Allowed

Mysore Urban Development Authority v. M R Kumara Swamy

Karnataka HC17 Feb 2026WA/1470/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench allowed the appellant's writ appeal against an order that dismissed a writ petition regarding land acquisition compensation. The court held that since the respondent's entitlement to an incentive site arose solely from a prior judicial order (Annexure D) rather than voluntary surrender, the sital value must be fixed based on market rates prevalent at the date of that judicial or

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal was allowed; the Single Judge's order dated 17.03.2023 was set aside; the Writ Petition No.11964/2017 was dismissed.

Mysore Urban Development Authority Vs M R Kumara Swamy — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 17^th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO.1470 OF 2023 (LA,UDA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JCB ROAD

MYSORE-570 001

REPRESENTED BY

ITS COMMISSIONER

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SHARATH GOWDA G.B., ADV.)

AND:

M. R. KUMARA SWAMY

S/O LATE M. L. RAJU

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

R/AT NO.1299/1

CH NO.23/1

3^RD CROSS

¶23

2^ND MAIN ROAD

KRISHNAMURTHYPURAM

MYSORE CITY-570 004.

...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. G.BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADV.)

¶29

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 AND SECTION 27 OF THE WRIT PROCEEDINGS RULES, 1977, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.03.2023 PASSED IN W.P.No.11964/2017 (LA-UDA) BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND ETC.

¶30

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 10.02.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and

¶32

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶33

¶34

CAV JUDGMENT

¶35

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶36

This writ appeal is filed challenging the Order dated 17.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.11964/2017 (LA-UDA).

¶37

We have heard Shri. Sharath Gowda G.B, the

¶38

learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri. G. Balakrishna Shastry, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶39

The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

¶40

The respondent herein was the owner of land measuring 21 guntas situated in Sy.No.87/2 of Kyathamaranahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk ('subject property' for short). The appellant acquired the subject property for formation of a residential layout - Devanuru I Stage Layout, pursuant to Preliminary Notification dated 21.04.2004 and Final Notification dated 03.02.2005. A General Award was passed on 16.08.2007 and Individual Award was passed on 11.01.2008 wherein a sum of Rs.31,39,794/- was fixed as against 2 acres 22

¶41

¶42

guntas in Sy.No.87/2 that stood acquired. Upon passing of the Individual Award, the respondent did not come forward to collect the amount of Rs.31,39,794/-. As a result, the same was deposited before the City Civil Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

¶43

Thereafter, the respondent challenged the acquisition in W.P.No.49847/2013 (LA-UDA) before this Court. The challenge was rejected vide Order dated 07.11.2014 but with a direction to the appellant herein, to allot a site to the respondent by taking into account the extent of land acquired, by considering this as a special case and to send a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act within a period of eight weeks. Further, the respondent herein was directed to pay the "market value" of the site that would be allotted to the appellant.

¶44

Thereafter, respondent filed C.C.C.No.1442/2015 alleging non-compliance of the Order dated 07.11.2014 passed in W.P.No.49847/2013. An Official Memorandum dated 24.11.2015 was issued by the appellant wherein a site

¶45

¶46

measuring 30 x 40 ft., at the rate of Rs.800/- per sq.ft. amounting to Rs.9,60,000/- was allotted to the respondent. Further, the acquisition was completed in the year 2008 after the compensation amount was deposited with the Civil Court. In compliance with the Order dated 07.11.2014, the appellant allotted a site to the respondent and fixed the allotment rate at the rate prevalent on the date of the allotment, as per Rule 4 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority (Allotment of incentive Sites for Voluntary Surrender for Land Scheme) Rules 1991 ('Incentive Scheme Rules' for short). Rule 4 of the Incentive Scheme Rules states that an allotee shall pay the entire sital value as fixed by the Authority. The respondent herein gave a representation dated 07.12.2015 to the appellant requesting to modify the Official Memorandum dated 24.11.2015 and to fix the sital value as prevalent as on the date of the Preliminary Notification dated 21.04.2004 and to deduct the sital value from the award amount payable to them.

¶47

¶48

Thereafter, the respondent withdrew the Contempt of Court Case and the same was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 06.01.2016. The respondent herein filed W.P.No.11964/2017 assailing the Official memorandum dated 24.11.2015 and also seeking a writ of mandamus to fix the sital value as prevalent on the date of Preliminary Notification dated 21.04.2004 and to deduct the sital value from the award amount payable to them.

¶49

The learned Single Judge found that in a welfare State, the appellant-Authority should not have a profit motive while fixing the rate of compensatory sites. Since the writ petitioner's case was a special one, it was held that the price of the site has to be determined on the basis of the market rates obtained at the time of the Preliminary Notification and not on the date of allotment of the site. The writ petition was therefore allowed and the demand for a sital value of Rs.9,60,000/- was set at naught. The appellant herein was directed to re-determine the sital value on the basis of market value for the year 2004-2005. On issuance of the demand notice following the re-determination, the

¶50

¶51

appellant was directed to pay sital value and on receipt thereof, the appellant was to execute and register a regular Sale Deed within a period of four weeks.

