K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS (DEAD) BY LRS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA& ORS. ETC.
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 974, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Facts
[2015) 11 S.C.R. 974 
A 
K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS (DEAD) BY LRS. 
B 
c 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA& ORS. ETC. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7372-7 428 of 2004) 
DECEMBER 16, 2015 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
Mysore Improvement Act, 1903: 
Object of the Act- Discussed. 
s.16(1) -Acquisition of 94 acres 28 gunthas of land 
located in Vijayashreepura village adjoining Vijaynagar 
Extension and allotment of 55 acres of land to respondent 
D no.28 - Challenged by appellant-writ petitioner - Single 
judge of High Court held acquisition proceedings and 
allotment of 55 acres of land as illegal - However, in view of 
long eclipse of time and in view of interim order that any 
E construction raised by respondent no. 28 would be at his risk 
and cost and all other relevant facts and circumstances of 
the case, single judge moulded the relief by refusing to quash 
the acquisition notifications though holding the acquisition 
itself to be untenable in law- Respondent no. 28 was directed 
F ·to handover land to MUDA -Appellant was held entitled to 
compensation under Land Acquisition Act- Division Bench 
of the High Court reversed the findings as to legality and 
validity of acquisition as well as allotment of land to 
respondent no.28 -On appeal, held: In the instant case, 
G mandatory requirement of existence of plan/development 
scheme prior to publication of the preliminary notification ul 
s. 16(1) was not followed- Further, s. 18 requires issuance of 
notification only after sanction
of government which was not 
obtained in the instant case, thus there was clear infringement 
H 
974
K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS (DEAD) BY LRS. v. 
975 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
Of mandatory requirement of s. 18 of the Act - Sequence of A 
events demonstrates that State action did not conform to the 
requirements of law - The Act contemplates vesting of the 
land in the Government after an award is passed and 
compensation is paid and only on such vesting of the land 
in the Government the same can be transferred to the Board B 
- However, even before the award was passed and land had 
· vesting in the government, possession of land was handed 
over by MUDA to respondent no.28 - Notwithstanding the 
illegality in the allotment made and the risk undertaken by 
the respondent no. 28 in raising the constructions despite the C 
interim order, a full-fledged academic campus came up on 
the 55 acres of land - Large number of persons were utilizing 
the benefit of the said infrastructure and facilities provided 
therein and the infrastructure raised on the allotted land 0 
provided avenues of employment to many which fact could 
not be overlooked - However, there are large tracts of vacant 
land within the said 55 acres notwithstanding the constructions 
raised - In such circumstances, respondent no.28 asked to 
surrender to MUDA a compact area of a minimum of 15 E 
acres - Insofar as the remaining 40 acres of land allotted to 
respondent no. 28 is concerned, the compensation, in respect 
thereof, to be paid to the person/persons entitled to receive 
such compensation under the Land
Acquisition Act. 
Writ jurisdiction: Delay in approaching court - Held: 
Delay should not come in the way of an adjudication of writ 
petition on merits - While exercising jurisdiction u!Arl.226, 
High Court is not bound by any strict rule of limitation -
F 
Constitution oflndia, 1950-Art. 226. 
G 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The 1903 Act has been enacted for the 
purpose of improvement and future expansion of the city 
of Mysore. Section 14 vests in the Board the power to H
976 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 
A draw up detailed schemes for such improvement or 
expansion or both, as may be, in respect of the areas to 
which the 1903 Act applies. After a Scheme is prepared, 
under Section 16, the Board is obligated to draw up a 
notification stating that the scheme has been made; the 
B limits of the area comprised therein and to name a place 
where particulars of the scheme; a map of the area 
comprised therein; and the details of the land which is 
proposed to be acquired or in respect of which a 
betterment fee is proposed to be imposed may be seen 
C and inspected. Under Section 16(1)(b), the notification 
is required to be published in the Gazette. Within a period 
of 30 days following the publication of the notification in 
the Gazette, the Board is required to serve notice on 
0 
every person whose name appears in the assessment 
list of the Municipality or the local body concerned or in 
the land revenue register requiring such person to file 
objections, if any. Under Section 17, the Board is obliged 
to consider the objections/representations received in 
E response to the communication/notices issued under 
Section 16(2) and on the basis thereof carry out such 
modification in the scheme earlier prepared as may be 
necessary. The scheme with or without modifications 
is required to be forwarded to the Government for 
F sanction and on receipt thereof a 'final' notification under 
Section 18 is required to be issued stating
the fact of 
such sanction and mentioning that the land proposed 
to be acquired by the Board for the purposes of the 
scheme is required for a public purpose. Under Section 
G 23 ofthe 1903Act, acquisition of land, if resorted to, has 
to follow the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 
[Paras 14, 16, 17] [991-B; 992-C-H; 993-A-B] 
2. In view of the clear language of Section 16(1) of 
H the 1903 Act and the scheme of the 1903 Act, there is no
K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS (DEAD) BY LRS. v. 
977 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
doubt that the requirement of the existence of the plan/ A 
development scheme prior to publication of the 
preliminary notification under Section 16(1) of the 1903 
Act is a mandatory requirement. From the facts placed 
before the Court it is clear that such mandatory 
requirement has not been followed. Not only that, there B 
is no material to show that the question of 
modification(s) in the scheme were duly considered in 
the light of the objections received and that the scheme 
was sent to the State Government for sanction as 
required under Section 17 of the 1903 Act In fact, the C 
whole position is made abundantly clear by the terms of 
the notification dated 29th April, 1988 under Section 18(1) 
and 18(2) of the 1903 Act which recites that "This 
development scheme is subject to administrative D 
sanction by the Government.". There is, therefore, a 
clear infringement of the mandatory requirement un'der 
Section 18 of the 1903 Act. The correspondence between 
the respondent No.28-society and the State of Karnataka 
would go to show that the provisions of the 1903 Act in E 
respect of 94 acres and 28 gunthas of land were invoked 
at the request of the respondent No.28-Society who 
wanted allotment of a total of 100 acres of land specifying 
the said requirement to be in S.No.1 of Vijayasreepura, 
Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk. The communications on F 
record also go to show that the Chief Minister of
the State 
had intervened and issued necessary directions in this 
regard and it is pursuant to the same that the provisions 
of the 1903 Act were invoked to acquire the land in 
question. However, even before the notification dated G 
21st June, 1985 under Section 16(1) of the 1903 Act was 
published in the Gazette as required under the 1903 Act 
(published on 30th April, 1987), on 6th April, 1987, the 
Board had passed a resolution allotting 55 acres of land 
H
978 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 
A to the respondent No.28 - Society out of 94 acres and 
28 gunthas covered by the preliminary notification dated 
21st June, 1985. It is, thereafter, the Board informed the 
Government that the remaining area of land can be 
utilized for developing a layout and a separate scheme 
B will be prepared and approval of the Government sought 
for with regard to final notification. Thereafter, on 28th 
May, 1988, the Government had accorded its consent/ 
approval to the resolution dated 6th April, 1987 of the 
board allotting 55 acres of land to the respondent No.28-
C Society. Possession of the said land was given to the 
respondent No.28-Society on 26th September, 1988. The 
above sequence of events demonstrates State action 
which does not conform to the requirements of law. 
