{"id":70527,"date":"2010-11-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/davangere-urban-development-vs-comrade-lenin-vidya-samsthe-on-2-november-2010"},"modified":"2015-03-27T21:43:16","modified_gmt":"2015-03-27T16:13:16","slug":"davangere-urban-development-vs-comrade-lenin-vidya-samsthe-on-2-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/davangere-urban-development-vs-comrade-lenin-vidya-samsthe-on-2-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Davangere Urban Development … vs Comrade Lenin Vidya Samsthe on 2 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Davangere Urban Development … vs Comrade Lenin Vidya Samsthe on 2 November, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: J.S.Khehar(Cj) And A.S.Pachhapure<\/div>\n
1\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010\nPRESENT  T\n\nTHE HDNBLE MR. J. S. KHEHAR,   \n\nAND   \nTHE I-ION'BLE MR. JUST:cE';A..S..DPAcH::1APURE~~,,., %'A\nWRIT APPEAL NO.2859'.V'OF 2009 .{I;.33}15{VVI\u00e9\u00a73.D\u00a7)\"  \nBETWEEN \" V' 'A V'\nDAVANGERE URBAN .0  s\nDEVELOPMENT AUTHORL'FY_   \nDEVARAJ URS E:~:_frENS1:QN\u00a7 \n\nDAVANAGERE   _. _ . \nBY ITS COMMISSIONER. _ \n\n. .. APPELLANT\n\n{BY SR1:'._A.'1'JIi?HT.xT.--~F.z_5iI'J KI.j 1V\u00a7AP. I & SMTNALINI VENKATESH,\nADVS.) ' '    .\n\nA_N_D  \n\n -  L,ENIN\"v1D...... A SAIVISTHE\n\n17TH CROSS,\"\u00abE_{ T J NAGARA\n\n DAVADNGvE.RF\u00a7;\"~. ' '\n\nREP.-_ BY  PR;ES1D ENT\n\nSR1  RAM}-\\.C'PLANDRAPPA.  RESPONDENT\n\n [BY SR1.'KR\u00a3SHNA S. Dlxm ADV.)\n\nI\n\n_'i'HIS WRIT APPEAL 1S FILED U\/S 4 OF THE\n\n..  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Age'? PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE\nQRDER PASSED IN THE WP. No.3237\/2007 DATED\n 12.06.2009.\n\n\n\n2\n\nTHIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING ON\nINTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE\nDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:\n\nORDER\n<\/pre>\n
J.S.KHEHAR, C.J. (Oral):\n<\/p>\n
Through the instant writ appea1_._the ‘C
\nthe Davangere Urban <\/p>\n
the order passed by a learned-SingleAJu_dge_1o,f Court ” it<\/p>\n
dated 12-O6~2009 by which iztr\ufb01\u00a3”%1:>et:\u00bbt:on Nov.323\u00a77\/2007
\nwas disposed of. While:-C the–.aforesaid Writ
\npetition, a “the   was issued<\/p>\n
requiring the?i3aVana\u00a7ere–E.rbani’V_DeVelopment Authority to<\/p>\n
comply Zvwith’  issued by this Court in<\/p>\n
W.P.No.669’Ge\/__199’V?,  months.<\/p>\n
  :,.,”;’11VV%”sum and substance, it is not in dispute<\/p>\n
  counsel for either parties, that the<\/p>\n
 _issue”‘~which.n\u00ab:isA subject matter for consideration in the
\n:”.v4.”‘-i1Vjist.acnt vi’n*it appeal is, whether the civic amenities site
\n to the respondent on 2.8.1984 should be treated<\/p>\n
~..:as’or1 “lease”, or by way of ”sale”.<\/p>\n
C5’<\/p>\n
3. Some facts relevant to the controversy need to be
\nrecorded. Based on the allotment of a civic amenity site to the
\nrespondent on 2.8.1984, the Davangere Urban Development<\/p>\n
Authority executed a lease–cum-sale agreement in favour:’_’of’the<\/p>\n
