Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

W.A No. 1438 etc.

Advocates

Sri Tajuddin, Advocate for Appellants
Sri G. Nagarajulu Naidu, AGA for R1
Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, Advocate for R4-6, 7(a), (b), (2), R8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 18, 19(a), 20, 22, 24, 25, 26 and 30.
R3(a), R10(a), R15(a), R13, R16 to 18, R9(b) to (e), R21(a), R23, R26(a), (b)(d), R28, R29, R31(a), R32(a), R33 - served.
Service to R27 held sufficient
Sri M.R Naik, Advocate for Respondent

Judges

R.V Raveendran
N.K Patil, JJ.

Acts

Improvement Boards Act 1976 nor the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987,
notification.4. Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act 1987 (KUDA Act for Short)
Section 2(1)(o) read with Section 3(3) of the Karnataka Improvement Boards Act, 1976
Section 13, 14 and 15 of the Karnataka Improvement Boards Act 1976
KARNATAKA TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1961
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT 1976
Section 18(3) of the Urban Development Authorities Act 1987
Section 15(1) of the Karnataka Improvement Boards Act 1976
provisions of the Karnataka Improvement Boards Act 1976,
5.8.19879. Section 2(1)(o) of the Improvement Boards Act
Section 15(1) of the Karnataka Improvement Boards Act,
sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Improvement Boards Act
specify.10. Section 13 of the Improvement Act
Section 15(1) of the Improvement Boards Act,
Section 15(1) of Improvement Boards Act
Section 15(1) of the Improvement Act
Section 3(3) of the Improvement Act.
Section 19(1) of the KUDA Act
Section 18(3) of the KUDA Act
Improvement Boards Act, 1976,
Clause (o) of Section 2(1)
Section 19(1).17.
Section 2(1)(o)

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion — Raveendran, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

The appeals arise from orders in several writ petitions challenging acquisition notifications relating to lands in Navile Village, Shimoga Taluk and District. The Shimoga Urban Development Authority and its Special Land Acquisition Officer are the appellants. The respondents (land owners) were petitioners in the writ petitions that sought quashing of a Preliminary Notification dated 22.1.1985 (gazetted 7.11.1985) issued under Section 15(1) of the Karnataka Improvement Boards Act, 1976, and a Final Notification dated 2.6.1992 (gazetted 13.8.1992) under Section 19(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, insofar as those notifications affected their lands.

The land owners contended that (a) the Shimoga Improvement Board had no jurisdiction over Navile Village on 22.1.1985 (or 7.11.1985) because Navile was not within the Municipal limits that constituted the "Urban Area" under the Improvement Boards Act, and (b) the long delay between the Preliminary Notification and the Final Notification rendered the acquisition invalid. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions, quashing the notifications as void for want of jurisdiction. The Authority appealed.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Shimoga Improvement Board (successor Shimoga Urban Development Authority) had jurisdiction on 22.1.1985 to draw a development scheme and issue a Preliminary Notification under Section 15(1) of the Karnataka Improvement Boards Act, 1976, in respect of lands in Navile Village.
Whether inclusion of Navile Village in the Shimoga-Bhadravathi Local Planning Area (under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961) could be treated as inclusion within the "Urban Area" under the Improvement Boards Act for the purpose of exercising powers under Sections 13–15 of that Act.
Whether the delay between the Preliminary Notification (22.1.1985 / gazetted 7.11.1985) and the Final Notification (2.6.1992 / gazetted 13.8.1992) rendered the Final Notification invalid, having regard to reasonableness of time for exercise of power where no statutory time limit is prescribed.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments (Shimoga Urban Development Authority)

