"Extensive discussion held. The
commissioner explained the entire
details of the case to the board. The
said case is in the court for several
years and at present, the court Order
dated 27.02.2023 in Writ Appeal No.
437/2014 (LA-UDA) is in the favor of
the authority. Hence,for implementation
of the Government Order No. NaAaE
113 BhooBaDi 97 Bangalore dated
11.07.1997, the Commissioner is
informed to bring to the notice of the
government and take suitable action."
- 10 -
members of the petitioner-Sangha subject to the following
conditions:
"1. The plot owner must hand over the land
to MUDA without any objections.
2. The entire expenses of formation of layout
must be borne by the owners or the Sangha,
and an undertaking must be produced by
them in this regard.
3. The owners must comply with the orders
issued by the authority from time to time.
4. The owners or the Sangha must withdraw
any suit filed against MUDA.
5. The authority before making any allotment
must inquire with the Sangha, whether any
members have already been allotted revenue
plots."
iii. One Smt. Venkatamma and 6 others filed
W.P.Nos.23488-494/1997 seeking to quash the Government
Order dated 11.07.1997 referred to above. The learned Single
Judge, vide the judgment and order dated 07.01.1998,
dismissed the said writ petitions on the ground that the
petitioners did not have any locus standi to maintain the writ
petitions. However, the learned Single Judge also quashed the
Government Order dated 11.07.1997 holding that the
- 11 -
Government did not have the power to issue such a
Government order.
iv. The Sangha had filed W.A.Nos.824-830/1998 against the
judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.23480-
494/1997. However, W.A.Nos.824-830/1998 came to be
dismissed by the Division Bench vide judgment and order dated
26.10.1998. Thus, the issue of quashing of the Government
Order dated 11.07.1997 attained finality as no further
proceedings were undertaken before the Supreme Court
against the order passed by the Division Bench referred to
above.
v. The Preliminary Notification and the Final Notification
dated 15.03.1990 and 25.04.1991 respectively issued by the
Government for acquiring the lands mentioned as above came
to be challenged by the landowners by filing W.P.Nos.10621-
629/1998. The learned Single Judge, vide judgment and order
dated 17.09.1998, quashed the notifications issued under
Sections 17(1) and 19(1) respectively under the provisions of
the KUDA Act reserving liberty to the Government and the
MUDA to pursue acquisition of the land, if they were so
advised, from the stage of considering the objections and
- 12 -
representations that could be filed by the
petitioners/landowners. The petitioners/landowners were
permitted to file their objections within 30 days from the date
of the judgment, without expecting any notice for the said
purpose from the respondents under Section 17(5) of the KUDA
Act and it was further said that the impugned declaration would
be treated as notice under Section 17(5) of the KUDA Act.
vi. After the said judgment, the objections filed by the
landowners were considered and a final notification was issued
on 04.10.1999. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award
on 16.10.2000 and the notice of award was issued on
30.11.2000. The MUDA took possession of the lands on
08.12.2000, which would be evident from the mahazar drawn
by the Revenue Inspector.
vii. The State Government thereafter issued a notification
dated 15.09.2001 under Section 19(7) of the KUDA Act read
with Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
denotifying certain lands which were acquired. Mr. Veer Kumar
Jain, the petitioner in W.P.No.29219/2023 purchased the same
denotified land through a registered sale deed. According to
him, he purchased 17 acres and 21 guntas out of 21 acres of
- 13 -
land in the survey numbers under question. The MUDA,
however, had opposed the notification dated 15.09.2001 issued
by the Government denotifying the lands in the numbers under
dispute and requested the Government to withdraw the said
notification dated 15.09.2001. The State Government, upon
noticing that the possession of the land had already been taken
by the MUDA before the Government order for denotification
was issued on 15.09.2001, withdrew the notification dated
15.09.2001 vide Government Order dated 22.07.2002.
viii. Mr. Veer Kumar Jain challenged the withdrawal of the
notification dated 15.09.2001 by the Government Order dated
22.07.2002 in W.P.No.30425/2002. The said writ petition came
to be allowed quashing the Government Order dated
22.07.2002 by which, the denotification of the Government
Order dated 15.09.2001 was withdrawn. Writ Appeal
No.1995/2007 filed by the MUDA against the judgment and
order of the learned Single Judge dated 28.08.2007 in
W.P.No.30425/ 2002 filed by Mr. Veer Kumar Jain came to be
dismissed by the Division Bench vide judgment and order dated
04.12.2007.