respondent on 1740-1985. Eased on the aforesaid  *
\nit is the assertion of the respondent, that trielllnlextip.inevitableul
\nstep should have been the execution of salefleedl iinghis<\/p>\n
favour. But the respondent W:a;~:.._gdenied’ <\/p>\n
Whereupon, the respondent  Pletitiont 1997
\npraying for the executiongof’ ap  favour, as the
\nnext inevitable step after_the._  lease~cum–sale
\nagreement dated:   writ petition came
\nto be allowed. “fl6–vEl:’\u00a7;~.’l?Ql000. A perusal of the<\/p>\n
order dated’ that the Davanagere<\/p>\n
 VDeve1vop.ment Autho’rity_.w\u00abas directed by this Court to regularise<\/p>\n
l”th’eV.ylease–~.cum-\u00absale agreement executed by the appellant in<\/p>\n
favourof thellrespolndent.\n<\/p>\n
 AA 4. it \u00abAccording to the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant, the direction to regularise the lease–cum–sale<\/p>\n
‘agreement executed in favour of the respondent was<\/p>\n
rwww<\/p>\n
incorrect, as the extension of the earlier lease granted to<\/p>\n
the respondent on 17-10-1985 by further period Qflrl\ufb02dirty<\/p>\n
years. This determination at the hands of  _<\/p>\n
was based on Sections 38 and 39 of the  ‘* A’
\nDevelopment Authorities Act, 1981??’ (h:e1’ein&’irrefe_rredVZita <\/p>\n
‘the 1987 Act’). Sections 38″an.d 39’vallore_rr1enti’oned\u00a7 are”<\/p>\n
being extracted hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
“38. Power of A1ii:iiorit_\u00a7_rf\u00a7–to sell, or
\ntransfer property    such
\nrestrictiori’s,l A   and? ‘j-Vllimitfations as
\nmay be?  shall have
\npo ‘lelasle:;y:,; ‘sell.l:orllotherwise transfer any<\/p>\n
movable  property which
\nbelolngsll tolitr ‘ar1d4″”to”‘appropriate or apply
\nany 1a4n’dy_lvested”‘inl”or acquired by it for the
\n of  spaces or for building
\n in any other manner for the<\/p>\n
“‘l’purpo’S\u20ac__  any Development Scheme.<\/p>\n
39..___i’1~ Prohibition of the use of area
\nA Vliregserved for parks, playgrounds and civic
\nilainenities for other purposes — The<\/p>\n
A Authority shall not sell or otherwise dispose<\/p>\n
of any area reserved for public parks and
\nplaygrounds and civic amenities, for any
\nother purpose and any disposition so made<\/p>\n
shall be null and void.”\n<\/p>\n
5. According to the learned coun–s:e’l  V’
\nappellant, a collective perusal of”Seeti_ons _;
\nreproduced above reveals, that   <\/p>\n
Davanagere Urban DeVe1oprnen:t’*iAuthoritya  or it<\/p>\n
otherwise dispose of an’: area  arnenities.
\nSince it is not disputed  that the
\nlease-cum–sale   2:   which was
\nexecuted by  of the respondent was<\/p>\n
indeed  civic’ thelcontention of the learned<\/p>\n
  the app-e-llant that there was no question of<\/p>\n
 on the “basis of the lease–cum-sa1e<\/p>\n
agieasent ydlatetl 17- 10- 1985 under the ‘1987 Act’.<\/p>\n
6.” 3 For understanding the rights of the respondent<\/p>\n
  lV$hiephjlp”s.emerged from the lease–cum–sa1e agreement dated<\/p>\n
 “‘-l.l:VlI_7__-lI0~I985, it is essential to extract hereunder Clauses<\/p>\n
iaewcw<\/p>\n
(1) and (11) of the aforesaid agreement dated 1740-1985.
