Supreme Court Orders Re-Hearing of Land Acquisition Appeals: Mysore Urban Development Authority vs. K.M. Chikkathayamma (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: September 7, 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 798

Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

The Supreme Court of India recently examined a case where the High Court dismissed appeals filed by the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) as withdrawn, based on a resolution by MUDA. The core issue was whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appeals without a proper hearing on merits. This judgment clarifies the importance of an appellate court’s duty to decide appeals on merits and the requirements for withdrawing an appeal, especially for a statutory body like MUDA. The judgment was authored by Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, with Justice S. Abdul Nazeer concurring.

Case Background

The Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) initiated land acquisition proceedings in 1991 for the formation of Dattagalli extension, under the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987. A notification was issued on December 19, 1991, proposing to acquire land in Dattagalli village. The State Government approved the scheme on January 27, 1992, and a final notification was issued on December 10, 1992, stating the land was needed for public purposes. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) determined compensation on January 27, 1994. Notices were issued to landowners under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to deliver possession. In 2000, a notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued. Aggrieved by these proceedings, the landowners filed writ petitions in the High Court of Karnataka in 2001.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka allowed the writ petitions filed by the landowners on December 15, 2003, and quashed the acquisition proceedings due to a delay by MUDA in taking possession of the land. MUDA then filed appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court. During the appeal proceedings, the landowners filed an application (I.A. No. 11 of 2016), arguing that MUDA had resolved on July 2, 2016, to drop the land from acquisition proceedings and, therefore, the appeals should be dismissed as infructuous. The Division Bench dismissed MUDA’s appeals as withdrawn on November 9, 2016, based on MUDA’s resolution, without examining the merits of the case.

Legal Framework

The case involves the interpretation and application of the following provisions:

• Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987: This section empowers the MUDA to issue notifications for land acquisition after a development scheme is prepared under Section 15/16 of the same Act. The judgment mentions that the MUDA issued a notification on 19.12.1991 under this section.
• Section 18(3) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987: This section deals with the State Government’s approval of a scheme framed by the MUDA. The State Government approved the scheme on 27.01.1992 under this section.
• Section 19(7) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987: This section requires the sanction of the State Government for MUDA to withdraw from acquisition proceedings.
• Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section deals with the issuance of notices to landowners to deliver possession of their lands after an award has been passed.
• Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section pertains to the issuance of a notification by the acquiring body to take possession of the land.

Arguments

Appellant (MUDA) Arguments:

• The Division Bench erred in dismissing the appeals as withdrawn, as there was no basis or justification to do so. The MUDA was legally obligated to have the appeals decided on merits.
• The resolution dated July 2, 2016, was misinterpreted by the Division Bench. The resolution did not indicate an express decision to withdraw the appeals or drop the land from acquisition.
• MUDA was not competent to take a decision to withdraw from acquisition proceedings without the sanction of the State Government, as required under Section 19(7) of the Karnataka Act.
• The State Government and MUDA intended to pursue the appeals on merits, as evidenced by letters dated June 26, 2018, and November 14, 2017, respectively.

Respondent (Landowners) Arguments:

• The State Government did not file an appeal against the Single Judge’s order, so MUDA had no independent right to pursue the matter in appeals.
• MUDA resolved to withdraw from the acquisition proceedings, justifying the Division Bench’s dismissal of the appeals as not pressed.
• There was no need to decide the appeals on merits.
• The respondents altered their position by spending substantial money after the dismissal of the appeals, making it unfit to entertain the appeals.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the Division Bench was right in dismissing the appeals “as not pressed”.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987: This provision empowers MUDA to issue notifications for land acquisition.
• Section 18(3) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987: This provision deals with the State Government’s approval of a scheme framed by the MUDA.
• Section 19(7) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987: This provision requires the sanction of the State Government for MUDA to withdraw from acquisition proceedings.
• Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This provision deals with the issuance of notices to landowners to deliver possession of their lands.
• Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This provision pertains to the issuance of a notification by the acquiring body to take possession of the land.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Section 19(7) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 to emphasize that MUDA could not withdraw from the acquisition proceedings without the sanction of the State Government.
• The Court considered the other provisions of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 and the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to understand the land acquisition process and the powers of the authorities involved.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with ensuring that the right of appeal was not unjustly curtailed. The Court emphasized the importance of deciding appeals on merits, especially when a statutory body like MUDA is involved. The Court was also influenced by the fact that the MUDA did not expressly withdraw the appeals and that the resolution was misinterpreted by the High Court. The Court also took into account that the MUDA needed the sanction of the State Government to withdraw from the acquisition proceedings.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the submissions of both sides, the relevant legal provisions, and the documents on record. The Court noted that the Division Bench had dismissed the appeals based on a misinterpretation of the resolution passed by MUDA. The Court also observed that the MUDA, being a statutory body, could not withdraw from the acquisition proceedings without obtaining the sanction of the State Government as per Section 19(7) of the Karnataka Act. The Court emphasized that the right of appeal is a valuable right and must be decided on merits unless expressly withdrawn. The Court also rejected the respondents’ argument that they had altered their position, stating that actions subsequent to the impugned order are irrelevant to its legality.

The Court stated, “A 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.”

The Court also noted, “If the appellant is a juristic entity created under the Act, they have to ensure strict compliance of the relevant provisions of the Act under which they are created coupled with ensuring compliance of relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure for forgoing their right to prosecute the appeal on merits.”

Further, the Court clarified, “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.”

Key Takeaways

• An appellate court must decide appeals on merits unless there is an express withdrawal by the appellant.
• Statutory bodies like MUDA must strictly comply with the relevant provisions of the Act under which they are created.
• A resolution by a statutory body cannot be interpreted to mean withdrawal of an appeal unless it is expressly stated.
• Actions taken by parties after an impugned order cannot be used to support the legality of that order.
• The right to appeal is a valuable right and should not be curtailed without proper legal basis.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the Division Bench and restored the writ appeals to their original numbers. The High Court was directed to decide the appeals on merits in accordance with the law. The Court clarified that it had not applied its mind to the merits of the controversy and that the High Court should decide the appeals without being influenced by any of the Supreme Court’s observations. The Court also stated that any steps taken by the respondents after the impugned order would not influence the High Court’s decision.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an appellate court must decide appeals on merits unless there is an express and unequivocal withdrawal by the appellant, especially when the appellant is a statutory body. The judgment reinforces the principle that the right to appeal is a valuable right and should not be easily curtailed. This decision clarifies the procedure for withdrawing appeals, particularly for statutory bodies, and emphasizes the importance of strict compliance with the relevant legal provisions. This judgment also clarifies that subsequent actions taken by parties cannot be used to justify an illegal order. There is no change in the previous position of law but this judgment reinforces the importance of the right to appeal.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA), setting aside the High Court’s order that had dismissed MUDA’s appeals as withdrawn. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have decided the appeals on merits. The Court emphasized the importance of the right to appeal and the need for statutory bodies to comply strictly with legal provisions, and the need for express withdrawal of an appeal. The case was remanded to the High Court to be decided on merits.