- 14 -
ix. Aggrieved by the judgments and orders passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P.No.30425/2002 and in
W.A.No.1995/2007 on 28.08.2007 and on 04.12.2007
respectively, the MUDA approached the Supreme Court by filing
SLP which was converted into Civil Appeal No.2934/2010. The
said Civil Appeal came to be allowed vide judgment and order
dated 01.04.2010. The Supreme Court, while allowing the Civil
Appeal, modified the orders passed by this Court. Both the
notification dated 15.09.2001 denotifying the land and the
subsequent notification dated 22.07.2002 withdrawing the
notification dated 15.09.2001 were quashed. The State
Government was directed to hear the request of the
landowners for denotification afresh. It was left open to place
such materials as would be available to them to show that the
possession was not taken in regard to the lands in question and
thereby, rebut the presumption raised in view of Section 16(2)
of the Land Acquisition Act. Paragraph 15 of the judgment of
the Supreme Court dated 01.04.2010 in Civil Appeal
No.2934/2010 which is relevant is extracted hereunder:
"15. In view of the above, we allow this
appeal and modify the orders of the
High Court. Both the notifications dated
21.7.2002 and 15.9.2001 are quashed
- 15 -
and the state government is directed to
hear the request of the, landowners for
de-notification afresh. It will be open to
the landowners to place such material
as is available to them to show that the
possession was not taken in regard to
lands in question, and thereby rebut the
presumption raised in view of Section
16(2) of Act; and then establish that
circumstances warrant de-notification.
On the other hand, a will, be also open
to MUDA also to establish that
possession was in fact taken and that
power under section 48(1) could not
therefore be exercised. The state
government shall hear both the partic
and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law within four
months. Status quo will be maintained
in regard to lands in question by the
parties till then."
x. In compliance of the direction issued by the Supreme
Court in its judgment dated 01.04.2010 passed in Civil Appeal
No.2934/2010 and after hearing the landowners, the State
Government passed the order dated 13.09.2010 rejecting the
request of the landowners for denotification and further held
that the MUDA had established that it had taken possession of
the subject lands.
- 16 -
xi. Challenging the said Government Order dated 13.09.2010
passed by the State Government, Mr. Veer Kumar Jain filed
W.P.No.32714/2010. The learned Single Judge dismissed the
said writ petition, however, it was observed that it would be
open to the petitioner to move the Supreme Court for pointing
out violation, if any, committed by the State Government or the
authority for suitable actions before that Court and the same
could not be the scope of writ petition. The relevant paragraphs
14 to 19 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:
"14.The scheme of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 does not contemplate an
opportunity to any and every person
who may acquire some interest in the
lands at some point of time. The nature
of the proceedings is a compulsory take
over of the lands, but a land owner is
only entitled to So long as the seek
compensation at market value. validity
of the acquisition proceedings are not in
issue. other aspects recede to the
background as to whether the petitioner
is the owner or his vendors were the
owners earlier all fall into insignificance
and ultimately the only question is as to
whether who is entitled for receiving
compensation.
15. Acquisition of private land for public
purpose by compulsory take over of
such land itself is based on the principle
- 17 -
that private interest has to yield in
favour of public interest. Opportunity in
such situations to a private owner is
only private owner is only to ascertain
as to whether the person himself was
owner or there are other competing
interest with such person who is
notified as owner und also to know as
to the genuine difficulties, grievances
etc... All those stages were over by the
time the petitioner acquired interest in
the land. If at all, the petitioner is the
owner of the land on this day
entitlement in law is only to receive
compensation and nothing more. The
ground of violation of principles of
natural justice etc.. cannot enter into a
situation of this nature as that is taken
care of by the principle private interest
has to yield to a larger public interest.