\nThe aforesaid clauses are accordingly being reproduced<\/p>\n
hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
“l. The Lessee \/ Purchaser is herebyput’  it <\/p>\n
in possession of the property  8′<\/p>\n
Lessee\/ Purchaser shall occupy”theA1;ayroperty_   <\/p>\n
as a tenant thereof for a peri=od~ten:’yea_rs AV  <\/p>\n
from (Here enter the.__ data
\npossession) 85-86 or_in event of
\nbeing determined e”a1jlierrti1l  ujdatte of 8 such
\ntermination. The  by the
\nLessee \/ Purchaser ,to’wai’jds’ .th_e’  of the
\nproperty H    _thxe  ‘  tenancy,
\nbe held  security
\ndeposit–foi:yth’e’\u00a5dz1e’pe-rfor\u00a3n’an’ee of the terms<\/p>\n
andiconditionfs-V :51″ .thies_.e—- present.<\/p>\n
V  ‘At the end of the ten years referred
\n  the total amount of rent paid
\nit ‘   Purchaser for the period of the<\/p>\n
tdenancyx shall be adjusted towards the<\/p>\n
 * :b’a1ai”1ce of the value of the property.”<\/p>\n
WWW<\/p>\n
7<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
7. There can be no scope for any doubt, that 3.
\nco\ufb02ective perusal of Clauses 1 and 11 of the agreement<\/p>\n
dated 17\u00bb. 1o\u00bb 1985, would lead to the inevitable coneiusicn,<\/p>\n
that on the culmination of the period of tenliifeamgesi   <\/p>\n
lease, the property in question wc\u00e9uAld”‘staIid  <\/p>\n
the name of the respondent. subject zadj1a1:S’tIlf}C\ufb02t’v<\/p>\n
balance Value of the property’;a..V:VV”1’t is  c’cn*ce.’C1e’dVVbeforeVV<\/p>\n
us during the course   of the
\nmandate of the pprovisions’ Improvement
\nBoard Act, 19fi6;}a’VleaAse  nature of the
\none executed  “on 1740-1985 could
\nhave same would lead to the<\/p>\n
eventnalisaiep   property in favour of the<\/p>\n
 ..resp..oi:dent…n_’Fhe ‘con-tcntion of the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
 assail the determination rendered by<\/p>\n
this ptlourt”viijisiilltherefore, based on collective reading of<\/p>\n
V’a,,_”Sectionsf3.8 and 39 of the 1987 Act.<\/p>\n
  We have given our thoughtful consideration to<\/p>\n
T  the aforestated legal submission advanced by the learned<\/p>\n
Wm<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellant. It is difficult for us to accept<\/p>\n
that the mandate of the provisions of the 1987 Act would<\/p>\n
be applicable to the agreement, which was executed’
\nsaid % legislative enactment came into.     8
\nbehalf, it would be relevant to mentiorithat,<\/p>\n
was enforced with effect from’8V2~-.5–19V8-8,8′ inasViritich_V.Vas_; the <\/p>\n
same as per Section 13A__ of   ceme into
\nforce on the date as  notification may
\nspecify. A .notification”h’  the State
\nGovernment   dated 2-5-1988.\n<\/p>\n
whereingit’vtvasiislpeisifieddate of enforcement of
\nthe 19887-_AAc_t  Therefore, it is clearly<\/p>\n
unacceptable. that t_.hle, Legislative enactment, which came<\/p>\n
  on 1u.’5′.’1-9-8’8 would govern and regulate the<\/p>\n
 “civic amenity site to the respondent on<\/p>\n
 that, it would govern and regulate the<\/p>\n
3″~___V’l.ease–curn–sale agreement executed on 17.10.1985. The
\n ,:.”a,1ores”.–aid conclusion is unassailable keeping in mind, that<\/p>\n
  .i_t:has not been the contention of the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
ET<\/p>\n
the appellant, that there is any statutory provision
\ncontained in the 1987 Act, which expressly mandates,<\/p>\n
that allotments and agreements of the nature executed by<\/p>\n
the Davanagere Urban Development Authority
\nrespondent, would be subject to the provisions’-of  V’ V’
\nAct. Besides the aforesaidnconclusion’drawn’by._us’,-Tthve;<\/p>\n
said conclusion also emerges from Section rthen <\/p>\n
Act. Section 7 8 is being eXtracte’d:i’iereur’1’d_er:, <\/p>\n
\/78. Conseqi’z’e_nct\u00a3d”ofA ceenlstitutiov\ufb01 of
\n‘Urban Developmezit   *_
\n{1) On the :.ssu_e 3  sub..\n<\/p>\n
section       an
\nUrban: Dyeyrdeloppm  u:tl’1’ority for any Urban<\/p>\n
 Improyements Boards<\/p>\n
p’,,A’ct,t.,19′.V76′ {Karnaiiaha Act 11 of 1976) or the