0 
Furthermore, the Government approval to the resolution 
of the Board to handover 55 acres of land to the 
respondent No.28-Society on 28th May, 1988 and 
handing over of possession of such land on 26th 
September, 1988 is also contrary to the specific 
E provisions contained in Section 23(4) of the 1903 Act 
inasmuch as the said provision of the 1903 Act 
contemplates vesting of the land in the Government after 
an award is pa·ssed and compensation is paid and only 
on such vesting of the land in the Government the same 
F can be transferred to the Board. If this is what the 1903 
Act contemplates it is difficult to understand how on 28th 
May, 1988, even
before an award was passed and the 
land had vested in the Government and the question of 
transfer to the MUDA had not even arisen in law, the 
G Government could have approved the Board's 
Resolution to allot the land to Respondent No.28 and 
how the possl'ssion of the land could have been handed 
over by MUDA to the respondent No.28-Society on 26th 
September, 1988. [Para 19] [993-H, 994-A-H; 995-A-G] 
H
K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS (DEAD) BY LRS. v. 
979 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
3. While exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 A 
of the Constitution of India, the High Court is not bound 
by any strict rule of limitation. If substantial issues of 
public importance touching upon the fairness of 
governmental action do arise the delayed approach to 
reach the Court will not stand in the way of the exercise B 
of jurisdiction by the Court. Insofar as the knowledge of 
the appellant- writ petitioner with regard to the allotment 
of the land to the .responde.nt No.28-Society is 
concerned, what was claimed in the writ petition is that 
it is only in the year 1994 when the respondent No.28-
C 
Society had ~ttempted to raise construction on the land 
that the fact of allotment of such land came to be known 
to the writ petitioner- appellant. Delay should not come 
in the way of an adjudication of the writ petition on merits. D 
Therefore, the impugned acquisition by MUDA under the 
provisions of the 1903 Act is invalid in law and has to be 
so adjudged. [Para 21] [996-D-G; 997-8-C] 
4. 
The acquisition under the 1903 Act and the 
allotment of 55 acres of land to the respondent No. 28 E 
having been found to be contrary to law consequential 
orders of handing over of possession of the entire land 
should normally follow. However, in granting relief at 
the end of a protracted litigation, as in the present case, F 
the Court cannot be unmindful of facts and events that 
may have
occurred during the pendency of the litigation. 
It may, at times, become necessary to balance the 
equities having regard to the fact situation and 
accordingly mould the relief(s). How the relief is to be G 
·moulded, in the light of all the relevant facts, essentially 
lies in the realm of the discretion of the courts whose 
ultimate duty is to uphold and further the mandate of law. 
Out of the 94 acres and 28 guntas of land that was 
acquired way back in 1985-88, 55 acres have been H
980 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 
A allotted to respondent No. 28. The layout proposed by 
MUDA was in respect of the balance land i.e. about 40 
acres. Of the said approximately 40 acres of_ land, 
according to the MUDA, about 16 acres and 30 guntas is 
presently vacant whereas there are encroachments on 
B the remaining land. On the land not allotted to 
respondent No. 28, no developmental work, in 
consonance with the object of the 1903 Act has been 
undertaken. However, keeping in mind that even if the 
acquisition is set aside, re-acquisition can be resorted 
C to in which event the land would continue to vest in the 
MUDA and the land owner would be entitled to 
compensation, though at an enhanced rate, it would be 
just, fair and equitable to direct that the land vacant and 
0 
all such lands under encroachments, after being made 
free therefrom, may be retained by the MUDA for 
developmental works in consonance with the object(s) 
of the 1903 Act and the owner thereof be entitled to 
compensation in terms of the directions that follow. All 
E proceedings connected to such encroachments will be 
completed within six months by all such forums before 
which the same may be pending. In the event, MUDA 
does not consider it feasible to utilize the land for the 
purpose of the Act the same be handed over to the 
F person entitled to receive such possession depending 
upon the outcome of Writ Appeal No. 1654 of 2008. [Paras 
24, 25) [998-H; 999-A-C; E-G;
1000-A-E] 
5. Notwithstanding the illegality in the allotment 
G made and the risk undertaken by the respondent No. 28 
in raising the constructions despite the interim order 
dated 13th September, 1994, a full-fledged academic 
campus have come up on the 55 acres of land; a large 
number of persons are utilizing the benefit of the said 
H infrastructure and facilities provided therein; that the
K.B. RAMACHANDRARAJE URS (DEAD) BYLRS. v. 
981 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
infrastructure raised on the allotted land is providing A 
avenues of employment to many and a host of other such 
circumstances cannot be overlooked by the Court. 
However, even today there are large tracts of vacant land 
within the said 55 acres . notwithstanding the 
constructions raised. In such circumstances, B 
respondent No.28 should be asked to surrender to MUDA 
a compact area of a minimum of 15 acres, which vacant 
· land the MUDA will take possession of within a month. 