So long as the declaration stands, the
other contentions, particularly, as to
whether the Government notification
etc., are all matters which do not corifer
any right in favour of any person. No
person has a right for seeking
denotification.
16. Writ Court will examine in the
exercise of judicial review of
administrative action only if an action is
taken. as to whether it is in consonance
with the statutory provisions or
otherwise. There is no judicial review of
any action not taken!
17. There is no compulsion on the part
of the court to compel the authority or
- 18 -
the Government to come up with
denotification nor can a writ of
mandamus issued to the withdraw from
acquisition proceedings. When such is
the legal position. proceedings leading
to denotification or otherwise is of no
significance. Proceedings will have
significance only if it results in some
action. If notification under section 48
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 should
have been brought before this court,
examination can be made on the
touchstone of statutory provisions or as
to whether power has been exercised in
a bona fide manner or not. Such are not
questions raised in this writ petition.
18. There is no scope for examining the
impugned proceedings under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
19. Therefore, the writ petitions are
dismissed."
xii. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the learned
Single Judge dated 20.10.2010, Mr. Veer Kumar Jain filed
W.A.No.788/2011 before the Division Bench of this Court. The
Division Bench, vide judgment and order dated 30.08.2012,
held that the case of the petitioner-Veer Kumar Jain was not
considered by the learned Single Judge on merits and
therefore, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge
and remanded the matter back to the learned Single Judge with
- 19 -
a request to reconsider the case of the petitioner on merits and
in accordance with the law. The learned Single Judge once
again considered the facts and circumstances of the case and
affirmed the earlier decision upholding the decision of the State
Government to reject the petitioner's application seeking
withdrawal from acquisition. The learned Single Judge placed
reliance on the communication dated 18.12.2000 from the
Divisional Commissioner to the Government wherein it was
stated that the possession of the scheduled land was already
taken. The said decision of the learned Single Judge is dated
28.01.2014.
xiii. Against the decision dated 28.01.2014 of the learned
Single Judge passed in W.P.No.32714/2010 on remand, Mr.
Veer kumar Jain filed W.A. No.437/2014. The writ appeal,
however, came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated
27.02.2023. The Division Bench held that the State
Government could withdraw from acquisition, provided the
possession of the lands in question had not been taken. On
perusal of the record, the learned Single Judge had found that
on 08.12.2000, the possession of the lands in question was
taken and the mahazar had been withdrawn which was placed
- 20 -
on record. Paragraph 6 of the said judgment dated 27.02.2023
passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.437/2014 is
extracted hereunder:
"6. We have heard the learned counsel
for the parties at length. It is trite that
the State Government can withdraw
from the acquisition, provided the
possession of the land in question has
not been taken. On perusal of the
record, the learned Single Judge has
found that on 08.12.2000, possession
of the land in question was taken and a
mahazar has been drawn which was
placed on record. The learned Single
Judge has also referred to the
communication dated 18.12.2000 sent
by the Divisional Commissioner to the
Government wherein it has been stated
that the possession of the land in
question has already been taken. Thus,
the power to withdraw from the
acquisition of the land could not have
been exercised by the State
Government. There is no infirmity with
the order dated 13.09.2010. The
learned Single Judge therefore, has
rightly declined to entertain the
petition."
xiv. Against the judgment of the Division Bench dated
27.02.2023 passed in Writ Appeal No.437/2014, Mr. Veer
Kumar Jain preferred Special Leave to Appeal (C)
- 21 -
No.14868/2023. The Supreme Court had dismissed the said
special leave petition with costs of Rs. 50,000/-. It was,
however, observed that as the petitioner had filed the review
petition seeking review of the judgment and order dated
27.02.2023 passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.
437/2014, he would be at liberty to prosecute the review
petition pending before the High Court in accordance with law.
Paragraphs 5 to 8 of the said order passed by the Supreme
Court on 24.07.2023 are extracted hereunder:
"5.We are surprised that the petitioner
herein who was impleade as respondent
No.19 in W.P. Nos: 51523-662/2015
which was dismissed by the learned
Single Judge on 06.12.2016 against
which W.A. filed by the unsuccessful
petitioners therein which was also
dismissed on 27.02.2023 and thereafter
Review Petition No.135 of 2023 filed by
them was also dismissed on
19.04.2023, has approached this Court
by filing this special leave Nos. 5681-
5812/2017 petition.
