K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS (DEAD) BY LRS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA& ORS. ETC.

                        [2015) 11 S.C.R. 974


A       K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS (DEAD) BY LRS.
                                  v.
              STATE OF KARNATAKA& ORS. ETC.
               (Civil Appeal Nos. 7372-7 428 of 2004)
B
                       DECEMBER 16, 2015
            [RANJAN GOGOi AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.]

         Mysore Improvement Act, 1903:
c        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.
                                                                    F
       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 -
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
      every person whose name appears in the assessment
0
      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.
      Furthermore, the Government approval to the resolution
0
      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
      all such lands under encroachments, after being made
0
      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]
          The State of Bombay versus Ali Gulshan (1955)
          2 SCR 867; Smt. Venkatamma and Ors. versus
          City Improvement of Trust Board, Mysore and Ors.
D         (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
E         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.
 F
                          Case Law Reference
      (1955) 2 SCR 867               referred to.     Para 10
      (1973) 1 sec 188               referred to.     Para 10
G (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
H
    K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS (DEAD) BY LRS. v.                   983
               STATE OF KARNATAKA

 2013 (1) SCR 996                 referred to.     Para 24        A
 CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 7372-
 7428 of 2004 etc.
      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:
                                                                     F
        "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."
                                                                     G
        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.
                                                                     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.
                                                                       E
      (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;                       F
      (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;
                                                                       G
      (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
     ~u~d;                                                             H
992       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 11 S.C.R.


A         (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
B
          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
  land which is proposed to be acquired or in respect of which a
0 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.
                                                                        c
        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
  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
  is, therefore, a clear infringement of the mandatory requirement
0
  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 Others 5 , 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
   to such encroachments will be completed within six months
 0
   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
                                                                 B
     2.       JSS Public School

     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
       notification under Section 16(1) of the Act of 1903 or the date
 0
       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.