The lands in question were included in the Urban Area, so the Improvement Board/Authority had jurisdiction when the Preliminary Notification was issued.
Alternatively, because Navile Village was included in the Shimoga-Bhadravathi Local Planning Area, and because the Improvement Board/Development Authority also functioned as the Planning Authority, the Planning Area should be deemed to be Urban Area for the purpose of exercising powers under Sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Improvement Boards Act to prepare a development scheme and issue notifications to acquire land.
The Appellants produced a State Government notification dated 5.8.1987 (No. HUD 305 MIB 86, corrected by corrigendum dated 12.4.1988) extending the jurisdiction of the Shimoga Improvement Board to the Shimoga-Bhadravathi Local Planning Area with effect from 5.8.1987; they relied on this to support jurisdictional claims.
Reliance was placed on a Single Judge decision: Viswabharathi Housing Building Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Bangalore Development Authority (1989 3 K.L.J. P.17).

Respondents' Arguments (Land owners)

The Shimoga Improvement Board did not have jurisdiction over Navile Village on 22.1.1985 because Navile was not part of the Urban Area (i.e., not within municipal limits) at that time.
Inclusion in a Planning Area under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, is not the same as being included in the "Urban Area" under the Improvement Boards Act; therefore planning-area inclusion did not confer power to issue notifications under Sections 13–15 of the Improvement Boards Act.
The inordinate delay between the Preliminary Notification and the Final Notification (a period aggregating about seven years) made the acquisition notifications liable to be quashed for unreasonableness and prejudice to the land owners.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Ram Chand v. Union of India, JT 1993 5 SC 465	Where statute prescribes no time limit, power must be exercised within a reasonable time; inordinate delay between notifications/award can prejudice land owners because compensation fixed to an earlier date may be substantially lower than current market value.	The Court applied the principles in Ram Chand to hold that the long delay (seven years between preliminary and final notification, and three unexplained years after scheme approval) could render the Final Notification invalid; the Authority failed to satisfactorily explain the inordinate delay.
Viswabharathi Housing Building Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Bangalore Development Authority, 1989 3 K.L.J. P.17	Decision interpreting the Bangalore Development Authority Act in relation to the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act (relied on by Appellants).	The Court held this decision to be of no assistance because it concerned the Bangalore Development Authority Act and its interaction with the Town and Country Planning Act, not the Karnataka Improvement Boards Act, 1976. Consequently the precedent was not followed.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded in two principal strands: jurisdictional analysis under the Improvement Boards Act, and consideration of the effect of delay between preliminary and final notifications.

1. Jurisdiction under the Improvement Boards Act:

The Court examined the statutory definition of "Urban Area" in Section 2(1)(o) of the Karnataka Improvement Boards Act, 1976, which defines "Urban Area" as the local area within the jurisdiction of the local authority and may include other adjacent areas only if the State Government specifies such areas by notification under Section 3(3).
Section 13 empowers an Improvement Board to draw development schemes for areas within its limits; Section 3(3) extends a Board's jurisdiction to areas notified under Clause (o) of Section 2(1).
The record showed the jurisdiction of the Shimoga Improvement Board extended to the Shimoga-Bhadravathi Local Planning Area only with effect from 5.8.1987 by a notification under Section 3(3). Before that date (including on 22.1.1985 when the Preliminary Notification was issued and its gazette date 7.11.1985), the Board's jurisdiction was limited to the municipal limits of Shimoga Municipality.
Navile Village was not within the municipal limits on 22.1.1985; its inclusion in the Shimoga-Bhadravathi Local Planning Area under the Town and Country Planning Act prior to 1985 did not convert the Planning Area into an "Urban Area" for the purposes of the Improvement Boards Act.
Therefore, when the Preliminary Notification under Section 15(1) was issued on 22.1.1985, the Board lacked jurisdiction to frame a development scheme or issue acquisition notifications in respect of Navile Village; the Preliminary Notification was void for want of authority, and consequential actions (including the Final Notification) were also null and void.