6.What is strange is that the aforesaid
respondent (petitioner herein) in all the
above matters has approached this
Court by challenging the aforesaid
orders passed by the High Court when
he was only a respondent and not a
petitioner or appellant in those cases
- 22 -
which have been dismissed by the High
Court. We think the filing of this special
leave petition is a gross abuse of the
process of this Court and hence, the
special leave petition is dismissed with
cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only) to be deposited by the
petitioner to the Registry of this Court
within a period of four weeks from
today. On such deposit being made, the
same shall be transferred to the
Supreme Court Legal Services
Committee.
7.However, at this stage, learned senior
counsel, Sri Bhat, has brought to the
notice of this Court that the petitioner
herein had oled W. P. No.32714/2010
which was dismissed by the learned
Single judge of the High Court on
20.10.2010. Writ Appeal No.788/2011
was lowed by the Division Bench of the
High Court and the matter was
remanded to the learned Single Judge.
Thereafter, the learned single Judge by
order dated 28.01.2014 dismissed the
writ petition asgainst which writ Appeal
No.437/2014 was filed and it was also
as dismissed on 27.02.2023. As against
the said order, Review Petition has
been filed and is stated to be pending
before the Division pet Bench of the
High Court. The petitioner is at liberty
to prosecute the Review Petition
pending before the High Court in
accordance with law.
- 23 -
8.The special leave petition is,
accordingly, dismissed in view of the
aforesaid terms."
II. LITIGATION BY SANGHA
i. It would be also required to take note of the litigation
undertaken by the petitioner-Sangha. The petitioner-Sangha
was formed by site purchasers in the said survey numbers in
order to resolve their grievances. The said Sangha gave a
representation to the State Government which directed the
MUDA to stop demolitions and to consider the case of the site
owners. In pursuance to such directions, various proceedings
took place between the Sangha, the Government and the MUDA
regarding regularising the position of the members of the
Sangha.
ii. W.P.Nos.51523-662/2015 was filed by the Sangha
seeking for a direction to consider its representation and to
regularise and allot the sites at Sri Chamundeshwari Nagara
Layout formed in Survey Nos.15/1-2, 18/4, 19/1-2, 20/1-2-3,
27/1-2-3-4, 32, 38/1-2, 40/1-2-3 and 41/2 of Kharab land
situated in Dattagalli Village, Mysuru Taluka and District. These
writ petitions came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge
- 24 -
vide judgment and order dated 06.12.2012. The Sangha filed
W.A.No.45681/2017 impugning the judgment and order dated
06.12.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge, and the
Division Bench dismissed W.A.No.5681/2017 vide judgment
and order dated 27.02.2023.
iii. The Division Bench was of the view that the lands in
respect of which the members of Sangha were seeking
regularisation were subject matter of acquisition proceedings
pending in W.A.No. 437/2014.
iv. After the dismissal of W.A.No.437/2014 filed by Mr. Veer
Kumar Jain, the Sangha made an application to the MUDA
requesting to allot sites to its members in the lands in question
as per the Government Order dated 11.07.1997. The Sangha
also filed Review Petition No. 135/2023 before this Court
seeking review of the judgment and order dated 27.02.2023
passed in W.A.No.5681/2017.
v. The MUDA placed the subject of implementation of the
Government Order dated 11.07.1997 in the Board meeting held
on 21.03.2023 and a resolution bearing No. 13(4) was passed
on 21.03.2023 as referred to above to bring it to the notice of
the Government to implement the Government Order dated
- 25 -
11.07.1997. The Division Bench, therefore, on 19.04.2023,
disposed of Review Petition No.135/2023 filed by the Sangha
and observed that it would be open to the MUDA to take action
for allotment of sites in favour of the petitioners in
W.P.Nos.51523-662/2015. The members of the Sangha have
filed Civil Contempt Case No. 655/2023 alleging willful
disobedience and non-compliance of the order dated
19.04.2023 passed in Review Petition No.135/2023.
