STATE OF KARNATAKA TR.SEC. HSG. & URB. & ANR. versus VASAVADATTA CEMENT & ANR.

Citation: [2015] 2 S.C.R. 399 · Decided: 16-02-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 2 S.C.R. 399 
STATE OF KARNATAKA TR.SEC. HSG. & URB. & ANR. 
A 
v 
VASAVADATTA CEMENT & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1918 of 2015) 
FEBRUARY 16, 2015 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
B 
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.] 
c 
Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1961 -
ss.9, 3 -
Procedure for Constitution, abolition, etc. of smaller 
urban areas -
Compliance of - Notification issued o 
altering the existing limits of town municipality Council, 
Sedam for inclusion of a Survey within the municipal 
limits of town municipality, Sedam - Challenge to, by 1st 
respondent on the ground that the notice should have 
E 
been posted in the area of the 1st respondent factory 
which has mini township - Writ petition allowed by the 
High Court holding that there was no proper compliance 
of posting the Notification at the requisite places - On 
appeal, held: All the persons, said to be affected by the F 
notification were informed sufficiently by notice posted at 
the conspicuous places - Apart from the land of 1st 
respondent, land belonging to others were also shown in 
the said notification - As regards two notifications of the G 
same date, in the first notification it was directed to be 
posted at four places, and in the other notification it was 
to be posted at nine places which was prepared 
399 
H 
400 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A subsequently - State neither created any document nor 
filed the same before the High Court or this Court - If any 
document is created by any officer to keep it on record so 
as to produce it before the Court, it is a serious matter to 
B be inquired into by the concerned authority - Thus, the 
State Government directed to inquire into the matter -
Constitution of India, 1950 -Art. 2430 
c 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Under Section 9 of the Karnataka 
Municipalities Act, 1961 the posting of the notice in 
conspicuous/convenient places is mandatory. The 
Office of the Collector, Panchayat Office, Office of 
D Tehs.ildar, Office of municipality, railway station and 
bus stand, etc. of the local area are public places; 
which are expected to be visited by general public for 
one or the other reason. Those places can be safely 
E expected to be conspicuous/convenient places for 
posting a notice about declaration of local area to be 
smaller urban area or altering the limit of any such 
smaller urban area. [Para 13, 14] [410-C,E-F] 
F 
1.2 The stand of the 1st respondent that the notice 
should have been posted within the township of 1s1 
respondent, would frustrate the objective of Section 9 
as other affected persons whose land would also 
G come under the purview of the said notification might 
not have any access to such notice posted within the 
boundaries of the 1st respondent's factory, being not 
a pub:ic place. In such case, every individual/affected 
persons would claim posting of such notice at their 
H 
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. VASAVADATTA CEMENT 401 
land which will amount to giving individual A 
notice to all affected persons. [Para 15] [410-G-
H; 411-A] 
1.3 All the persons, who are said to be affected by 
the notification, were informed sufficiently by notice s 
dated 3rd October, 1995 posted at the conspicuous 
places. The submission that only the factory and 
residential area of the 1st respondent was added by 
notification dated 28th November, 1995 cannot be 
accepted in view of the fact that apart from the land c 
of 1st respondent, land belonging to others were also 
shown in the said notification dated 28th November, 
1995. [Para 17, 18] [412-D-F] 
1.4 There are two notifications both dated 3rd 0 
October, 1995 having same number. Per se, both 
notifications dated 3rd October, 1995 are same but 
there is a substantial difference in the last paragraph 
which mentions the places where copies of the 
notification were to be posted. In the 1st notification E 
which appears to be original, it has been shown that 
the notice to be posted at four places, panchayat 
office, railway station, bus stand and notice board of 
town municipal council. The other notification shows 
that direction has been issued to post the said F 
notification at nine places, i.e. five more places apart 
from the four places mentioned in the first notification. 
The additional five places include the premises of the 
first respondent. Prima facie it appears that the 
notification dated 3rd October, 1995 containing nine G 
conspicuous places wherein it was to be notified, 
signed in green ink by some 

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