Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) is said to have issued a preliminary notification dated 1.4.1981, under the provisions of the City of Mysore Improvement Act, 1903 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'CMI Act', for brevity). A final notification is said to have been issued on 31.3.1984. And it is stated that it is only thereafter a sanction of the Scheme was accorded on 3.6.1989.

It is claimed that there is no award passed in the name of the petitioners nor any compensation paid and that they continue in possession of the lands.

"26. Total extent of land notified for acquisition is 491 acres 9 guntas. Possession of an extent of 470 acres of land were taken and only a small extent of 20 acres 38 guntas could not be taken"

Also the Statement of Objections dated 27.7.2001 filed by MUDA also records the fact that actual physical possession is not taken.

It is contended that this court in WP 27994/2001 and WP 28756/2001 by judgments dated 15.12.2003, 7.2.2011 and 10.10.2013 had held that possession of the said lands are with the petitioners.

It is contended that insofar as Section 24(2) of the LA Act, 2013 is concerned, the key words are physical possession of the land has not been taken." The use of the adverb "not" indicates that the burden is on the land owners to show unambiguously and unvaryingly, as held by the Supreme Court in Radiance Fincap (Private) Limited and others vs. U.O.I. (2015)8 SCC 544, that possession is with the petitioners must be a proven point of fact. The petitioners have not proved the fact of physical possession not being taken from them. The Mysore Urban Development Authority has proved that possession was taken from the writ petitioners by Annexures "R1" and "R2", the letters written by the petitioners stating that the MUDA has formed roads and drains on their lands and by Annexures "R3" to "R7", the R.T.C. besides, the notification dated 18.9.2000 under Section 16(2) of the LA Act, 1894, which establish transfer of possession to the MUDA. Pertinently in the earlier petition, in WP 18756 of 2001, the petitioners had challenged the validity of the notification under Section 16(2), which fact supports the defence of the MUDA that possession is taken. The presumption attached to the said notification is not rebutted. The order dated 10.10.2013 in WP 18756 of 2001 connected with WP 27994/2001 does not establish that physical possession is not taken. The order quashes the acquisition proceedings on the ground of arbitrariness. That order is not final as MUDA has presented Writ Appeal No.6829- 30/2013 which are pending. No reliance therefore can be placed on the order in the writ petitions for the purpose of deciding the issue with respect to Section 24(2) of the LA Act, 2013 Act. Except producing three orders passed by the learned Single Judges, the petitioners have not produced any other legally acceptable material to show that the possession is not taken. Out of the 3 orders, 2 orders have been set aside by the Division Bench and latest order is in appeal referred to above. The issuance of notification under Section 16(2) of the LA Act, 1894 is conclusive proof of taking possession and vesting of land in the State free from all encumbrances. Therefore, it is for the petitioners plead and establish that the possession is not taken. The standing trees would not conclude that the petitioners are in possession. In fact as on the date of issuance of notification and making award itself, there were standing trees and the award is made for garden land in respect of some of the Survey numbers, which are subject matter of these writ petitions.

It is finally contended that the petitioners have not answered the preliminary objection of MUDA, that as the entire acquisition proceedings have been quashed, the question of declaring that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed by applying Section 24(2) of LA Act, 2013 does not arise.

12. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Counsel for the MUDA, would further contend as follows :-

Firstly, the decision in Nagpur Improvement Trust, supra, relied upon by the petitioners is concerned, was delivered at a point of time when there existed a fundamental right to property under Articles 19(f) and Article 31 of the Constitution. Subsequent constitutional amendments have relegated the right to property as a mere civil or constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution. There is no longer a requirement of compensating land owners at market value and it is only required that the compensation given must not be illusory. Further, the different compensation regime under the KUDA Act would be protected from a challenge to Article 14 by virtue of the provision of Article 31-A of the Constitution. Because of these reasons, the KUDA Act would not become "unworkable or ineffectual" merely because acquisitions under the KUDA Act would still be governed by principles of compensation as laid down under the LA Act,1894.