THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA on 07.09.2018, in Mysore Urban  Development Authority v  K.M. Chikkathayamma & Ors. [1] allowed the Special Leave Petitions  that were filed  against the High Court of Karnataka’s judgment and order  where the Court had dismissed the appeals which were filed by the appellant by upholding Single Judge’s judgment which allowed the respondents writ petitions.

FACTS: The ­Mysore   Urban   Development Authority (appellant) being respondent while the respondents to the concerned case were the writ petitioners .The MUDA had issued a notification by exercising the powers under Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987   for acquiring large areas of land in the village side of Karnataka which was approved by the State Government followed by an issuance of a final notification. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had passed an award for determining compensation to be paid to the ones who owned the lands that was eventually followed by issuing notices to the concerned owners of the land under the Act for delivering the possession of the lands.

Being aggrieved by the proceeding in connection to the acquisition, the respondents had filed writ petitions challenging the notification‘s legality in regard to how far it was correctly passed by the High Court. The writ was thus allowed whereby the Judge quashed proceeding pertaining to the entire acquisition and held it illegal. As a result intra Court appeals were file by MUDA before Division Bench. The respondents prayed for dismissing the appeals of MUDA .Eventually the appeals were dismissed and held as withdrawn and “as not pressed.’. The MUDA then filed the present petitions by special leave before the Apex Court.

CONTENTIONS RAISED  BY APPELLANT: It was contended that the an error had been  committed by the Division Bench  when it dismissed the appeals of MUDA as ‘withdrawn’ and that resolution upon  which the appeal were dismissed and labelled as ‘”as not pressed” was not rightly interpreted .

CONTENTIONS RAISED BY RESPONDENTS: The reasons and conclusions drawn by the Bench was supported by the counsel from respondents’ side, it was further contended that no appeal had been made against the Single Judge’ order by the Government and following the dismissal of appeal, the writ petitioners had changed the positions with respect to the lands by incurring huge expenditure as such the appeals must not be entertained.  

ISSUE:   Whether   it was right from the part of the Division Bench to dismiss the appeals “as not pressed”?

HELD: The Apex Court allowed the appeals and set aside the orders and remanded the matter to decided by the High Court   by upholding that, the Division Bench ought to have based their decisions upon merits and as per law, as such appeals should not have been dismissed “as not pressed” thus depriving the MUDA of right to prosecute appeals based on merits unless valid reasons are cited by respondents that are expressed provisions /acceptable in law.

http:// https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/31403/31403_2017_Judgement_07-Sep-2018.pd