III. The Issue/Question in CCC No.655/2023:
The question which requires consideration in CCC
No.655/2023 is whether the order passed on 19.04.2023 in
Review Petition No.135/2023 can be implemented or the said
order was obtained by misleading this Court?
i. Having given the chequered history of litigation, it is
evident that vide order dated 11.07.1997, the Government
directed the MUDA to regularise the plots in the layout. The
survey numbers in question were set aside by the learned
Single Judge and upheld by the Division Bench in its judgment
and order dated 26.10.1998 in W.A.Nos.824-830/1998. Once
the said Government order was not in existence, could the
- 26 -
allotment of sites be directed on the basis of the said
Government order which was no longer in existence?
ii. It would also be relevant to take note of the fact that
soon after the filing of the review petition seeking review of the
judgment and order dated 27.02.2023, the Resolution dated
21.03.2023 came to be passed by the MUDA at the instance of
the then Commissioner, who is facing criminal prosecution for
his gross misconduct, money laundering etc. The Commissioner
misled the board members in passing the resolution dated
21.03.2023. There could have been no question for
implementing the Government Order dated 11.07.1997 which
was quashed by this Court. The Resolution sought the
Government's approval for implementing the quashed
Government Order dated 11.07.1997 for denotifying the plots
in question and regularizing the plots in favor of the members
of the petitioner-Sangha.
iii. The timing of filing of the review petition and the resolution
is interesting to take note of. The review petition was filed on
16.03.2023 and the resolution came to be passed on
21.03.2023. One can safely draw the conclusion that once the
Sangha was able to persuade the Commissioner for passing the
- 27 -
resolution, they moved the review petition and soon thereafter,
the resolution was passed. We have no hesitation to say that
filing of the review petition was not an usual act on behalf of
the Sangha. The resolution passed by the MUDA on 21.03.2023
was an illegal and mala fide exercise of the powers of the
MUDA inasmuch as it sought to implement the Government
Order dated 11.07.1997 which did not exist.
iv. Without taking note of the fact that the Government Order
dated 11.07.1997 was not in existence, the Division Bench
passed the order in the review petition on 19.04.2023 to give
effect to the MUDA's resolution dated 21.03.2023. The said
resolution itself was based on the non-existent Government
Order dated 11.07.1997. The resolution dated 21.03.2023
cannot be given effect to and the order dated 19.04.2023 was
obtained by misleading this Court. Further, under the
provisions of Section 67 of the KUDA Act, the Commissioner is
duty bound to submit to the Government, the copies of all the
resolutions of the Authority and the Government has the power
to cancel, in whole or in part, any resolution passed by the
Authority. It would be apt to take note of Section 67 of the
KUDA Act, which reads as under:
- 28 -
"67. Submission of copies of resolutions
and Government's power to cancel the
resolution or order.- (1) The
Commissioner shall submit to the
Government copies of all resolutions of
the Authority.
(2) If the Government is of opinion that
the execution of any resolution or order
issued by or on behalf of the Authority
or the doing of any act which is about
to be done or is being done by or on
behalf of the Authority is in
contravention of or in excess of the
powers conferred by this Act or any
other law for the time being in force or
is likely to lead to a breach of peace or
to cause injury or annoyance to the
public or to any class or body of
persons or is prejudicial to the interests
of the Authority, it may, by order in
writing suspend the execution of such
resolution or order or prohibit the doing
of any such act after issuing a notice to
the Authority to show cause, within the
specified period which shall not be less
than fifteen days, why,- (a) the
resolution or order should not be
cancelled in whole or in part, or
(b) any regulation or by-law concerned
should not be repealed in whole or in
part.
(3) Upon consideration of the reply, if
any, received from the Authority and
after such inquiry as it thinks fit, the
Government may pass orders cancelling
- 29 -
the resolution or order or repeal the
regulations or bye-law and
communicate the same to the
Authority.
