Mysore Urban Development Authority vs K.M. Chikkathayamma

these appeals, few relevant facts need mention infra.

8) In   2001,   the   respondents  (writ  petitioners)  felt aggrieved   by   the   acquisition   proceedings   and   filed writ petitions questioning the legality and correctness 4 of   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 legal grounds.

25) In our opinion, the Division Bench should have decided   the   appeals   on   merits   in   accordance   with law.

26) On 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 dismissed “as not pressed”.  In other words, the High Court should have   dismissed   the   respondents’   application (I.A.No.11/2016) as being misconceived and decided the appeals on merits in accordance with law.  11

30) If, for some reasons, there are two rival groups in a juristic entity, one prays for withdrawal and the other insisting for hearing the appeal then it is the duty   of   the   Court   to   first   resolve   this   issue   in   the light   of   the   relevant   provisions   of   law   and   then proceed to decide the appeal accordingly.   Similarly, when   such   prayer   is   made   at   the   instance   of   the respondent   and   is   opposed   by   the   appellant,   the 13 same has to be dealt with strictly in accordance with law by the Appellate Court.

32) In 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   present appeals.

33) In   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 order.

34) The   appeals   thus succeed and  are accordingly allowed. Impugned order in both the matters are set aside.   The   writ   appeals   out  of  which   these   appeals arise   are   accordingly   restored   to   their   original numbers.  The High Court is requested to decide the appeals on merits in accordance with law.

35) We make it clear that we have not applied our mind to the merits of controversy having formed an opinion to remand the case to the High Court.   The High   Court   would,   therefore,   decide   the   appeals without being influenced by any of our observations.

36) We also make it clear that any step(s), if claimed to   have   been   taken   by   the   respondents   (writ petitioners)   subsequent   to   the   impugned   order,   the 15 same   would   not,   in   any   way,   influence   the   High Court while deciding the appeals on merits.

37) The parties are at liberty to claim refund of their money,  if they  claimed to have paid/deposited with the appellant in relation to the subject matter of the appeals.

September 07, 2018  16