Mysore Urban Development Authority vs M R Kumara Swamy
2026 Latest Caselaw 1391 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Mysore Urban Development Authority vs M R Kumara Swamy on 17 February, 2026

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

                        PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

                          AND

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

          WRIT APPEAL NO.1470 OF 2023 (LA,UDA)

BETWEEN:

MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JCB ROAD

MYSORE-570 001

REPRESENTED BY

ITS COMMISSIONER
                                           ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SHARATH GOWDA G.B., ADV.)

AND:

M. R. KUMARA SWAMY

S/O LATE M. L. RAJU

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

R/AT NO.1299/1

CH NO.23/1

3RD CROSS

2ND MAIN ROAD
                              2




KRISHNAMURTHYPURAM

MYSORE CITY-570 004.
                                             ...RESPONDENT


(BY SRI. G.BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADV.)



      THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH

COURT ACT, 1961 AND SECTION 27 OF THE WRIT PROCEEDINGS

RULES, 1977, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED

17.03.2023 PASSED IN W.P.No.11964/2017 (LA-UDA) BY THE

LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND ETC.



      THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED

FOR   JUDGMENT   ON    10.02.2026   AND   COMING   ON   FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN

J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:


CORAM:   HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
          and
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
                                   3




                           CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

This writ appeal is filed challenging the Order dated

17.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.11964/2017 (LA-UDA).

2. We have heard Shri. Sharath Gowda G.B, the

learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri. G.

Balakrishna Shastry, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The respondent herein was the owner of land

measuring 21 guntas situated in Sy.No.87/2 of

Kyathamaranahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk

('subject property' for short). The appellant acquired the

subject property for formation of a residential layout -

Devanuru I Stage Layout, pursuant to Preliminary

Notification dated 21.04.2004 and Final Notification dated

03.02.2005. A General Award was passed on 16.08.2007

and Individual Award was passed on 11.01.2008 wherein a

sum of Rs.31,39,794/- was fixed as against 2 acres 22

guntas in Sy.No.87/2 that stood acquired. Upon passing of

the Individual Award, the respondent did not come forward

to collect the amount of Rs.31,39,794/-. As a result, the

same was deposited before the City Civil Court under

Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Thereafter, the respondent challenged the acquisition

in W.P.No.49847/2013 (LA-UDA) before this Court. The

challenge was rejected vide Order dated 07.11.2014 but

with a direction to the appellant herein, to allot a site to the

respondent by taking into account the extent of land

acquired, by considering this as a special case and to send a

reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act

within a period of eight weeks. Further, the respondent

herein was directed to pay the "market value" of the site

that would be allotted to the appellant.

Thereafter, respondent filed C.C.C.No.1442/2015

alleging non-compliance of the Order dated 07.11.2014

passed in W.P.No.49847/2013. An Official Memorandum

dated 24.11.2015 was issued by the appellant wherein a site

measuring 30 x 40 ft., at the rate of Rs.800/- per sq.ft.

amounting to Rs.9,60,000/- was allotted to the respondent.

Further, the acquisition was completed in the year 2008

after the compensation amount was deposited with the Civil

Court. In compliance with the Order dated 07.11.2014, the

appellant allotted a site to the respondent and fixed the

allotment rate at the rate prevalent on the date of the

allotment, as per Rule 4 of the Karnataka Urban

Development Authority (Allotment of incentive Sites for

Voluntary Surrender for Land Scheme) Rules 1991

('Incentive Scheme Rules' for short). Rule 4 of the Incentive

Scheme Rules states that an allotee shall pay the entire sital

value as fixed by the Authority. The respondent herein gave

a representation dated 07.12.2015 to the appellant

requesting to modify the Official Memorandum dated

24.11.2015 and to fix the sital value as prevalent as on the

date of the Preliminary Notification dated 21.04.2004 and to

deduct the sital value from the award amount payable to

them.

Thereafter, the respondent withdrew the Contempt of

Court Case and the same was dismissed as withdrawn by

order dated 06.01.2016. The respondent herein filed

W.P.No.11964/2017 assailing the Official memorandum

dated 24.11.2015 and also seeking a writ of mandamus to

fix the sital value as prevalent on the date of Preliminary

Notification dated 21.04.2004 and to deduct the sital value

from the award amount payable to them.

4. The learned Single Judge found that in a welfare

State, the appellant-Authority should not have a profit

motive while fixing the rate of compensatory sites. Since the

writ petitioner's case was a special one, it was held that the

price of the site has to be determined on the basis of the

market rates obtained at the time of the Preliminary

Notification and not on the date of allotment of the site. The

writ petition was therefore allowed and the demand for a

sital value of Rs.9,60,000/- was set at naught. The appellant

herein was directed to re-determine the sital value on the

basis of market value for the year 2004-2005. On issuance

of the demand notice following the re-determination, the

appellant was directed to pay sital value and on receipt

thereof, the appellant was to execute and register a regular

Sale Deed within a period of four weeks.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant

submits that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate

that the Incentive Scheme Rule is inapplicable to the instant

case. It is contended that the Incentive Scheme Rules were

enacted to encourage land owners to voluntarily surrender

their lands. In the instant case, the respondent did not

volunteer to surrender his land. Further, the respondent

even laid challenge to the acquisition process in

W.P.No.49847/2013, wherein the learned Single Judge, as a

special case, directed the appellant to allot the site by

collecting the market value. Pursuant to the said Order, the

appellant allotted the subject property vide Official

Memorandum dated 24.11.2015, at the market price

prevalent on that date.