The return of the said land will be once again made to 
the person or persons entitled to receive such C 
possession depending upon the outcome of Writ Appeal 
No.1654 of 2008. Insofar as the remaining 40 acres of 
land allotted to respondent No.28 is concerned, the 
compensation, in respect thereof, to be paid to the D 
person/persons entitled to receive such compensation 
under the Land Acquisition Act, will follow the outcome 
of Writ Appeal No.1654 of 2008. The compensation under 
the Act will be paid by taking the date of the order of the 
Single Judge of the High Court i.e. 22.02.2001 to be the . E 
date of the Notification under Section 4 of Land 
Acquisition Act. The aforesaid date, which represents the· 
. midway point between earlier and subsequent dates (the 
earlier date of notification under Section 16(1) of the Act 
of 1903 or the date of the present order) that could have F 
been opted for, has been preferred by the
court to 
balance the equities in a situation where the landowner 
is being denied the return of the land and the beneficiary 
of an illegal allotment is permitted to retain the same (in 
part) in _larger public interest. Further, alongwith the G 
market value of the land as on the said date i.e. 22.2.2001 
,the person or persons found to be entitled will be also 
entitled to compensation under all other heads including 
interest in accordance with the provisions of the Land 
Acquisition Act. The provisions of Section 18 and other H
982 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 
A provisions of the Act for enhanced compensation will 
also be applicable. The same directions and principles 
will govern the matter concerning compensation in 
respect of the vacant land (16 acres 30 guntas) and the 
land under encroachment referred to above after such 
B encroachments are dealt with in terms of the directions 
contained herein. In view of the long efflux of time the 
process of determination and grant of compensation 
shall be completed by all forums within a period of one 
C year. [Paras 26 and 27] [1000-G-H; 1001-E-F; G-H; 1002-
A-H] 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The State of Bombay versus Ali Gulshan (1955) 
2 SCR 867; Smt. Venkatamma and Ors. versus 
City Improvement of Trust Board, Mysore and Ors. 
(1973) 1 SCC 188; U.G Hospitals Private Limited 
vs. State ofHaryana and Ors. (2011) 14 SCC 354; 
Competent Authority vs. Barangore Jute Factory 
and Ors. (2005) 13 SCC477: 2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 
421; U. G Hospitals Pvt .. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana 
and Ors. (2011) 14 SCC 354; Gaiv Dinshaw Irani 
and Others vs. Tehmtan Irani and Ors. (2014) 8 
SCC 294; Bhimandas Ambwani (Dead) Through 
Lrs. vs. Delhi Power Company Limited (2013) 14 
SCC 195: 2013 (1) SCR 996 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
(1955) 2 SCR 867 
referred to. 
Para 10 
(1973) 1 sec 188 
referred to. 
Para 10 
(2011) 14 sec 354 
referred to. 
Para 13 
2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 421 
referred to. 
Para 24 
(2011) 14 sec 354 
referred to. 
Para 24 
(2014) 8 sec 294
referred to. 
Para 24
K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS (DEAD) BY LRS. v. 
983 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
2013 (1) SCR 996 
referred to. 
Para 24 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 7372-
7 428 of 2004 etc. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.04.2004 of the 
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal Nos. 
B 
4001, 69.10-6939, 4002, 6137-6156 of2001 & 3525 of2002 
With 
C. A. No. 453 of 2007 
A. K. Ganguli, V.Krishnamurthy, P. Vishwanatha Shetty, · C · 
Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Hutefa Ahmadi, T. Harish Kumar, 
Geetha M.P., V. Vasudevan, Navneet Dugar, V. 
Ramasubramanian, V. Balachandran, A. Lakshminarayanan, 
Manu Nair, Saanjh N. Purohit, Vishal Nijhawan, S. S. Shroff 
· (forSureshA. Shroff & Co.), M.A. Chinnasamy, C. Rubavathi, D · 
V. N. Raghupathy, B. S. Prasad,Anirudh Sanganeria, Chinmoy 
Deshpande, Amjit Maqbool, Parikshit Angadi, Shailesh 
Madiyal, Gautam Prabhakar, Shivani Srivastava, Ro.han 
Sharma, S. N. Bhat, S. K. Kulkarni, Vijay Kumar, Anjana E 
Chandrashekar, Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, Sheela Goel for 
the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RANJAN GOGOi, J. 1. The appellant is the writ petitioner 
who had instituted Writ Petition No.14726of1994 before the 
F 
High Court of Karnataka challenging t~erein the preliminary 
notification dated 21st June, 1985 issued under Section 16(1) 
of the City of Mysore Improvement Act, 1903 (hereinafter 
referred to as 'the 1903 Act") for proposing to acquire a total G 
area of 94 acres 28 gunthas of land
located in Vijayashreepura 
village, adjoining the 'Vijayanagar Extension', as mentioned 
in the Schedule thereto for improvement of Mysore city. 
2. The final notification dated 29thApril, 1988 issued in 
exercise of powers conferred under Section 18(1) and (2) of H 
/
984 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
the 1903Act; the awards relating to the acquisition of land in 
question as well as the Government approval dated 28th May, 
1988 for allotment of 55 acres of land to the respondent No.28 
- J.S.S. Mahavidyapeetha [for short "respondent No.28-
Society] was also challenged in the Writ Petition No.14726 of 
B 
1994 filed by the appellant. 
3. The appellant as the writ petitioner had filed a second 
writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No.31449of1994 by which the 
public notice dated 27th June, 1994 inviting applications for 
c regularization of unauthorized constructions made in several 
villages including in the Vijayashreepura village was challenged. 
4. The learned single judge by judgment and order dated 
22nd February, 2001 held that the impugned acquisition of 
0 
94 acres and 28 ~unthas was illegal and bad and so was the 
allotment dated 26th September. 1988 of 55 acres of land 
made in favour of the respondent No.28 -Society. However, in 
view of the long eclipse of time and taking into account the 
interim order dated 13th September, 1994 passed in Writ 
E Petition No.14726of1994, wherein it was observed that any 
construction raised by Respondent No. 28 will be at his risk 
and cost and all other relevantfacts and circumstances of the 
case, the learned single judge thought it proper to mould the 
relief in the present case by refusing to quash and set aside 
F the acquisition notifications though holding the acquisition
itself 
to be untenable in law. However, the order of allotment of 55 
acres of land in favour of the resP.ondent No.28 made out of 
the acquired land was interfered with and the said respondent 
was directed to handover the land to the Mysore Urban 
G Development Authority ("MUDA' for short). So far as the 
appellant is concerned, it was held that he would be liable for 
compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. As for 
the reliefs sought in Writ Petition No.31449 of 1994 the same 
was allowed holding that the MUDA was not authorized either 
H
K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS (DEAD) BY LRS. v. 