(4) The Government may at any time
on further representation by the
Authority or otherwise, revise, modify,
or revoke an order passed under sub-
section(3)."
v. As the Resolution dated 21.03.2023 was passed in mala
fide exercise of the powers by the MUDA and as it sought to
implement the Government Order dated 11.07.1997 which was
no longer in existence, the Government has rightly cancelled
the said resolution vide order dated 30.11.2024 impugned in
W.P.No.33513/2024. The Government had noted that in
passing the Resolution dated 21.03.2023, the MUDA had
violated the KUDA Act and Rules. The relevant extract of the
Government Order dated 30.11.2024 is extracted hereunder:
"On examining the clarification provided
by the Commissioner, Mysore Urban
Development Authority, it is found that
there is a clear violation of the
prevailing Act and Rules as described
above Furthermore, it is very important
to note that the Hon'ble Court, in its
order dated 07.01.1998 in Writ Petition
No. 23488/1997, had quashed
- 30 -
Bhubadi 1997 dated 11.07.1997, and
also dismissed Wit Appeal Nos. 824-
830/1998 filed by the Chamundeshwari
Nagar Sarvodaya Sangha in relation to
the same matter Despite this, the
Mysore Urban Development Authority,
in its General Body Meeting held on
21.03.2023 under Agenda Item No.
13(4), decided to implement the said
Bhubadi 1997 dated 11.07.1997,
without considering this crucial fact.
This decision is illegal, and the
clarification provided by the
Commissioner in this regard is not
acceptable.
After carefully examining the above
explanations, the Government has
ordered as follows:
Government Order No.: Na.A.I 149 My
APRA 2023 (Part-2),
Bengaluru, Dated: 30.11.2024
In view of the facts detailed in the
preamble, the Government hereby
cancels the decision taken under
Subject No. 13/4) of the General
Meeting of the Mysuru Urban
Development Authority held on
21.03.2023, by exercising the powers
conferred under Section 67(3) of the
Karnataka Urban Development
Authorities Act, 1987."
- 31 -
IV CONCLUSION:
i. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the
Government Order dated 30.11.2024 is perfectly justified as it
is within the powers of the State Government and does not
require any interference. Thus, we dismiss W.P.
No.33513/2024.
ii. CCC No.655/2023 filed by the Sangha also stands dismissed
as the order dated 19.04.2023 passed in Review Petition
No.135/2023 was obtained by misleading the Court. The Court
was not placed with the correct facts. The Court was made to
believe that the Government Order dated 11.07.1997 was in
existence and therefore, the order dated 19.04.2023 was
passed in the review petition. As the order dated 19.04.2023
was passed by misleading the Court, it cannot be given effect
to and no contempt can be said to have been committed by the
alleged contemnor. Further, the Government has cancelled the
resolution dated 21.03.2023 passed by the MUDA vide
Government Order 30.11.2024 in exercise of its powers under
Section 67(3) of the KUDA Act and we have dismissed the writ
petition challenging the Government Order dated 30.11.2024.
The cancelled resolution dated 21.03.2023, even otherwise,
- 32 -
cannot be given effect to. Thus, we hold that no contempt has
been committed by the alleged contemnor, therefore, we
dismiss the contempt petition.
iii. We also dismiss W.P.No.29219/2023 filed by Mr. Veer
Kumar Jain as infructuous insofar as it relates to challenge to
the MUDA's Resolution dated 21.03.2023 is concerned as the
Resolution dated 21.03.2023 has been cancelled by the
Government Order dated 30.11.2024.
iv. Despite the dismissal of W.P.No.29219/2023, the MUDA
and the State Government may take a decision independent of
the Government Order dated 11.07.1997 for allotment of sites
to the Members of the Sangha as per the relevant policy in this
regard.
v. We have been informed that in pursuance to the Resolution
dated 21.03.2023 of the MUDA, several sale deeds have been
registered in favour of some members of the Sangha and few
have been left out. If the State Government is not canceling
the sale deeds already executed in favour of some Members of
the Sangha, the other Members of the Sangha are also to be
given similar treatment.
- 33 -
With aforesaid directions, we close these proceedings.
In view of disposal of the petitions, pending interlocutory
applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and they
stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
NG