\n or l\\\/Iysore Improvement Act, 1903<\/p>\n
V ”   III of 1903), as the case may be,
\n to be applicable in such Urban<\/p>\n
“”Area. \u00b0 <\/p>\n
 On such cessor, the Improvement Board
\n“*[the Bagalkot Town Development Authority]<\/p>\n
or the City Improvement Trust Board,<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
Mysore constituted under the said Acts for<\/p>\n
such Urban Areas shall stand dissolved.<\/p>\n
(3) Subject to the provisions of sub–secti;o”n’..’VV’~…’._d’  <\/p>\n
[2], nothing in sub–section (1) shail affec_t’:”:~3  <\/p>\n
{a} the previous operation 3 the -..said’7f.,__. <\/p>\n
enactments or anything do’ne,’*–or suffered<\/p>\n
thereunder ; or<\/p>\n
[b] any right. -.._._.j:riv:i;Vlege,1′ “..ap:p1.ication V or
\nliability. acquired, accrued  vAf;nc1′.;rred in<\/p>\n
the said \u00abenactment  ‘ ”\n<\/p>\n
(c) 1__any;_  forfeiture or
\n“inc’u,r’1’ed i_n””respect of any
\noffence  ‘ against the<\/p>\n
said ,_enactn_1ents, <\/p>\n
  _ lid)’-.”iany..’investigation, local proceeding or<\/p>\n
V   respect of such right, privilege,
\n liability, forfeiture or<\/p>\n
npunishinent as aforesaid; and any such<\/p>\n
 x  investigations, legal proceeding or remedy<\/p>\n
it v  niay be instituted, continued, or enforced,<\/p>\n
and any such penalty, forfeiture or<\/p>\n
\u00e9Zl”;\ufb01A.,t,,;;2vw@vw59\u00ab<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
punishment may be imposed as if this Act<\/p>\n
had not been enacted.\n<\/p>\n
(4) (a) Subject to the preceding provision,<\/p>\n
anything done or any action taken (including:
\nany appointment, or delegation made, ta;\u00a7i:—-orl,  ‘
\nfee imposed, noti\ufb01cation, order, >instr’urnen_t,””w.. ‘<\/p>\n
or direction issued, rule, regizilation, <\/p>\n
or scheme framed, certificate”-._ obtairi\u00e9ti’, ‘<\/p>\n
permit or license grantedyyor Vhregistrationl” <\/p>\n
effected, in the said Acts be deetnetil
\nhave been done,” or  in the
\ncorresponding   and
\nshall contir1u_epZ’ if enforced  unless
\nand  “~by”–“_an_:ything done or<\/p>\n
any..a,t;t’ti3t1_”‘ta:;1t\u00a2n un:1_et”th.i,s,,A5ct :<\/p>\n
 ‘Every ” and servant of an
\nif =._pxl1nprfotre”ment Board, *[the Bagalkot Town
\n”  oet{e’1ppt:t~e::~t Authority] and the City<\/p>\n
l’ .__fImpvroVejtnent Trust Board, Mysore as the<\/p>\n
ca.se.; may be, other than such class of<\/p>\n
” mservlants as the Government may by order<\/p>\n
 specify, shall become employees of the<\/p>\n
corresponding Urban Development Authority<\/p>\n
3%?”\n<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
and shall, until other provisions are made,<\/p>\n
receive the salary and allowances and be<\/p>\n
subject to the conditions of service to whichi\ufb02i’
\nthey were entitled immediately before  <\/p>\n
constitution of the Authority for <\/p>\n
Areas concerned;\n<\/p>\n
[C] All assets and liabilities and?’ <\/p>\n
contracts made by or on behalf of, Q  Q’  — ‘<\/p>\n
(i) the lmprovemenflilBoardilg’ if if\n<\/p>\n
(ii) *[the Bagalkot… ..  A
\nAuthari-again ‘ ‘ ‘   <\/p>\n
(iii) the   ‘fl’rL1st Board,<\/p>\n
immediately’    of. bonstitution
\nof an:’:VVAu_thori-ty\u00abV..forlthi\u00e9yjjrban Area under
\nthis Act ._and “on that date shall<\/p>\n
stand trarisferreyd to tiie concerned Urban<\/p>\n
 ”  _ Development Autl1–ori’ty ;\n<\/p>\n
  a provident fund or<\/p>\n
if .__superannuation fund or any other like fund<\/p>\n
ha.sf”oeen established for the benefit of the<\/p>\n
” viaernlvjvloyees of the Improvement Board *[the<\/p>\n
f”B’agalkot Town Development Authority] or<\/p>\n
the City Improvement Trust Board, Mysore,<\/p>\n
we\u00bb<\/p>\n
C12<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
the moneys standing to the credit of any
\nsuch fund on the date of commencement of<\/p>\n
this Act together with any other assetsf'”–i:.f”~.V”‘p<\/p>\n
belonging to such fund shall transferredftfoi ‘7’ <\/p>\n
and vest in the Government
\nGovernment shall be liable  dfisciiargef
\nobligations of the Improvemerit \u00ab. V’
