Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. It is an undisputed fact that an extent of 94 acres 28 guntas of land had been acquired by the first respondent-State Government for the benefit of MUDA by issuing the preliminary notification, final notification under the provisions of the 1903 Act and passed the awards. Though the acquisition of the land was for Vijayashreepura Extension, the records of the State Government and MUDA reveal that it was for twin purposes, (1) for the formation of sites by MUDA; and (2) to grant land in favour of 28th respondent-college. This fact is admitted by all the parties in these writ proceedings. With this background, the legality, validity and correctness of the acquisition of land has to be tested by this Court on the anvil of the facts and circumstances of the case.

11. In the preliminary notification at Annexure-C, dated 21-6-1985 in paragraph 2 it is stated that the extent required for the layout, the estimated expenditure and the details of the land proposed for acquisition are kept in the office of MUDA. Hence, the file pertaining to the scheme had been summoned from MUDA and perused. In the file it is noticed that the Chairman of MUDA wrote letter to the Secretary to the Government, Housing and Urban Development Department enclosing the project report pertaining to the scheme. In paragraph 3 of the said letter it is stated as under.-

14. The acquisition of the land in question is for Vijayashreepura Extension. But the bulk of land measuring 55 acres out of 94 acres 28 guntas had been given to respondent 28-college. It is a 'company1 as defined under Section 2(e) of the Mysore L.A. Act by Act No. 17 of 1916. The acquisition of land for companies is governed by Part VII of L.A. Act. The acquisition of land for the college by MUDA under the 1903 Act is bad in law. If the college required land for its educational activities, it could have requested the State Government after satisfying the statutory requirements as provided under the provisions of the Act, to acquire the land for its purpose by initiating acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the L.A. Act and Rules. The 2nd respondent-MUDA was established for the improvement and future expansion of the City of Mysore. The same is clear from the preamble portion of 1903 Act. It was not established for acquisition of land for either 28th respondent-College, or any other authority or third parties for the purpose either establishing colleges or for other purposes other than the formation and distribution of sites to the eligible persons as per the Rules to see that City should be developed and improved in a planned way. The manner in which respondent 8's letter was issued by the Chairman of MUDA to the first respondent for bulk allotment of the acquired land in favour of respondent 28 is a clear case of collusion of MUDA with the college for extraneous consideration, which action of it is a clear case of mala fide exercise of power in this case. Thus, the acquisition of land as shown in the notification is for formation of Vijayashreepura Extension for allotment of sites to the eligible residents of the City of Mysore, the acquired land has been diverted to respondent 28 by respondents 1 and 2, in contravention of the provisions of the 1908 Act and law laid down in this regard by the Apex Court and this Court. The impugned order at An-nexure-H, dated 28-5-1988 is not only without authority of law of the State Government and MUDA but also contrary to the provisions of the 1903 Act and the Rules framed under Act. The bulk allotment of land made in favour of the respondent 28 by respondent 1 is void ab initio in law in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the case of Babu Verghese and Ors. v. Bar Council of Kerala and Ors., In that decision, after referring to the Privy Council and its earlier judgments the Apex Court has clearly explained the law at paras 31 and 32 which are extracted hereunder:

27. From the file relating to administrative approval of the Government to the scheme in question, it is seen that the file had been closed on 28-10-1988 by addressing a letter to 2nd respondent-MUDA to send a fresh proposal if it still feels to take up the scheme in question. One thing is clear from this. Even before the Government according administrative approval, which is impliedly rejected now, to the scheme in ques-

tion, the acquisition proceedings have been concluded by issuing preliminary and final notifications and passing the awards. The 1st and 2nd respondents have exercised their power without looking into the statutory provisions of the Act governing it. Misuse of power by them is glaring by the way in which the matter has been dealt with. The allegation of the petitioner that fraud on power has played vital role in this case has to be accepted as the same is proved from the perusal of the files of the respondents 1 and 2 and the impugned order at Annexure-H, dated 28-5-1988. The further allegation of the petitioner that respondent 28 is a powerful institution having large number of institutions, organisations and personalities, both public and private at its command and this institution which was the force behind the initiation of the acquisition proceedings in this case, has to be believed and accepted. The requirement of this institution was more than the actual requirement of MUDA for the implementation of the so-called scheme of formation of Vuayashreepura Extension in City of Mysore. There was no occasion for the 28th respondent to request the MUDA to acquire land for it as it could have directly sought acquisition of land through the acquiring agency, namely the State Government represented by its Land Acquisition Officer. The MUDA should not have entertained such a request of 28th respondent. It appears that there was mutual understanding between the two and at their instance the Government also bowed and acted in their favour in exercise of its power to oblige them for extraneous considerations. The decision of the Supreme Court in Gurudial Singh's case, supra and two other Division Bench judgments which are extracted in this judgment squarely applies to this case. Consequently it is held that fraud on power, misuse of power, colourable exercise of power, collusion, favouritism etc., are all involved in the matter of acquisition of land in question and grant of bulk allotment of land of 55 acres in favour of the 28th respondent. The MUDA instead of restricting its developmental and improvement activities within the parameters provided under the provisions of the 1903 act has exceeded its jurisdiction and authority by entertaining the request of 28th respondent for acquiring land for it covering the same under its scheme - the scheme which was still a womb/foetus not only at the time of publication of preliminary notification but even as on today in view of closure of file relating to sanction by the Government. There is a proverb in Kannada which means even before the birth of child, topi (hat) was got prepared. The same is aptly applicable to this case as even before the scheme was evolved and approved, proceedings for acquisition of land had been commenced and concluded and major portion of the acquired land is granted in favour of 28th respondent by the State Government. In the circumstances the submission made by the learned Counsels for respondents 2 and 28 to order for payment of monetary compensation to the petitioner cannot be accepted and the same is hereby rejected.