORITY BY ITS COMMNR. v. 373
VEER KUMAR JAIN
ORDER
R.V. RAVEENDRAN J. 1. Leave granted. Heard the
parties.
A
2. On 15.3.1990, a preliminary Notification under section
8
17 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987
('KUDA Act' for short) was issued by the Mysore Urban
Development Authority- the appellant herein ('MUDA' for short),
proposing to acquire certain lands for development of
Kuvempunagar residential layout and formation of a double
Road. This was followed by a fina I declaration dated 24.5.1991
C
under Section 19(1) of the KU DA-Act by the state government
stating that it had granted sanction of the scheme and that the
land proposed to be acquired by MUDA for the purposes of
the scheme is required for a public purpose. The said final
declaration was challenged and quashed by the High Court with
D
liberty to proceed afresh from the stage of consideration of
representations. After considering the representations, a fresh
final declaration was issued on 4.10.1999. In pursuance of it,
an Award was made on 16.10.2000 and possession of the
lands was taken on 8th/9th December 2000. A notification
E
dated 14.12.2000 was issued under section 16(2) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 ('LA Act' for short) confirming that
possession of the lands had been taken over. In view of the
above, MUDA claims that the acquired lands vested in the
government and later in MUDA.
F
3. Acting on the applications of someExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.