\nBagalkot Town Deveiop\u00a7:ne’nt
\nthe City improvement  .1\\vEysore,:}<\/p>\n
in respect of such fund ‘;_ <\/p>\n
(e) Any reference’ in any .enact.rrient’:made
\nor any  any  of any of
\nthe repealed.  unless a
\ndifferent. _in.;tent3i;on  construed as
\na reference “itof-they’4cori”esponding provisions<\/p>\n
of this <\/p>\n
  of SecVtio.riV?_$p.{3] leaves no room for any doubt,<\/p>\n
 and or any right or privilege vested,<\/p>\n
V priorito’ the”–‘V.enforcement of the 1987 Act, would not be<\/p>\n
 affected  provisions of the 1987 Act. Thus viewed,<\/p>\n
 yiwier  satisfied that there is no merit in the first<\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
contention advanced by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant.\n<\/p>\n
9. The second contention advanced bylnllthue<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the appellant was base\u00e97l’0i\u00a71 .
\njudgment rendered by the Apex Courthin M = id ” ‘V ‘V<\/p>\n
Singh Baldev Singh Vs. Yashvvant Sing]?9;f:1d””3\u00a311\u00e9f3’llliiggzlv’<\/p>\n
1 SCC 428.” Having regard <.=(j-.._t.V.}1e <\/p>\n
learned counsel for the app\u20ac11\u00e9i::t_ invited"\u00abl.the_:\u00a7Courts'<\/p>\n
pointed attention to the'"'fo'll.oWin5g ; observations recorded<\/p>\n
therein:\n<\/p>\n
“6. Effect  Act, or any<\/p>\n
(Cejritralie\ufb01ct) Regtilationy\ufb02made after the<\/p>\n
comrnencement of this Act, repeals any<\/p>\n
  ‘-en’ac;tn1e’nt hitherto made or hereafter to be<\/p>\n
‘ .V’in.ade:,”  unless a different intention
\n 2  tlielvlrepeal shall not –\n<\/p>\n
A'{‘a]   Q: 3: as
\n, Lb)”  * * *
\n  affect any right, privilege, obligation or
\n liability acquired, accrued or incurred under<\/p>\n
‘ any enactment so repealed; or<\/p>\n
<eW~_W<\/p>\n
l5<\/p>\n
(Ci) 4: =5: an<\/p>\n
(e) 9k =96 Bk”\n<\/p>\n
The objective of the provision is”
\nensure protection of any right or  l”
\nacquired under the repealed act. Tile. ~
\nexception to it is legislative
\ncontrary. That is, the repealing  it <\/p>\n
expressly provide or it m-ayyimpliedly_pro\\?ide’ <\/p>\n
against continuance of s”pt_1__ch\u00bb.vright, obligation
\nor liability. The  narrows
\ndown to if the renewal  1939
\nAct was a_.Vri.g:h.g,  whether any
\nright   -.._ap’peilantWlunder the
\n  to continue
\nunaffecte(il.lby_gV  _o_t  Act. A permit
\ncould be reney\u00e9ed_”unlder…~S_ection 58(2) of 1939<\/p>\n
Act  reads as ltmderz<\/p>\n
.  A permit may be renewed on an<\/p>\n
  and disposed of as if it were<\/p>\n
i A an app’lic_3;tion for a permit:<\/p>\n
‘ ..”‘.Provided that the application for the<\/p>\n
 ~ renevwal of a permit shall be made,<\/p>\n
(a) in the case of a stage carriage permit or<\/p>\n
V’  a public carrier’s permit, not less than one<\/p>\n
R<\/p>\n
tra\ufb01awaw<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
hundred and twenty days before the date of its
\nexpiry, and<\/p>\n
[b] in any other case, not less than sixty<\/p>\n
days before the date of its expiry:<\/p>\n
Provided further that, other  \u00ab
\nbeing equal, an application for renewal’.gsh4a1\u00bbl.: it<\/p>\n
given preference over new app’licati0n–s”forV<\/p>\n
permits. ”\n<\/p>\n
Although the   but
\nread with proviso   a:’plreferences in
\nfavour of renewal if
\nother .wefe_lll.eC1:tial,l”‘lA””holder of a
\npermit      footing. The
\npreiereriee,  byl””sub-Section(2} of
\nSec–tio’n  of a permit and
\nits grantlcann_ot:bel: to be a mere inchoate<\/p>\n
‘right, orla’-righlt vvhiclh does not exist in law. It<\/p>\n
 be akfelsted right or a fundamental<\/p>\n
V  1’igh.t_:’btit::it–certainly is civil right which could
\n‘be in a court of law and any
\n acting in contravention of it can be<\/p>\n
 AA  forced to act in accordance with it. For<\/p>\n
it v._\u00bb_.ii.1stance, if a Regional Transport Authority<\/p>\n
under the old Act reused renewal even though<\/p>\n
the person applying for renewal was in all<\/p>\n
17<\/span><\/p>\n
respects similar to other new applicants then