2. Effect of Delay between Preliminary and Final Notification:

The Court noted a significant time gap: Preliminary Notification dated 22.1.1985 (published 7.11.1985) and Final Notification dated 2.6.1992 — a span of approximately seven years.
Although neither the Improvement Boards Act nor the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act prescribes a statutory time limit for publication of a Final Notification under Section 19(1), the Court relied on the principle (as articulated by the Supreme Court in Ram Chand) that where no time limit is fixed, the power must be exercised within a reasonable time.
The Development Scheme was approved by the State Government on 15.3.1989 under Section 18(3) of the KUDA Act. The Court observed that even if the delay up to the approval (to 15.3.1989) were explained, the Authority offered no explanation for the further gap of more than three years up to 2.6.1992.
The Court concluded that the Authority failed to justify the inordinate delay, which could prejudice land owners because compensation pegged to an earlier date may be materially lower than at the date of possession or award.

On the combined reasoning — lack of jurisdiction at the time of the Preliminary Notification and the unexplained, inordinate delay — the Court found no merit in the appeals.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The appeals were dismissed. The Court held that the Preliminary Notification dated 22.1.1985 (gazetted 7.11.1985) issued by the Shimoga Improvement Board was without jurisdiction in respect of Navile Village and therefore void; consequentially, the Final Notification dated 2.6.1992 (gazetted 13.8.1992) was also invalid. The appeals were dismissed for want of merit.

Implications:

The immediate legal consequence is that the acquisition notifications in respect of the lands in Navile Village (as challenged) are void and the writ petitions were rightly allowed by the Single Judge.
The Court further observed that the dismissal of these appeals does not prevent the Authority from initiating fresh acquisition proceedings if it so desires; the Authority remains free to commence new proceedings consistent with the statutory requirements and timing.
No broader new precedent beyond the application of existing statutory interpretation and delay principles is articulated; the decision applies the Improvement Boards Act's jurisdictional rules and the established principle that governmental powers must be exercised within a reasonable time where no statutory limit is prescribed.

This summary is based exclusively on the content of the provided opinion and does not add information beyond that text.

Show full summary ...

Shimoga Urban Development Authority, By Its Commissioner & Another v. State Of Karnataka, By Its Secretary, Government Hud Depot And Others

Raveendran, J.:—

The Shimoga Urban Development Authority and its Special Land Acquisition Officer are the appellants in these appeals. W.A No. 1438, 2289-2318/1997 arise from the order dated 13.12.1996 in W.P No. 34729/1995 and 30337-30366/1992. W.A No. 3742/1997 arises from the order dated 5.6.1997 in W.P No. 21952/1992.

2. The respondents 4 to 33 were the petitioners in W.P No. 30337-66/1992 and were the owners of portions of the following lands; Survey No. 127 (12 Acres 15 guntas), Sy. No. 128 (1 Acre 11 Guntas). Sy. No. 131/1 (14 acres 8 Guntas), Sy. No. 131/2 (1 Acre 30 Guntas). Sy. No. 132 (11 Acres 14 Guntas), Sy. No. 133 (11 Acres 18 Guntas, Sy. No. 134 (1 Acre 32 Guntas) Sy. No. 135/1a, 135/1b, 135/2a and 135/2b (together 5 Acres 30 guntas), Sy. No. 136/1, 136/2 and 136/3 (4 Acres 21 Guntas), Sy. No. 137 (1 Acre 22 guntas), Sy. No. 138 (1 Acres 02 guntas), Sy. No. 139/1 (1 Acre 36 Guntas), Sy. No. 139/2 (1 Acre 35 Guntas), Sy. No. 140/1 to 140/6 (together 8 Acres 15 Guntas), Sy. No. 141 (4 Acres 06 Guntas) Sy. No. 142/1 (4 Acres 33 Guntas and 1 Acre 12 Guntas), Sy. No. 143 (2 Acres 11 Guntas) Sy. No. 144 (3 Acres 03 Guntas) Sy. No. 145 (7 Acres 04 Guntas) and Sy. No. 146 (3 Acres 20 Guntas), all situated at Navile Village, Kasaba Hobli, Shimoga Taluk and District.