6. It is further contended that the learned Single

Judge erred in holding that the compensation amount

payable to the respondent was only Rs.6,50,000/- whereas

the sital value, which is a small portion of the land that was

acquired was fixed at Rs.9,60,000/-. The learned Single

Judge failed to appreciate the fact that the amount of

compensation was deposited by the appellant way back in

year 2005-06, whereas the Official Memorandum was issued

only in the year 2011 after the lapse of eleven years.

Therefore, the value of the money had depreciated in the

eleven years which means that the value of Rs.6,50,000/- in

2005-06 was way more than Rs.9,60,000/- that was

demanded in the year 2015.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent

contends that the Order dated 24.11.2015 directing to

collect the site value as it existed in the year 2015 caused

hardship to the respondent. The land owned by the

respondent was lost decades ago and the respondent was

deprived of the income of the land. It is further contended

that the Preliminary Notification was issued on 21.04.2004

and appellant paid compensation to the respondent at the

rate as it existed on 21.04.2004.

8. It is further contended that the appellant made

allotment of a site to the respondent after notice in

C.C.C.No.1442/2015 and allotment order was made on

24.11.2015. The actual market value of the plot was higher

on the date of allotment of site to the respondent. It is

alleged that the appellant having forcibly acquired the land

of the petitioner before the year 2004 when the Preliminary

Notification dated 21.04.2004 was made, the appellant was

duty bound to collect the value of the allotted site at the

rate as it existed in the year 2004.

9. We have considered the contentions advanced. It

is clear that the Preliminary Notification in question was one

issued on 21.04.2004. The respondent herein did not

voluntarily surrender the land. As a matter of fact, he raised

a challenge to the acquisition. The challenge to the

acquisition was repelled by this Court, by Annexure - D

Judgment. However, it was noticed that another land owner,

who owned a portion of the land in the same survey number

and Village as the respondent had challenged the same

Notification and an incentive site was directed to be allotted

to the said land loser by this Court in W.A.No.1038/2012

with a further direction to send a reference under Section 18

of the Land Acquisition Act, for determination of the market

value of the land. Considering that the petitioner was an

identically situated person, this Court, by Annexure - D

Judgment, had granted the same relief to the respondent as

was granted to the land owner in Writ Appeal

No.1038/2012. The direction was specifically that the

respondent shall also be granted the same relief as granted

by the Division Bench to the appellant in Writ Appeal

No.1038/2012. The specific relief granted in Writ Appeal

No.1038/2012 was a direction to the appellant to allot a site

measuring 30 x 40 feet. It was clearly stated that the

appellant therein, "shall pay the market value of 30 x 40

feet as per the allotment". This is the relief which was

extended to the respondent herein as well.

10. It is clear from a reading of Annexure - D

Judgment that there is absolutely no finding that the

respondent, who had challenged the Notification and had not

surrendered the land, is entitled, in law, for allotment of an

incentive site. It is only because an identically situated

person had been granted such a site pursuant to orders of a

Division Bench of this Court, that the same relief was

extended to the respondent herein. It is therefore clear that

since the grant of the incentive site was by Annexure - D

Judgment, the entitlement of the respondent to such a site

arose only on the date of the said Judgment.

11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant

has placed a memo on record stating that the value of the

incentive site on 07.11.2014 was the same as has been

taken into account for fixing the sital value on account of the

allotment made on 24.11.2015.

12. In the above factual situation, we are of the

opinion that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the

sital value should have been calculated taking note of the

market value of the land as on the date of the Notification

cannot be accepted. Since the entitlement arose only on

account of Annexure - D Judgment, which specifically

directed that the petitioner shall be granted a site measuring

30 x 40 feet and that he shall pay the market value of the

30 x 40 feet site as per the allotment even if the contention

that there was undue delay in allotting the site as directed

by this Court, it is only the sital value taking note of the

market value as on the date of Annexure - D that can be

taken into account. Rule 4 of the Incentive Scheme Rules

have no application in the instant case where the petitioner's

claim is based only on Annexure D - Judgment. The learned

Single Judge ought to have found that neither the provisions

of the Incentive Scheme Rules or the Karnataka Urban

Development Authorities (Allotment of Sites in lieu of

Compensation for the land acquired) Rules, 2009, apply to

the facts of the instant case.

13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the

opinion that the appeal is liable to succeed. Accordingly:-

(i) The Writ Appeal is allowed.

(ii) The Order dated 17.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.11964/2017, is, set aside.

(iii) The Writ Petition No.11964/2017 shall stand dismissed.

All pending interlocutory applications shall stand

disposed of.

Sd/-

(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

Sd/-

(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

cp*