\nit could be corrected either by the tribunal or,’<\/p>\n
by Way of writ Petition under Article 226.’<\/p>\n
Therefore, it is a right which is enforcea_hl.elli\ufb01l–‘ <\/p>\n
law. This right accrued to appellant  \u00ab
\nalready applied for rer:,:ew.alp’ :,  T
\napplication had been p,notiflled\u00bb.’W_A. Th’ev_-v_llega~l if
\nmachinery was set inV3rrii3t,ionA’by_
\n* therefore had a right to Vapplicatlion for
\nEC renewal processed _  ‘*considered if in
\nI<\/p>\n
accordance with   be too<\/p>\n
I arti\ufb01cial    xa  or it had
\nnot accrwied   lherefore in our
\nopirii_on;~._  6(c) of the
\nGeneral  right of the appellant<\/p>\n
to  his appl_ica’ti.oi:..considered and decided<\/p>\n
in  fwiithhlaw was saved by sub-\n<\/p>\n
. .. {-4l)”Se:cti0n 217 of Motor Vehicles<\/p>\n
gain, the learned counsel for the appellant
\n3 if   invitedthe atterltion of this Court to Sections 38 and 39 of
\n~  1987_A~ct, so as to assert, that in View of the different<\/p>\n
  pintentiron expressed in Sections 38 and 39, as against the<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
18<\/span><\/p>\n
statutory provisions, which existed prior thereto, it would
\nnot be just and appropriate to give effect to the niandate of<\/p>\n
the provisions which had been repealed.<\/p>\n
11. We have examined the second.-\u00ab.. <\/p>\n
advanced by the learned counsel for <\/p>\n
is a substantial difference thell’-,repea1in”g}; vp1jovi.3sion.Vl:i\u00bb<\/p>\n
contained in the 1987 Act, as the ‘provisions which
\nwas subject matter of :lVi._\/s. Gurcharan’s
\ncase supra. in the-case j;re1’ied”npon__bvl’.the’i’learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the appe1l~a,nt5:’:itheljdi _repealinf,gll provisions expressly<\/p>\n
mention _th._at_ V’fjRe;gn_1anoi;.__n1adeV’after the commencement<\/p>\n
of this  ilenactment hitherto made or<\/p>\n
_ hereafter 11:0 be unless a different intention<\/p>\n
A’-.appears,,V.’_,.?f;’ar{‘his mandate as was contained in the<\/p>\n
  referred to in the judgment relied<\/p>\n
upon ‘itdhelllllearned counsel for the appellant, is not
\n liivailable  Section 78 of the 1987 Act. The mandate
\n“lSection 78 (3) of the 1987 Act is clear and<\/p>\n
“”Vu.na1nbignous, namely, that ail previous actions would be<\/p>\n
I9<\/p>\n
preserved and the 1987 Act would have no effect thereon.<\/p>\n
It is therefore not possible for us to accept the4.Sec:on_d<\/p>\n
contention advanced by the learned counsel?”‘t’o\u00a7\u00a7j–..:thr?.___V.’ _<\/p>\n
appellant.\n<\/p>\n
12. No other submission  <\/p>\n
above, were advanced at the hantiapof the.1ear_11eVc1:VVc’oui9ise1 ‘V<\/p>\n
for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
13. For the reasoha  _htere\u00a3r1a.bove, we find<\/p>\n
no merit in  instant  the same is<\/p>\n
accordir1giy”‘disri3isSer1;\u00ab  – _ <\/p>\n
Ji<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Davangere Urban Development … vs Comrade Lenin Vidya Samsthe on 2 November, 2010 Author: J.S.Khehar(Cj) And A.S.Pachhapure 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010 PRESENT T THE HDNBLE MR. J. S. KHEHAR, AND THE I-ION’BLE MR. JUST:cE’;A..S..DPAcH::1APURE~~,,., %’A WRIT APPEAL NO.2859′.V’OF 2009 .{I;.33}15{VVI\u00e9\u00a73.D\u00a7)” […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-70527","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDavangere Urban Development ... vs Comrade Lenin Vidya Samsthe on 2 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/davangere-urban-development-vs-comrade-lenin-vidya-samsthe-on-2-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Davangere Urban Development ... vs Comrade Lenin Vidya Samsthe on 2 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/davangere-urban-development-vs-comrade-lenin-vidya-samsthe-on-2-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-27T16:13:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/davangere-urban-development-vs-comrade-lenin-vidya-samsthe-on-2-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/davangere-urban-development-vs-comrade-lenin-vidya-samsthe-on-2-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Davangere