2.1) The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in W.A No. 1438 & 2289 - 2318/1997 were the petitioners in W.P No. 34729/1995 and they claim to be the owners of Survey Nos. 141 measuring 4 Acres 06 Guntas (Item No. 14 in the final Notification) of the said village.

2.2) The respondent in W.A No. 3742/1997 was the petitioner in W.P No. 21952/1992 and he claims to be the owner of survey No. 142/2 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas of the said village (wrongly shown as Sy. No. 142/1 measuring 1 acre 12 guntas under item No. 14 of the Final Notification).

3. In regard to the said lands and several other lands, a Preliminary Notification dated 22.1.1985 (Gazetted on 7.11.1985) was issued under Section 15(1) of the Karnataka Improvement Boards Act 1976 stating that the Shimoga Improvement Board had prepared a Development Scheme and for that purpose it had proposed to acquire the lands specified in the said notification.

4. Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act 1987 (‘KUDA Act’ for Short) was enacted by the State Government (Published in the gazette dated 19.1.1987). The said Act came into force in regard to Shimoga Urban Area on 1.5.1998 in pursuance of a notification dated 15.4.1988 issued by the State Government under Section 3(1) of the said Act. Thereafter, the Urban Development Authority was constituted for Shimoga Urban Area by issue of a notification under Section 3(1) of the said Act. Section 78(1) of the said Act provides that on the issue of a notification under Section 3(1) of the Act constituting an Urban Development Authority for any urban area, the Karnataka Improvement Boards Act, 1976, shall cease to be applicable in such urban area.

5. After publication of the Development scheme under Section 15(1) of the Karnataka Improvement Boards Act 1976, and after considering the representation received in that behalf, the Shimoga Urban Development Authority, the successor of the Shimoga Improvement Board submitted the scheme to the State Government for sanction. It is stated that the State Government after considering the proposal submitted to it granted sanction to the scheme under Section 18(3) of the KUDA Act on 15.3.1989 Thereafter, a large extent of about 130 acres were deleted from the preliminary notification under a notification dated 18.11.1989 (gazetted on 7.12.1989). Ultimately, a final declaration under Section 19(1) of the KUDA Act was issued as per notification dated 2.6.1992 (gazetted on 13.8.1992) in regard to an extent of about 112 acres including the lands which are the subject matter of these appeals.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the land owners (respondents 2 to 33 in WA Nos. 1438, 2289 to 2318/1997 and the respondent in W.A 3742/1997) filed the said Writ Petitions (referred to in para 2 above) for quashing the Preliminary Notification dated 22.1.1985 and the Final Notification dated 2.6.1992 in so far as their lands were concerned. The land owners contended that the Shimoga Improvement Board did not have any jurisdiction on 22.1.1985 or on 7.11.1985, to draw a scheme in regard to lands situated in Navile village as the said lands did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Shimoga Improvement Board. They also contended, that in view of the inordinate delay between the Preliminary Notification dated 22.1.1985 (gazetted on 7.11.1985) and the Final Notification dated 2.6.1992 (Gazetted on 13.8.1992), the acquisition notification were liable to be quashed.

7. The learned Single Judge allowed W.P Nos. 34729/1995 and 30337-366/1992 by a common order dated 13.12.1996 He held that the Shimoga Improvement Board had jurisdiction only over Shimoga Urban area and as Navile village had not been included in the Shimoga Urban Area, the Board had no jurisdiction to frame a development scheme or issue a Preliminary Notification under Section 15(1) of the Karnataka Improvement Boards Act, covering or including the said village. Consequently, the acquisition notifications dated 22.1.1985 and 2.6.1992 were quashed. Following the said decision, W.P No. 21952/1992 was allowed by another learned Single Judge, by order dated 5.6.1997

