Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Ranjan Gogoi and N.V. Ramana

JUDGMENT

Ranjan Gogoi, J.

1. The Appellant is the writ Petitioner who had instituted Writ Petition No. 14726 of 1994 before the High Court of Karnataka challenging therein the preliminary notification dated 21^st 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 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 29^th April, 1988 issued in exercise of powers conferred Under Section 18(1) and (2) of the 1903 Act; the awards relating to the acquisition of land in question as well as the Government approval dated 28^th 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 1994 filed by the Appellant.

3. The Appellant as the writ Petitioner had filed a second writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 31449 of 1994 by which the public notice dated 27^th June, 1994 inviting applications for 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 22^nd February, 2001 held that the impugned acquisition of 94 acres and 28 gunthas was illegal and bad and so was the allotment dated 26^th-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 13^th September, 1994 passed in Writ Petition No. 14726 of 1994, wherein it was observed that any construction raised by Respondent No. 28 will be at his risk and cost and all other relevant facts 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 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 Respondent 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 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 under the provisions of the 1903 Act or under the........