Urban Development … vs Comrade Lenin Vidya Samsthe on 2 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-27T16:13:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/davangere-urban-development-vs-comrade-lenin-vidya-samsthe-on-2-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2650,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/davangere-urban-development-vs-comrade-lenin-vidya-samsthe-on-2-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/davangere-urban-development-vs-comrade-lenin-vidya-samsthe-on-2-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/davangere-urban-development-vs-comrade-lenin-vidya-samsthe-on-2-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Davangere Urban Development ... vs Comrade Lenin Vidya Samsthe on 2 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-27T16:13:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/davangere-urban-development-vs-comrade-lenin-vidya-samsthe-on-2-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/davangere-urban-development-vs-comrade-lenin-vidya-samsthe-on-2-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/davangere-urban-development-vs-comrade-lenin-vidya-samsthe-on-2-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Davangere Urban Development … vs Comrade Lenin Vidya Samsthe on 2 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Davangere Urban Development ... vs Comrade Lenin Vidya Samsthe on 2 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/davangere-urban-development-vs-comrade-lenin-vidya-samsthe-on-2-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Davangere Urban Development ... vs Comrade Lenin Vidya Samsthe on 2 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/davangere-urban-development-vs-comrade-lenin-vidya-samsthe-on-2-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-27T16:13:16+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/davangere-urban-development-vs-comrade-lenin-vidya-samsthe-on-2-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/davangere-urban-development-vs-comrade-lenin-vidya-samsthe-on-2-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Davangere Urban Development … vs Comrade Lenin Vidya Samsthe on 2 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-27T16:13:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/davangere-urban-development-vs-comrade-lenin-vidya-samsthe-on-2-november-2010"},"wordCount":2650,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/davangere-urban-development-vs-comrade-lenin-vidya-samsthe-on-2-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/davangere-urban-development-vs-comrade-lenin-vidya-samsthe-on-2-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/davangere-urban-development-vs-comrade-lenin-vidya-samsthe-on-2-november-2010","name":"Davangere Urban Development ... vs Comrade Lenin Vidya Samsthe on 2 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-27T16:13:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/davangere-urban-development-vs-comrade-lenin-vidya-samsthe-on-2-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/davangere-urban-development-vs-comrade-lenin-vidya-samsthe-on-2-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/davangere-urban-development-vs-comrade-lenin-vidya-samsthe-on-2-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Davangere Urban Development … vs Comrade Lenin Vidya Samsthe on 2 November, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70527","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=70527"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70527\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70527"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70527"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70527"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}