985 
STATE OF KARNATAKA[RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
under the provisions of the 1903 Act or under the provisions of A 
the Karnataka (Regularization of Unauthorised Constructions 
in Urban Areas) Act, 1991 to regularize the unauthorized 
constructions upon the land in question. 
5. Appeals were filed against the said ·order by the B 
appellant- writ petitioner as well as a group of persons who 
were shown as occupancy tenants of a part of the land in the 
impugned preliminary notification issued under the provisions 
of the 1903 Act. Some of the subsequent purchasers of the 
plots from such occupancy tenants had also moved the Division C 
Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench of the High 
Court by the impugned common judgment and order dated 
08.04.2004 reversed the findings of the learned single judge 
as to the legality and validity of the acquisition as well as 
allotment of the land to the respondent No.28-Society is D 
concerned and the consequential directions . 
. 6. Aggrieved, these appeals have been filed by the writ 
petitioners. 
E 
7. We have heard Shri A.K. Ganguli, learned Senior 
Counsel appearing forthe appellants, Shri Basavaprabhu S. 
Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of 
Karnataka, Shri P. Vishwanatha Shetty, learned Senior Counsel 
appearing for the MUDA and Shri Huzefa Ahmadi, learned 
F 
Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.28-Society 
and the learned counsels for rest of the
contesting respondents. 
8. ShriA.K. Ganguli, learned Senior Counsel appearing 
for the appellants has placed before the Court the Scheme G 
under the 1903 Act to contend that the entire process of 
acquisition resorted to in the present case is contrary to the 
provisions of the 1903 Act. Specifically it is argued by Shri 
Ganguli that the preliminary notification dated 21st June, 1985 
was issued even prior to the publication of a Scheme which is H
986 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
a condition precedent to the issuance of the Notification under 
Section 16(1) of the 1903Act. In this regard, Shri Ganguli has 
specifically pointed out the findings of the learned single judge 
as recorded in paragraph 11 of the judgment and order dated 
22nd February, 2001 to the effectthat on consideration of the 
B relevant file it is clear that no scheme was in existence or 
available at the point of time contemplated by the Act i.e. before 
the dates of the Notification under Section 16(1) of the Act. 
According to Shri Ganguli, though there is a reference in the 
Notification dated 21st June, 1985 that the Scheme is available 
C for inspection/verification, no such scheme was actually 
published. It is further submitted by Shri Ganguli that the 
provisions of Section 17 of the 1903Act have been bypassed 
and the final notification published under Section 18 of the 1903 
Act does not have the required sanction of the Government 
D inasmuch as the Notification itself states that the said 
notification is subject to approval of the Government. Shri 
Ganguli has further submitted that no notice contemplated by 
Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was 
E issued to the appellants. Though under Section 23 of the 1903 
Act the land vests in the Government only after publication of 
the award and· payment of costs of acquisition and only 
thereafter the land could have been transferred to MUDA, in 
the instant
case, even before such vesting had taken place by 
F 
operation of the provisions of Section 18(4) of the 1903Act, 
the land was allotted to respondent No.28-Society by MUDA. 
In fact, with regard to such allotment, Shri Ganguli has drawn 
our attention to the several communications on record by and 
between the MUDA and the respondent No.28-Society and 
G the functionaries of the State of Karnataka to show that the 
sole object of the acquisition under the 1903 Act was for 
allotment of the land in question to the respondent No.28-
Society. In this regard, Shri Ganguli has specifically drawn the 
attention of the Court to the communications/correspondence 
H
K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS (DEAD) BY LRS. v. 
987 
STATE OF KARNATAKA[RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
dated 09thApril, 1986, 20th May, 1986, 15th June, 1986, 20th A 
September, 1986, 8th November, 1986, 26th November, 1986 
· and 18th December, 1986 exchanged between the respondent 
No.28-Society, the Chief Minister and the Minister of Urban 
Development of the Government of Karnataka for allotment of 
100 acres of land in S.No.1 ofVijayasreepura, Kasaba Hobli, 
B 
Mysore Taluk to the respondent No.28-Society. Shri Ganguli 
has further submitted that acquisition of land under the 1903 
Act for the purpose of benefiting the respondent No.28-Society 
· is not contemplated inasmuch as acquisition of land under the 
1903 Act is for improvement and future expansion of the city C 
of Mysore as the preamble of the 1903 Act would indicate. 
Shri Gang1:11i has further submitted that on the basis of the 
correspondence exchanged between the respondent No.28-
Society and the respondent State as early as on 6th April, 1987 D 
the Board has passed a resolution allotting 55 acres of land to 
the respondent No.28-Society out of 94 acres and 28 gunthas 
notified under Section 16(1) of the 1903Act. In this regard, it 
is pointed outthatthe Notification under Section 16(1) earlier 
published on 21.6.1985 was gazetted subsequently on 30th 
E 
April, 1987. It is also pointed out that the real purpose of the 
acquisition is evident from the draft notification dated 20th 
August, 1987 under Section 18 of the
Act which is in the 
following terms: 
"the properties specified below, the same, a little 
more or less are needed for a public purpose to 
wit for formation of a layout of sites and for 
development of Jayachamarajendra College of· 
Engineering." 
The aforesaid recital was subsequently corrected in the 
Final Notification dated 29th April, 1988 issued under Section 
18 wherein the words "for development of Jayachamarajendra 
College of Engineering" were dropped. 
F 
G 
H
988 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
9. The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants 
have been refuted by Shri Basavaprabhu S. Patil, learned 
Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka, Shri P. 
Vishwanatha Shetty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 
MUOI;\ and Shri Huzefa Ahmadi, learned Senior Counsel 
B appearing for the respondent No.28-Society. 
