M V LALITHAMANI Vs. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have challenged in these petitions the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA for short) in respect of several items of agricultural lands situate at Nachanahalli Village, Mysore Taluk more particularly described in the schedule to the Writ Petition in this proceedings. Briefly stated the facts are:

(2.) WHERE any development scheme provides for the construction of houses, the authority shall also submit to the Government plans and estimates for the construction of the houses.

(3.) AFTER considering the proposal submitted to it the government may, by order, give sanction to the scheme. By a reading of Sections 15, 17 and 18 what is manifest is that section 15 is a ?power conferment section? on the Authority to take up developmental works and incur expenditure as the very heading of the section itself suggests. In cases where the Authority has its own resources, it can independently take up the work without the nod of the State Government. But, where it has to depend on the state Government for finances, then it has to obtain the administrative approval of the State Government for incurring expenditure. The approval contemplated under Section 15 (b) of the act is the approval for ?incurring expenditure? for execution of a developmental scheme and not for approval to acquire a land for developmental scheme. The distinction between the two is significant and important as admittedly at the stage of seeking approval to incur expenditure no rights of private parties are involved. Therefore the submission that the developmental scheme first must be approved by the State Government before the Authority issues a notification under Section 17 of the Act, has no merit. On facts the records reveal that MUDA in fact had obtained the administrative approval. In this case, the learned Government advocate has made available the records. At page 1 of the records, it is stated that the Commissioner MUDA, Mysore has submitted a scheme for Nachanahalli III Stage and has requested for administrative approval of the layout. The survey numbers of the lands sought to be acquired is also mentioned. The estimated cost of the Scheme is stated to be 1,320 lakhs. The Secretary to the government by his noting dated 4. 8. 1992 has noted Chief Secretary may please follow up?. Thereafter, the Chief Secretary has noted Draft Cabinet may be approved? and is signed by the Minister for hud on 5. 8. 1992. By these notings, there cannot be any doubt that Cabinet had granted the administrative approval for incurring expenditure. Therefore, Section 15 has been complied with. If after the publication of the notification under Section 17 of the Act, any representation is received by interested private persons and by local authorities, the Urban Authority after considering the representations or objections of private persons and may or may not suitably modify the scheme. After it decides to do so, it has to forward to the State Government, the Scheme and its decision together with the representations received if any by the Local authorities. Thereafter the State Government has to take into consideration the representations of the local authorities subject to the other requirements stated in Section 18 and may grant approval to the scheme. Thus under Section 18 of the Act the representations sent in pursuance of the notification under Section 17 is divided into two categories - (1) of all the interested persons other than the local authorities (2) Representations of Local Authorities. The former has to be considered by the Urban Authority, in this case muda and later to be considered by the State Government. Thus, the contention that the State Government had not considered the objections of the petitioner before sanctioning the scheme has no merit. It is not the case of the petitioner that MUDA had not considered the representations. On the contention that no prior approval of the State government was obtained under Section 18, the contention is factually incorrect. The records disclose that in the file DD 26 UDD 26 MIB 98 on 13. 2. 1998, there is a noting to the effect that the commissioner, MUDA has proposed to acquire the lands for the development of Nachanahalli III Stage by a preliminary notification dated 30. 1. 1992 and approval is sought for issuing the final notification under Section 19 (1) and (2 ). The file is sent for approval by the Under Secretary on 23. 1. 1998. Approval has been granted on 27. 2. 1998 by stating ?anumodhisabahudu?. The final notification under Section 19 (1) was issued on 9. 3. 1998 and published in the gazette on 2. 4. 1998. Therefore, prior to the publication of the final notification under Section 19 on 9. 3. 1998, approval of the government was obtained on 27. 2. 1998.