8. Feeling aggrieved, Shimoga Urban Development Authority has filed these appeals. It is contended by the Authority that the lands in question were included in the Urban Area and therefore the learned Single Judge committed an error in proceeding on the basis that they were to included in the Urban area. It has alternatively contended that the Navile village has been included in the Planning Area of Shimoga-Bhadravathi and as the Improvement Board/Development Authority was also the Planning Authority, the Planning area should be deemed to be Urban Area for the purpose of exercising power under sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Improvement Boards Act to prepare a development scheme and publish a notification intending to acquire the lands covered under the said development scheme. The Appellants have produced a notification (No. HUD 305 MIB 86) dated 5.8.1987 issued by the State Government under Section 2(1)(o) read with Section 3(3) of the Karnataka Improvement Boards Act, 1976 (as corrected by Corrigendum (No. HUD 568 MIB 87) dated 12.4.1988 under which the jurisdiction of the Shimoga Improvement Board was extended upto Shimoga-Bhadravathi Local Planning Area w.e.f 5.8.1987

9. Section 2(1)(o) of the Improvement Boards Act defines ‘Urban Area’ as “any local area which is within the jurisdiction of the Local authority; and includes such other area adjacent to the limits of the Local Authority, as the Government may, from time to time, by notification specify”.

10. Section 13 of the Improvement Act empowers the Improvement Boards to draw detailed schemes for the development or improvement of the areas within its limits. Section 3(3) of that Act provides that the jurisdiction of the Board constituted in respect of any urban area shall stand extended to such other areas as may be notified under Clause (o) of Section 2(1) in respect of such urban area, with effect from the date of such notification.

11. Thus, the jurisdiction of Shimoga Improvement Board extended only to the Shimogo Municipality area (that is the local area within the jurisdiction of the Local Authority - Shimoga Municipality) till 4.8.1987 The jurisdiction was extended to the Shimoga-Bhadravathi Local Planning Area only with effect from 5.8.1987 by issue of a notification under Section 3(3) of the Improvement Act. It is not disputed that Navile village did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Authority i.e within the Municipal Limits of Shimoga Municipality, but fell within the limits of the Shimoga - Bhadravathi Local Planning Area. Navile Village was included within the jurisdiction of Shimoga Improvement Board and it got jurisdiction over Navile village when it became Urban area on 5.8.1987 and not earlier. Section 13, 14 and 15 make it clear that the Improvement Board could draw up a development scheme and prepare and issue notifications specifying the lands which are intended to be acquired for the purpose of such development, only in regard to the area falling within its limits. As on 22.1.1985 when the notification under Section 15(1) of the Improvement Act was issued by the Shimoga Improvement Board, admittedly, Navile village was not part of the urban area falling within its jurisdiction. Consequently the Shimoga Improvement Board could neither form a development scheme nor issue a notification under Section 15(1) of the Improvement Boards Act, in regard to any land in Navile Village. Thus, the notification dated 22.1.1985 (gazetted on 7.11.1985) is without jurisdiction or authority and therefore void. Consequently all action taken in pursuance of it including the final declaration dated 2.6.1992 (Gazetted on 13.8.1992), are also null and void.

12. Learned Counsel for the Appellants drew our attention to a letter dated 22.11.1983 sent by the Shimoga-Bhadravathi Town Planning Authority to the Shimoga Improvement Board giving the particulars of the villages included in the Shimoga-Bhadravathi Local Planning Area and it shows that Navile village is one of the villages which falls under the Shimoga-Bhadravathi Local Planning Area. He therefore contended that the Shimoga Improvement Board had jurisdiction over Navile Village in the year 1985 when the Preliminary Notification was issued.

13. The land owners do not dispute that the Navile Village was included within Shimoga Bhadravathi Local Planning Area prior to the preliminary notification dated 22.1.1985 They however contended that the ‘planning area’ under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act 1961 is not the same as ‘Urban area’ under the Karnataka Improvement Boards Act 1976. The said contention has been accepted and upheld by the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, rightly.