10. The arguments advanced on behalf of the 
respondents may be summarized as hereunder. 
c 
The respondents contend that the acquisition of the land 
for the respondent No.28-Society for the purposes of 
development of Engineering College is not foreign to the 
provisions of the 1903 Act. In fact, according to the learned 
counsels, the object of the 1903 Act is to acquire land for a 
o public purpose as in the case of acquisition under the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894. Relying on a decision of this Court in 
The State of Bombav versus Ali Gulshanl, it is pointed out 
that acquisition of land for setting up of educational institutions 
by private benefactors is a public purpose. Reliance in this 
E regard has also been placed on a judgment of this Court in 
Smt. Venkatamma and others versus Citv Improvement of 
Trust Board. Mvsore and others< to contend that it has been 
held by this Court that acquisition under the 1903 Act is 
permissible even for a private organization as long as the 
F purpose of such acquisition is improvement of the city of 
Mysore. It is contended that the development of
the 
Engineering College on the outskirts of t~e city of the Mysore 
would certainly be a step in the development of the city of 
Mysore. 
G 
11. The learned counsels for the respondents have further 
contended that it would not be correct to contend that no 
1 [(1955) 2 SCR 867] 
H 
2 [(1973) 1 sec 1881
K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS (DEAD) BY LRS. v. 
989 
STATE OF KARNATAKA[RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
scheme was in existence on the date when the preliminary A · 
notification dated 21st June, 1985 was issued or on the date 
of publication of the said notification in the Gazette i:e. 30th 
April, 1987. Insofar as the findings of the learned single judge 
in this regard are concerned it is contended that the reference 
to the Notifications by the learned single judge in paragraph 
B 
11 of his judgment are in respect of the notification as corrected 
after the stage of consideration of objections under Section 
16(2) was over. Viewed in this light, the dates mentioned by 
the learned single judge are not in respect of the Notification 
under Section 16(1) of the Act of 1903. In any case, according C 
to the learned counsels, the appellant did not take any 
objections with regard to the availability of the Scheme in the 
objections filed by him on 12th June, 1987. In fact, in the said 
objections the appellant had accepted the a(;quisition sought D 
to be made and had only prayed that out of 94 acres and 28 
gunthas sought to be acquired an area 20 acres of land be 
made available to him to enable him to tide over his personal 
difficulties. It is further contended that in the writ petition filed 
also, no specific objection in this regard was taken. 
E 
12. According to the learned counsels for the 
respondents the writ petition is inordinately delayed. The writ 
petition has been filed
in the year 1994 though the acquisition 
of land was finalized in the year 1988 and, in fact, the F 
possession of the land to the respondent No.28-Society was 
handed over as far back as on 26th September, 1988. It is 
further pointed out that the fact that the acquisition was being 
· made, in part, for the respondent No.28-Society is amply clear 
from the recitals contained in the order dated 31st July, 1987, G 
by which the objections of the appellant under Section 16(2) 
was rejected. In this regard, it is also pointed out that in the 
course of the objection hearing the appellant was represented 
by his counsel. It is therefore contended that the statement 
made by the writ petitioner - appellant that he came to know H
990 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
about the allotment of the land for the respondent No.28-
Society when the said Society had made attempts to construct 
a wall on the land in the year 1994 is wholly incorrect and the 
entire premise on the basis of which the writ petition has been 
filed is false. Therefore, on the aforesaid twin grounds of delay 
B and lack of bona fides of the writ petitioner, the present appeals 
are liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted by the learned 
counsels for the respondents that the slight infirmities in the 
process of acquisition as pointed out on behalf of the 
appellants are minor deviations from the process contemplated 
C under the 1903 Act and the State Government on 28th May, 
1988 accorded its consent to the resolution dated 6th April, 
1987 of the Board allotting 55 acres of land to the respondent 
No.28-Society .. 
D 
13. Lastly it is pointed out by Sh ri Huzefa Ahmadi, learned 
Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.28-Society 
that while it is correct that in the interim order passed in the 
Writ Petition on 13th September, 1994 it was observed that 
further constructions, if raised, would be at the risk and cost of 
E the respondent No.28 - Society, over a period of time a full-
fledged University campus has come up on the land in question 
which needs to be protected in the exercise of the equitable 
jurisdiction of this Court. In this regard, the decision of this Court 
F 
in U. G Hospitals Private
Limited versus State of Harvana and 
others'- has been relied upon. In this regard ShriAhmadi has 
specifically urged that construction on the land allotted to 
respondent No.28 began much earlier to the date of the interim 
order of the High Court. In fact by the time the said order came 
G to be passed the respondent No.28 had no option of turning 
back and it had no choice but to go ahead in view of the stage 
at which the construction stood and the commitments already 
made. 
H , [(2011) 14 sec 354J
K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS (DEAD) BY LRS. v. 
. 991 
STATE OF KARNATAKA[RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
14. To appreciate the rival stand advanced before us it A 
will be useful to notice the Scheme under the 1903 Act at the 
outset. 
The 1903 Act has been enacted for the purpose of 
improvement and future expansion of the city of Mysore. B 
Section 14 vests in the Board the power to draw up detailed 
schemes for such improvement or expansion or both, as may 
be, in respect of the areas to which the 1903 Act applies. 
15, Section 15 provides for the particulars to be. provided c 
for in an improvement scheme. It reads as under: 
15. Particulars to be provided for in an improvement 
scheme.- Every improvement.scheme under Section 
14.- (1) shall, within the limits of the areas comprised in 
D 
the scheme, provide for.-
(a) the acquisition of any land which will, in the opinion of 
the Board, be necessary for or affected by the execution 
of tt\e scheme. 
(b) re-laying out allot any land including the construction 
and reconstruction of buildings and the formation and 
alteration of streets; 
(c) draining streets so formed or altered; 
(2) may, within the limits aforesaid provide for.-
. (a) raising any land which the board may deem expedient 
to raise for the better drainage of the locality; 
(b) forming open spaces forthe better ventilation of the 
area comprised in the scheme or any adjoining area; 
(c) the whole·or any part of the sanitary arrangements 
E 
F 
G 
~u~d; 
H
992 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 
(d) the establishment or construction of markets and other 
public requirements or conveniences; and 
(3) may, within and without the limits aforesaid, provide. 
for the construction of buildings for the accommodation 
of the poorer and working classes, including the whole 
or part of such classes to be displaced in the execution 
of the scheme. Such accommodation shall be deemed 
to include shops." 
