Case: MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. K.M. CHIKKATHAYAMMA

Mysore Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "MUDA") was the respondent whereas the respondents herein were the writ petitioners before the HighIn exercise of the powers conferred under Section 17 (1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities(hereinafter referred to as "The Karnataka Act"), the MUDA issued a notification No. LAQdated 19.12.1991 on completion of one development scheme prepared under Section 15/16 of the KarnatakaBy this notification, the MUDA proposed to acquire the large area of the land along with other adjoining lands situated in Dattagalli village (Karnataka). The notification was published in the official State gazette on 26.12.1991. The State Government vide its order dated 27.01.1992 approved the scheme framed by the MUDA under Section 18(3) of the Karnataka Act and issued final notification No.VaNaE 833 MIB 92 on 10.12.1992mentioning therein that the lands in question are needed for public purpose, viz.,his was followed by an award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) on 27.01.1994 wherein he determined the compensation payable to the landowners. This was followed by issuance of notices to the land owners under Section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to ascalling upon the land owners to deliver possession of their respectiveMUDA then issued a notification on 18.09.2000 as required under Section 16 (2) of the LA Act. In between, there was one litigation but it is not necessary to mention the same inIn 2001, the respondents (writ petitioners) felt aggrieved by the acquisition proceedings and filed writ petitions questioning the legality and correctnessof the notification dated 19.12.1991 and consequential notifications issued thereafter in the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. The MUDA and State contested the writ petitions on several factual and legalBy order dated 15.12.2003, the Single Judge allowed the writ petitions and quashed the entire acquisition proceedings inter alia on the ground that there was a delay on the part of the MUDA in taking possession of the acquired land and hence the acquisition proceedings are renderedhe MUDA felt aggrieved and filed intra Court appeals before the Division Bench out of which these SLPs arise. In the appeals, the writ petitioners as respondents, filed an application (I.A. No.11 of 2016) and prayed therein for dismissal of theappeals as having rendered infructuous. It was contended that the MUDA has resolved on02.07.2016 to drop the lands in question from the acquisition proceedings and, therefore, in the light of such decision having been taken, there is no need to examine the legality and correctness of the order of the Single Judge impugned in the appeals onBy impugned order in both the matters, the Division Bench dismissed the appealsed andorder impugned dated 09.11.2016 reads asn application is moved by the respondents seeking for dismissal of the writ appeals on the ground that the Mysore Urban Development Authority (for shortdecided, in their Board meeting on July 2, 2016, to drop the lands covered by this litigation from the acquisition process. A copy of the resolution is annexed to the application.After hearing Mr. Uday Holla, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondents and Mr. P.S. Manjunath, learned advocate appearing for the appellants, we have got a clear indication that the authorities have decided not to proceed with the writ appeals.Therefore, the writ appeals are dismissed as withdrawn.It shall be open to the authorities to proceed further in the matter. We, however, express noIt is against this order, the MUDA has felted the present appeals by way of special leave before this Court.

Reasoning:
24. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find force in the submissions urged by the learned counsel for theIn our opinion, the Division Bench should have decided the appeals on merits in accordance withOn perusal of the resolution dated 02.07.2016, Government letter dated 26.06.2018 and the letter dated 14.11.2017 of the Commissioner and further keeping in view the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Act, we are of the view that the appeals filed by the MUDA could not have been dismissedother words, the High Court should have dismissed theapplication (I.A.No.11/2016) as beinged the appeals on merits in accordance withIn our opinion, neither there was any express prayer made by the MUDA and nor it could be inferred from the document relied on by the Division Bench at the instance of respondents (writ petitioners) for forming an opinionto press theIn other words, the opinion formed by the High Court for dismissing the appealshad no basis. Such dismissal, in our view, certainly deprived the MUDA of their right to prosecute the appeals onA right of appeal is a valuable right of a litigant. He is entitled to prosecute this right as it enables him to seek adjudication of the issues on merits, which are subject matter of the appeal by the Appellate Court. He can, however, forgo such right but it has to be done with express authority and free will. The respondents, however, cannot compel the appellant to give up the right of prosecuting the appeal unlessthe respondents are able to show any express provision in law in that behalf or valid reasons acceptable in law which deprive the appellant from prosecuting his grievance in appeal.The submissions urged by the learned senior counsel for the respondents (writ petitioners), which are detailed supra, have noIn our opinion, any act done by the parties in relation to the subject matter of the appeals after the impugned order, cannot be pressed into service to support the impugned order. In other words, the legality and correctness of the impugned order has to be examined in the light of reasoning contained in the impugned order and not on the basis of the acts done by the parties subsequent to the passing of impugned order. It is for this reason the acts done by the party subsequent to passing of the impugned order are of no relevance for deciding the presentIn view of the foregoing discussion, we are unable to concur with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench in the impugned