14. Having regard to the provisions of the Karnataka Improvement Boards Act 1976, an Improvement Board can draw up a development scheme only in regard to the area falling within its jurisdiction or limits. Section 2(1)(o) makes it clear that ‘Urban area’ is the local area which is within the jurisdiction of the Local Authority (Shimoga Municipal Limits in this case) unless, the State Government extends such urban area by including any other adjacent ares by issuing a notification under Section 3(3) of that Act. In this case such a notification was issued as noticed above only on 5.8.1987 When the preliminary notification was issued in January 1985, only the Shimoga Municipal limits was the Urban area. Therefore, mere fact that the Navile Village, was included with in the Shimoga-Bhadravathi Local Planning Area for the purpose of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act 1961 will not help the authority to contend that it had jurisdiction over the Navile village for the purpose of drawing up of a development scheme under Section 13, 14 and 15 of the Karnataka Improvement Boards Act 1976 or for issuing a notification under Section 15(1) of that Act.

15. Learned Counsel for the Appellants next relied on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Viswabharathi Housing Building Co-operative Society Limited v. Bangalore Development Authority . 1989 3 K.L.J P. 17.. We are afraid that the said decision is of no assistance as it is rendered with reference to the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 vis-a-vis the provisions of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act 1961-and not with reference to the Karnataka Improvement Boards Act 1976.

16. These appeals will have to fail on one more ground. The Preliminary Notification was issued on 22.1.1985 and published on 7.11.1985 Navile Village itself was included within the Urban Area only with, effect from 5.8.1987 The Development Scheme was approved by the State Government under Section 18(3) of the Urban Development Authorities Act 1987 on 15.3.1989 The Final Notification was issued more than 3 years thereafter on 2.6.1992 The time gap between the Preliminary Notification and Final Notification is as much as 7 years. Even if the period upto the approval of the scheme by the State Government is excluded, there is a delay of three years. It is no-doubt true that neither Karnataka Improvement Boards Act 1976 nor the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, prescribes any time limit for issuing a publication of a Final Notification under Section 19(1).

17. The effect of delay has been considered by the Supreme Court in Ram Chand v. Union of India . JT 1993 5 SC 465.. Though the said case dealt with the delay between the date of Final Notification and the date of passing of the award, the principles enunciated therein will equally apply in respect of the delay between the Preliminary Notification and Final Notification. The following observations are apposite:

“It is settled that in a statute where for exercise of power no time limit is fixed, it has to be exercised within a time which can be held to be reasonable. The authorities are enjoined by the statute concerned, to perform their duties within a reasonable time and as such they are answerable to the Court, why such duties have not been performed by them, which has caused injury to the claimants.”

The Supreme Court held that where the compensation is pegged down to the date of preliminary notification and there is inordinate delay, the market rate as on the date of preliminary notification becomes a fraction of the market rate prevailing at the time of passing of the award and taking of possession and that would be unjust to the land owners.

18. In this case the Authority has not explained the inordinate delay. Even if it is assumed that the delay upto 15.3.1989 is explained by reason of the fact that the scheme was approved by the Government under Section 18(3) of the Act on that day, there is absolutely no reason forthcoming for the delay of more than 3 years between 15.3.1989 to 2.6.1992 In this case, the land owners have approached this Court in the year 1992 immediately after the Final Notification and are having the benefit of stay, in the circumstances, even if the preliminary notification is held to be valid for any reason, the final declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act may have to be held to be invalid on the ground of delay in issuing the same. Be that as it may.

19. As we have held that the Shimoga Improvement Board had no jurisdiction to issue notification under Section 15(1) of Improvement Boards Act and as a consequent, the final notification under Section 19(1) of the Act is also not valid, there is no merit in these appeals and they are dismissed.

The dismissal of these appeals will not come in the way of the authority initiating fresh acquisition proceedings if they so desire.

Shimoga Urban Develo... v. State Of Karnataka, ...