16. After a Scheme is prepared, under Section 16 the 
C Board is obligated to draw up a notification stating that the 
scheme has been made; the limits of the area comprised 
therein and to name a place where particulars of the scheme; 
a map of the area comprised therein; and the details of the 
0 
land which is proposed to be acquired or in respect of which a 
betterment fee is proposed to be imposed may be seen and 
inspected. Under Section 16(1)(b), the notification is required 
to be published in the Gazette and also posted in the office of 
the Deputy Commissioner or Municipal Council or such other 
E 
place as may be considered necessary under Section 16(2). 
Within a period of 30 days following the publication of the 
notification in the Gazette the Board is required to serve notice 
on every person whose name appears in the assessment list 
of the Municipality or the local body concerned or in the land 
F 
revenue register requiring such person to file objections, if any. 
Under Section 17 the Board is obliged to
consider the 
objections/representations received in response· to the 
communication/notices issued under Section 16(2) and on the 
basis thereof carry out such modification in the scheme earlier 
G prepared as may be necessary. The scheme with or without 
modifications is required to be forwarded to the Government 
for sanction and on receipt thereof a 'final' notification under 
Section 18 is required to be issued stating the fact of such 
sanction and mentioning that the land proposed to be acquired 
H by the Board for the purposes of the scheme is required for a
K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS (DEAD) BY LRS. v. 
993 
STATE OF KARNATAKA[RANJAN GOGOi, J.) 
public purpose. The said Notification is required to be A 
published in the Official Gazette. 
17. Under Section 23 of the 1903Act, acquisition of land, 
if resorted to, has to follow the provisions of the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 23, inter alia, provides that after B 
the land has vested in the Government under Section 16 of the 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the Deputy Commissioner shall 
upon payment of cost of acquisition transfer the land to the 
Board whereupon the land will vest in the Board. 
18. In the present case, the principal ground of attack on 
behalf of the appellants is that there was no scheme prepared 
and the reference to the availability of a scheme for inspection 
c 
in the preliminary notification dated 21st June, 1985 as 
published in the Gazette on 30th April, 1987 is a hollow D 
declaration. The findings of the learned single judge in this 
regard has already been noted. To resolve the controversy, 
this Court had required the State to place before it the records 
in original containing the scheme as framed and the 
. communications and correspondence exchanged in this E 
regard. The Chief Secretary of the State of Karnataka was 
entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring that the said record 
is made available to the Court. In the affidavit of Chief Secretary 
dated 29th October, 2015 it has been admitted that the said 
record has been destroyed and
such destruction had taken. F 
place during the pendency of the present case. It would hardly 
be necessary to state that in view of the clear findings of the 
learned single judge in this regard; the absence of any positive 
material to show that a scheme as framed had existed at the 
relevant point of time; and the actions of the respondent State G · 
in destroying the records can be led to only one conclusion 
wpich necessarily has to be adverse to the respondents. 
19. In view of the clear language of Section 16(1) of the 
1903 Act and the scheme of the 1903 Act there can be no H
994 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
manner of doubt that the requirement of the existence of the 
plan/development scheme prior to publication of the 
preliminary notification under Section 16(1) of the 1903 Act is 
a mandatory requirement. From the facts placed before the 
Court it is clear that such mandatory requirement has not been 
B followed. Not only that, there is no material to show that the 
question of modification(s) in the scheme were duly 
considered in the light of the objections received and thatthe 
scheme was sent to the State Government for sanction as 
required under Section 17 of the 1903 Act. In fact, the whole 
C position is made abundantly clear by the terms of the notification 
dated 29th April, 1988 under Section 18(1) and 18(2) of ttte 
1903 Act which recites that "This development scheme is 
subject to administrative sanction by the Government.". There 
0 
is, therefore, a clear infringement of the mandatory requirement 
under Section 18 of the 1903 Act. The correspondence 
between the respondent No.28-society and the State of 
Karnataka referred to above which is a part of the record of 
the case, on which there is no dispute, would go to show that 
E the provisions of the 1903 Act in respect of 94 acres and 28 
gunthas of land were invoked at the request of the respondent 
No.28-Society who wanted allotment of a total of 100 acres of 
land specifying the said requirement to be in S.No.1 of 
Vijayasreepura, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore
Taluk. 
The 
F communications on record also go to show that the Chief 
Minister of the State had intervened and issued necessary 
directions in this regard and it is pursuant to the same that the 
provisions of the ~ 903 Act were invoked to acquire the land in 
question. However, as already referred to, even before the 
G notification dated 21st June, 1985 under Section 16(1) of the 
1903 Act was published in the Gazette as required under the 
1903 Act (published on 30th April, 1987), on 6th April, 1987 
the Board had passed a resolution allotting 55 acres of land 
to the respondent No.28 - Society out of 94 acres and 28 
H gunthas covered by the preliminary notification dated 21st
K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS (DEAD) BY LRS. v. 
995 
STATE OF KARNATAKA[RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
June, 1985. It is, thereafter, by letter dated 2nd September, A 
1987 that the Board informed the Government that the 
remaining area of land can be utilized for developing a layout 
and a separate scheme will be prepared and approval of the 
Government sought for with regard to final notification. 
Thereafter it appears that on 28th May, 1988, which document B 
is also available on record, the Government had accorded its 
consent/approval to the resolution dated 6th April, 1987 of the 
board allotting 55 acres of land to the respondent No.28-
Society. Possession of the said land was given to the 
respondent No.28-Society on 26th September, 1988. The C 
above sequence of events demonstrates State action which 
does not conform to the requirements of law. Furthermore, the 
Government approval to the resolution of the Board to handover 
55 acres of land to the respondent No.28-Society on 28th May, 
D 
1988 and handing over of possession of such land on 26th· 
September, 1988 is also contrary to the specific provisions 
contained in Section 23(4) of the 1903Act inasmuch as the 
aforesaid provision of the 1903 Act contemplates vesting of 
the land in the Government after an award is passed and 
E 
compensation is paid and only on such vesting of the land in 
the Government the same can be transferred to the Board. If 
this is what the 1903 Act contemplates it is difficult to 
understand how
on 28th May, 1988, even before an award 
was passed and the land had vested in the Government and 
F 
the question cf transfer to the MUDA had not even arisen in 
law, the Government could have approved the Board's 
Resolution to allot the land to Respondent No.28 and how the 
possession.of the land could have been handed over by MUDA 
to the respondent No.28-Society on 26th September, 1988. 