¶52

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the Incentive Scheme Rule is inapplicable to the instant case. It is contended that the Incentive Scheme Rules were enacted to encourage land owners to voluntarily surrender their lands. In the instant case, the respondent did not volunteer to surrender his land. Further, the respondent even laid challenge to the acquisition process in W.P.No.49847/2013, wherein the learned Single Judge, as a special case, directed the appellant to allot the site by collecting the market value. Pursuant to the said Order, the appellant allotted the subject property vide Official Memorandum dated 24.11.2015, at the market price prevalent on that date.

¶53

It is further contended that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the compensation amount payable to the respondent was only Rs.6,50,000/- whereas

¶54

¶55

the sital value, which is a small portion of the land that was acquired was fixed at Rs.9,60,000/-. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the fact that the amount of compensation was deposited by the appellant way back in year 2005-06, whereas the Official Memorandum was issued only in the year 2011 after the lapse of eleven years. Therefore, the value of the money had depreciated in the eleven years which means that the value of Rs.6,50,000/- in 2005-06 was way more than Rs.9,60,000/- that was demanded in the year 2015.

¶56

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent contends that the Order dated 24.11.2015 directing to collect the site value as it existed in the year 2015 caused hardship to the respondent. The land owned by the respondent was lost decades ago and the respondent was deprived of the income of the land. It is further contended that the Preliminary Notification was issued on 21.04.2004 and appellant paid compensation to the respondent at the rate as it existed on 21.04.2004.

¶57

¶58

It is further contended that the appellant made allotment of a site to the respondent after notice in C.C.C.No.1442/2015 and allotment order was made on 24.11.2015. The actual market value of the plot was higher on the date of allotment of site to the respondent. It is alleged that the appellant having forcibly acquired the land of the petitioner before the year 2004 when the Preliminary Notification dated 21.04.2004 was made, the appellant was duty bound to collect the value of the allotted site at the rate as it existed in the year 2004.

¶59

We have considered the contentions advanced. It is clear that the Preliminary Notification in question was one issued on 21.04.2004. The respondent herein did not voluntarily surrender the land. As a matter of fact, he raised a challenge to the acquisition. The challenge to the acquisition was repelled by this Court, by Annexure - D Judgment. However, it was noticed that another land owner, who owned a portion of the land in the same survey number and Village as the respondent had challenged the same Notification and an incentive site was directed to be allotted

¶60

¶61

to the said land loser by this Court in W.A.No.1038/2012 with a further direction to send a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, for determination of the market value of the land. Considering that the petitioner was an identically situated person, this Court, by Annexure - D Judgment, had granted the same relief to the respondent as was granted to the land owner in Writ Appeal No.1038/2012. The direction was specifically that the respondent shall also be granted the same relief as granted by the Division Bench to the appellant in Writ Appeal No.1038/2012. The specific relief granted in Writ Appeal No.1038/2012 was a direction to the appellant to allot a site measuring 30 x 40 feet. It was clearly stated that the appellant therein, "shall pay the market value of 30 x 40 feet as per the allotment". This is the relief which was extended to the respondent herein as well.

¶62

It is clear from a reading of Annexure - D Judgment that there is absolutely no finding that the respondent, who had challenged the Notification and had not surrendered the land, is entitled, in law, for allotment of an

¶63

¶64

incentive site. It is only because an identically situated person had been granted such a site pursuant to orders of a Division Bench of this Court, that the same relief was extended to the respondent herein. It is therefore clear that since the grant of the incentive site was by Annexure - D Judgment, the entitlement of the respondent to such a site arose only on the date of the said Judgment.

¶65

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has placed a memo on record stating that the value of the incentive site on 07.11.2014 was the same as has been taken into account for fixing the sital value on account of the allotment made on 24.11.2015.

¶66

In the above factual situation, we are of the opinion that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the sital value should have been calculated taking note of the market value of the land as on the date of the Notification cannot be accepted. Since the entitlement arose only on account of Annexure - D Judgment, which specifically directed that the petitioner shall be granted a site measuring 30 x 40 feet and that he shall pay the market value of the

¶67

¶68

30 x 40 feet site as per the allotment even if the contention that there was undue delay in allotting the site as directed by this Court, it is only the sital value taking note of the market value as on the date of Annexure - D that can be taken into account. Rule 4 of the Incentive Scheme Rules have no application in the instant case where the petitioner's claim is based only on Annexure D - Judgment. The learned Single Judge ought to have found that neither the provisions of the Incentive Scheme Rules or the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (Allotment of Sites in lieu of Compensation for the land acquired) Rules, 2009, apply to the facts of the instant case.

¶69