MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus K.M. CHIKKATHAYAMMA & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 11 S.C.R. 141 · Decided: 07-09-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
141
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
K.M. CHIKKATHAYAMMA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 9182-9188 of 2018)
SEPTEMBER 07, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Appeal – Dismissal of appeals by Division Bench “as not
pressed” – Propriety of – On facts, intra court appeals before the
Division Bench of the High Court against quashing of the
acquisition proceedings by the Single Judge – Division Bench
dismissed the appeals “as not pressed” and withdrawn – On appeal,
held: Right of appeal is a valuable right of a litigant – He is entitled
to prosecute this right as it enables him to seek adjudication of the
issues on merits, which are subject matter of the appeal – However,
such right can be forgone but has to be done with express authority
and free will – On facts, no express prayer made by the Development
Authority and nor it could be inferred from the document relied on
at the instance of respondents for forming an opinion ‘not to press
the appeal’ – Dismissal of appeal certainly deprived the Authority
of their right to prosecute the appeals on merits – Furthermore, the
Development Authority being a juristic entity created under the Act,
they have to ensure strict compliance of the relevant provisions of
the Act under which they are created along with the compliance of
the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure for forgoing their
right to prosecute the appeal on merits – Thus, the conclusion
arrived at by the Division Bench set aside – High Court to decide
the appeals on merits.
Subsequent Events – Relevance of – Held: Any act done by
the parties in relation to the subject matter of the appeals after the
impugned order, are of no relevance for deciding the present appeals
and cannot be pressed into service to support the impugned order –
Legality and correctness of the impugned order is to be examined
in the light of reasoning contained in the impugned order and not
on the basis of the acts done by the parties subsequent to the passing
of impugned order.
[2018] 11 S.C.R. 141
141
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
142
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 On perusal of the resolution dated 02.07.2016,
Government letter dated 26.06.2018 and the letter dated
14.11.2017 of the Commissioner and further keeping in view the
relevant provisions of the Karnataka Act, the appeals filed by
the Mysore Urban Development Authority could not have been
dismissed “as not pressed”. In other words, the High Court
should have dismissed the respondents’ application as being
misconceived and decided the appeals on merits in accordance
with law. [Para 26][147-G]
1.2 Neither there was any express prayer made by the
Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) and nor it could
be inferred from the document relied on by the Division Bench
at the instance of respondents (writ petitioners) for forming an
opinion “not to press the appeal”. In other words, the opinion
formed by the High Court for dismissing the appeals “as not
pressed” had no basis. Such dismissal certainly deprived the
MUDA of their right to prosecute the appeals on merits. [Para
27][148-A-B]
1.3 A right of appeal is a valuable right of a litigant. He is
entitled to prosecute this right as it enables him to seek
adjudication of the issues on merits, which are subject matter of
the appeal by the Appellate Court. He can, however, forgo such
right but it has to be done with express authority and free will.
The respondents, however, cannot compel the appellant to give
up the right of prosecuting the appeal unless the respondents
are able to show any express provision in law in that behalf or
valid reasons acceptable in law which deprive the appellant from
prosecuting his grievance in appeal. [Para 28][148-C]
1.4 If the appellant is a juristic entity created under the
Act, they have to ensure strict compliance of the relevant
provisions of the Act under which they are created coupled with
ensuring compliance of relevant provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure for forgoing their right to prosecute the appeal on
merits. If, for some reasons, there are two rival groups in a juristic
entity, one prays for withdrawal and the other insisting for hearing
the appeal then it is the duty of the Court to first resolve this
issue in the light of the relevant provisions of law and then proceed
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
143
to decide the appeal accordingly. Similarly, when such prayer is
made at the instance of the respondent and is opposed by the
appella

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