G 
20. In the light of the above facts and the conclusions 
·that we have reached we do not consider it necessary to 
decide the question as to whether the acquisition of land for· 
the purposes of Engineering College is within the four corners H
996 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 11 S.C.R. 
A of the 1903 Act or such acquisition is alien/foreign thereto. 
Even if this issue is to be hypothetically answered in favour of 
the MUDA and the respondent No.28-Society by holding the 
acquisition to be for a purpose contemplated by the object of 
the 1903 Act there is no escape from the fact that the mandatory 
B provisions of the 1903 Act as detailed herein above have been 
breached in the process of acquisition which has to result in 
invalidation of the same and the acquisition made on the basis 
thereof. 
C 
21. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the 
respondents that the writ petition ought not to have been 
entertained and any order thereon could not have been passed 
as. it is inordinately delayed and the appellant has made certain 
false statements in the pleadings before the High Court details 
D of which have been mentioi:ied hereinabove. This issue need 
not detain the Court. Time and again it has been said that 
while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the 
Constitution of India the High Court is not bound by any strict 
rule of limitation. If substantial issues of public importance 
E touching upon the fairness of governmental action do arise 
the delayed approach to reach the Court will not stand in the 
way of the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court. Insofar as the 
knowledge of the appellant- writ petitioner with regard to the 
F allotment of the land to the respondent No.28-Society is
concerned, what was claimed in the writ petition is that it is 
only in the year 1994 when the respondent No.28-Society had 
attempted to raise construction on the land that the fact of 
allotment of such land came to be known to the writ petitioner 
G - appellant. A mere re,cital of the fact that a part of the land 
proposed for acquisition is contemplated to be allotted to the 
Respondent No. 28 in the order dated 31st July, 1987 rejecting 
the objections filed by the writ petitioner - appellant in response 
to the notice issued under Section 16(2) of the 1903 Act, in 
· H our considered view, cannot conclusively prove that what was
K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS (DEAD) BY LRS. v. 
997 
STATE OF KARNATAKA[RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
asserted in the writ petition has to be necessarily understood A 
to be false and incorrect. At the highest, the fact claimed by 
the respondents that the appellant had previous knowledge 
may be a probable fact. The converse is also equally probable. 
Taking into account the above position and the contentious 
issues raised and the conduct of the State Authorities and the B 
MUDA, we are of the view that the said fact by itself i.e. delay 
should not come in the way of.an adjudication of the writ petition 
on merits. We, therefore, hold that the impugned acquisition 
by MUDA under the provisions of the 1903Act is invalid in law 
and has to be so adjudged. 
C 
22. There is one incidental but important issue that needs 
to be dealt with at this stage. Shri P. Vishwanatha Shetty, 
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the MUDA has 
vehemently and repeatedly urged that the appellant - writ D 
petitioner is not the owner of the properties and the same are 
State properties inasmuch as the appellant - writ petitioner 
who claims to be a descendant of the Maharaja of Mysore 
cannot have the benefit of suit property as the same was not 
included as the private property of the Maharaja in the E 
instrument of accession executed at the time of merger of the 
princely State of Mysore with the Union. Shri Shetty has offered 
to lay before the Court the relevant documents in this regard 
which,
according to him, would clearly disclose the absence F 
of ownership of the appellant-writ petitioner in the property in 
question. Shri Shetty has further submitted that the above 
determination should be made by this Court in the exercise of 
its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India 
inasmuch as substantial questions of public interest arise G 
therefrom as a person who is not the owner is claiming 
properties that belong to the State. We are afraid we cannot 
go into the said question as not only the same was not an 
issue before the High Court; it had not also been raised by 
any person, body or authority in any forum at any point of time. 
H
998 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
It is an issue raised at the fag end of the lengthy oral discourse 
made on behalf of the contesting parties. Furthermore, the 
above stand taken before this Court on the one hand and resort 
to the process of acquisition on the other is also self-
contradictory. Except what is stated above, we do not wish to 
B dilate on the said point and leave the matter for a just 
determination by the appropriate forum as and when the same 
is raised by a person aggrieved, if at all so raised. 
We are told that the Respondents No. 4 to 27 had raised 
C a claim to be occupancy tenants in respect of the entire land 
of 94 acres 28 gunthas. The said claim had been rejected by 
the learned Revenue Tribunal. The matter is presently pending 
in a writ appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court of 
Karnataka i.e. Writ Appeal No.1654 of 2008. As the said 
D matter is pending, we do not consider it necessary to go into 
the above issue except to state the obvious, namely, that the 
judgment of the High Court in the said writ appeal as and when 
passed will naturally take its owri effect in accordance with 
law. In this regard, we may also take note of the fact that it is 
E admitted by Shri Shetty, learned Senior Counsel appearing 
for the MUDA that out of remaining 40 acres of land 
approximately, about 16 acres and 30 gunthas is presently 
lying vacant and there are encroachers on the remaining land. 
F 
Insofar as the encroachments are
concerned, we need hardly 
to emphasize that all such encroachments need to be dealt 
with in accordance with law so that full effect of this order and 
the consequential directions contained herein can be given 
effect to. 
G 
23. The next and the final question that needs to be now 
answered is the relief(s) which should be accorded in the 
present case. 
24. The acquisition under the 1903Act and the allotment 
H of 55 acres of land to the respondent No. 28 having been found
K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS (DEAD) BY LRS. v. 
999 
STATE OF KARNATAKA[RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
to be contrary to law consequential orders of handing over of A 
possession of the entire land should normally follow. However, 
in granting relief at the end of a protracted litigation, as in the 
present case, the Court cannot be unmindful of facts and events 
that may have occurred during the pendency of the litigation. It 
may, at times. become necessary to balance the equities 
B 
having regard to the fact situation and accordingly mould the 
relief(s). How the relief is to be moulded, in the light of all the 
relevant facts, essentially lies in the realm of the discretion ·of 
the courts whose ultimate duty is to uphold and further the 
mandate of law. If the issue is viewed from the aforesaid C 
perspective the several decisions cited on behalf of the 
respondents in this regard, particularly by the respondent No. 
28, i.e., Competent Authority Vs. Baranqore Jute Factory 
and Others', U.G. Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana D 
and Others5 , Gaiv Oinshaw Irani and Others Vs. Tehmtan 
Irani and Others• and Bhimandas Ambwani (Dead) Through 
Lrs. Vs. Delhi Power Company Limited7 can at best indicate 
the manner of exercise of the judicial discretion in the facts 
surrounding the particular cases in question. 
