AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Leave granted.
A total of 2 acres and 12 guntas of land covered by Survey No.146/6 in village Dattagalli, Mysore was acquired by notification dated 10.12.1992. Possession of the land was taken over by the appellant- Mysore Urban Development Authority (for short, ''the Development Authority'') some time in the year 1998 and sites were carved out on the land which was allotted to the members of general public by the Development Authority.
On 18.08.1999, 1 acre and 35 guntas of the acquired land was de-notified under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ''the L.A. Act''). By sale deed dated 30.08.1999, the first respondent purchased the de-notified land.
It appears that the Development Authority wrote several letters to the State Government to revoke the de-notification order, inasmuch as according to the Development Authority sites were carved out and the same were in fact allotted to various persons. The State Government finally relented but imposed the requirement on the Development Authority to allot suitable alternative land of an equivalent area. This was so done by the Development Authority and possession of 1 acre 35 guntas of land covered by Survey No.80/1 of the same village was handed over to the first respondent on 22.08.2002. Meanwhile, one of the allottees of the de-notified land challenged the order of de-notification before the High Court (W.P. No.19988/2001) which was allowed by order dated 15.06.2004 and the notification de-notifying the land was set aside by the High Court.
Following the aforesaid order, the notification de-notifying the land was finally revoked by the Development Authority on 25.09.2004 and the first respondent was asked to re-deliver the alternate land allotted to him.
The said order dated 25.09.2004 was challenged before the High Court by the first respondent. The writ petition was answered in favour of the first respondent by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, which was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Aggrieved the Development Authority has filed the present appeal.
We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the relevant material.
It is, inter alia, submitted on behalf of the first respondent that the writ petition filed by the allottee in which the order dated 15.06.2004 was passed was a collusive writ petition engineered at the instance of the appellant-Development Authority as by that time the land had already come to the custody and possession of the Development Authority.
We do not see how at this stage we can go in the aforesaid question. The order of the High Court dated 15.06.2014 has attained finality in law. Besides, the de-notified land upon allotment of alternative land to the first respondent may have become available to the Development Authority. However, the de-notification order dated 18.08.1999 continued to remain in force and the land remained subject to the said order. By the time the alternate land came to be handed over to the first respondent (2002) the writ petition (W.P. No.19988/2003) was pending. In these circumstances the Government could not withdrawn/revoked the order of de-notification dated 18.08.1999 till disposal of the writ petition. In the above context, the contention of the first respondent with regard to the bonafides of the writ petition filed does not merit any consideration.
The order of the High Court dated 15.06.2004 passed in the writ petition filed by one of the allottees in which the notification de-notifying the land under Section 48 of the L.A. Act was set aside by the High Court has attained finality in law. If the exercise of de-notifying the land has been interdicted by the High Court and the same has attained finality, the de-notified land becomes a part of the acquired land and to the said extent the purchase of the said land made by the first respondent gets affected. If that is so, the very basis of the re-allotment of alternative land of an equivalent area made by the Development Authority to the first respondent, in the circumstances noted above, loses its efficacy and the first respondent would not have any legal right to continue to retain the said land. The legal entitlement of the first respondent, in the changed situation, would centre around his entitlement to receive compensation for the acquisition of 1 acre 35 guntas of land which he had purchased but had subsequently revested in the Government by virtue of the revocation of the notification of de-notifying the land pursuant to the order of the High Court dated 15.06.2004. The first respondent would be entitled to payment of compensation in terms of the award subject to his rights under Section 18 of the L.A. Act.
For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the orders of the High Court and allow this appeal in terms of the directions referred as above.