E 
25. Adverting to the facts of the present case, we find 
that out of the 94 acres and 28 guntas of land that was acquired 
way back in 1985-88, 55 acres have been
allotted to the 
respondent No. 28. The layout proposed by MUDA was in 
F 
respect of the balance land i.e. about 40 acres. Of the said 
approximately 40 acres of land, according to the MUDA, about 
16 acres and 30 guntas is presently vacant whereas there are 
encroachments on the remaining land. Though even on the 
land not allotted to respondent No. 28, no developmental work, 
G 
• [(2005) 13 sec 4111 
'[(2011) 14 ~cc 3541 
, [(2014) a sec 2941 
.' 1<2013) 14 sec 1951 
H
1000 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 11 S.C.R. 
A 
in consonance with the object of the 1903 Act has been 
undertaken we are not certain ifthe same is on account of the 
smallness of the area available or for any other good and 
acceptable reasons. However, keeping in mind that even if 
we are to set aside the acquisition, re-acquisition can be 
B resorted to in which event the land would continue to vest in 
• 
the MUDA and the land owner would be entitled to 
compensation, though at an enhanced rate, we are of the view 
that it would be just, fair and equitable to direct that the land 
vacant as on today and all such lands under encroachments, 
C after being made free therefrom, may be retained by the MUDA 
for developmental works in consonance with the object(s) of 
the 1903Act and the owner thereof be entitled to compensation · 
in terms of the directions that follow. All proceedings connected 
0 
to such encroachments will be completed within six months 
from today by all such forums before wh_ich the same may be 
pending. In the event MUDA does not consider it feasible to 
utilize the land for the purpose of the Act the same be handed 
over to the person entitled to receive such possession 
E depending upon the outcome ofWritAppeal No. 1654 of2008. 
26. Insofar as the 55 acres of land allotted to the 
respondent No. 28 is concerned, we have taken note of the 
fact that despite the interim order dated 13th September, 1994 
F passed in Writ Petition No. 1.4726of1994 by
the High Court 
of Karnataka, referred to above, the respondent No. 28 has 
raised constructions on the land. It is not necessary for us to 
go into the question as to whether such constructions had to 
be raised as the said respondent, by the time the interim order 
G came to be passed, was committed to undertake such 
constructions and had no choice in the matter. What however 
cannot escape from notice is that notwithstanding the illegality 
in the allotment made and the risk undertak~n by the 
respondent No. 28 in raising the constructions despite the 
H interim order dated 13th September, 1994, a full-fledged
K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS (DEAD) BY LRS. v. 
1001 
STATE OF KARNATAKA[RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
academic campus consisting of several buildings, details of A 
which are mentioned below, have come up on the land in 
question. 
1. 
JSS Polytechnic 
2. 
JSS Public School 
B 
3. 
· JSS Polytechnic for the differently Ab led 
4. 
JSS Polytechnic for Women 
c 
5. 
JSS Polytechnic for Women's Hostel 
6. 
SJCE Ladies Hostel 
7. 
JSS NODAL Centre 
D 
8. 
JSS-KSCA Cricket Ground 
27. The judicial power should not be destructive if the 
Rule and Majesty of law can be upheld by suitable and 
appropriate adaptations and modifications in the eventual E 
order that may be passed by the Court in a given case. In the 
present case, that a full-fledged academic campus have come 
up on the 55 acres of land; that a large number of persons are 
utilizing the benefit of the said infrastructure and facilities 
provided therein; that the infrastructure raised on the allotted 
F 
land is providing avenues of employment to many and a host 
of other such circumstances cannot be overlooked by the Court. 
On a perusal of the materials laid before the Court, particularly, 
the Google Map showing the layout of the buildings on the 55 
acres of land in question which, was specifically sought for by G 
the Court, we find that even today there are large tracts of vacant 
land within the said 55 acres notwithstanding the constructions 
raised. In such circumstances, it is our considered view that 
the respondent
No.28 should be asked to surrender to MUDA 
a compact area of a minimum of 15 acres, which vacant land 
H
1002 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
the MUDAwill take possession of within a month from today. 
The return of the said land will be once again made to the 
person or persons entitled to receive such possession 
depending upon the outcome of Writ Appeal No.1654 of 2008. 
Insofar as the remaining 40 acres of land allotted to respondent 
B No.28 is concerned, we direct that compensation, in respect 
thereof, to the person/persons entitled to receive such 
compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, will follow the 
outcome of Writ Appeal No.1654 of 2008. The compensation 
under the Act will be paid by taking the date of the order of the 
C learned Single Judge of the High Court i.e. 22.02.2001 to be 
the date of the Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition 
Act. The aforesaid date, which represents the midway point 
between earlier and subsequent dates (the earlier date of 
0 
notification under Section 16(1) of the Act of 1903 or the date 
of.the present order) that could have been opted for, has been 
preferred by the court to balance the equities in a situation 
where the landowner is being denied the return of the land and 
the beneficiary of an illegal allotment is permitted to retain the 
E same (in part) in larger public interest. We further direct that 
alongwith the market value of the land as on the said date i.e. 
22.2.2001 the person or persons found to be entitled will be 
also entitled to compensation under all other heads including
interest in accordance with the provisions of the Land 
F Acquisition Act. The provisions of Section 18 and other 
provisions of the Act for enhanced compensation will also be 
applicable. The same directions and principles will govern 
the matter concerning compensation in respect of the vacant 
land (16 acres 30 guntas) and the land under encroachment 
G referred to above after such encroachments are dealt with in 
terms of the directions contained herein. In view of the long 
efflux of .time the process of determination and grant of 
compensation shall be completed by all forums within a period 
of one year from today. 
H

K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS (DEAD) BY LRS. v. 
1003 
STATE OF KARNATAKA[RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
28. Consequently and in the light of what has been A 
discussed above both the appeals· are allowed to the extent 
indicated. 
Civil Appeal No.453 of 2007 -
B 
29. In the light of the above, Civil Appeal No.453 of 2007 
is disposed of. 
Devika Gujral 
Appeals disposed of.