BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. on 3 August 2018

[2018] 9 S.C.R. 441

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.

v.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

(Civil Appeal Nos. 7661-7663 of 2018)

AUGUST 03, 2018

[ARUN MISHRA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]

Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 – In 2008Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) published a scheme andpreliminary notification u/s.17 of the BDA Act acquiring lands forproviding civic amenities like roads etc. – Writ petitions filed in2014 on the ground that the State Government and the BDA did nottake any steps to issue final notification or to develop the land for5 years – Single Bench allowed the writ petitions and quashed thenotification with respect to the lands of the appellants – Writ appeals,dismissed – On appeal, held: Primary object of the BDA Act is tocarry out planned development – State Act has provided its ownscheme – Time constraints of the land acquisition are not applicableto the BDA Act – Making applicable the time frame of s.11A of theLA Act would debilitate very object of the BDA Act – Further, in thepresent case there were a large number of irregularities – Governmenthad nothing to do with respect to the release of the land at thisstage, as the stage of final notification had not reached but still thelandowners in connivance with the influential persons, political orotherwise, managed the directions to withdraw acquisition in respectof 251 acres of the land – Land Acquisition Officer consideredanother 498 acres of land to be excluded from being acquired,against which hue and cry was raised in the Assembly as well as inthe public – Three inquiries were ordered, two by the StateGovernment and one by the BDA – Owners cannot escape theliability for the delay, they cannot take the advantage of their ownwrong having acted in collusion with the authorities – Time consumedwould not adversely affect the ultimate development of Bangalorecity – Impugned orders passed by the Single Judge and DivisionBench are quashed and set aside – Scheme and notification u/s. 17are upheld – State Government as well as the BDA to proceed furtherto issue final notification without any further delay – Further, for

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

Afixing the responsibility on the officials of the BDA and the StateGovernment trying to exclude the lands from acquisition, formerJudge of the Karnataka High Court appointed as the Inquiry Officerand requested to submit his report to Supreme Court as expeditiouslyas possible – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.11A.

BDisposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The primary object of the BangaloreDevelopment Authority Act, 1976 is to carry out planneddevelopment. The State Act has provided its own scheme. Thetime constraints of the land acquisition are not applicable to theCBDA Act. Making applicable the time frame of Section 11A ofLand Acquisition Act, 1894 would debilitate very object of theBDA Act. By making applicable the time period of two years of11A of LA Act mandate of BDA Act has been violated.[Para 17] [457-B-D]

D

Conclusion

1.2 It is also apparent from the facts and circumstances ofthe case that there were a large number of irregularities in thecourse of an inquiry under Section 18(1) of the BDA Act.Government had nothing to do with respect to the release of theland at this stage, as the stage of final notification had not reachedEbut still the landowners in connivance with the influential persons,political or otherwise, managed the directions in respect of 251acres of the land and Special Land Acquisition Collector alsoconsidered exclusion of 498 acres of the land against which thequestion was raised in the Assembly and eyebrows were raisedin public domain. Two inquiries were ordered on 24.11.2012 andF19.1.2013 by the State Government and based upon that inquiry,it was ordered and a public notice was issued on 3[rd ]May, 2014that the BDA will consider the entire matter afresh. In theaforesaid backdrop of the facts, the writ petitions came to befiled, it would not be termed to be the bona fide litigation, butGwas initiated having failed in attempt to get the land illegallyexcluded at the hands of Special Land Acquisition Collector andthe State Government and after the inquiries held in the matterand the notice was issued to start the proceedings afresh. Atthis stage, the writ petitions were filed. In the aforesaidcircumstances, it was not at all open to the High Court to quash H

the preliminary notification issued under Section 17, as the landowners, State Government and BDA were responsible to createa mess in the way of planned development of the Bangalore city.The scheme which was framed was so much benevolent schemethat 40% of the 55% of the land reserved for the residentialpurpose was to be given to the landowners at their choice andthey were also given the choice to obtain the compensation, ifthey so desire, under the provisions of the LA Act. Thus, it wassuch a scheme that there was no scope for any exclusion of theland in the ultimate final notification. [Paras 19, 20] [457-G-H;458-A-E]

1.3 It is apparent from the circumstances that the mattercannot be left at the mercy of unscrupulous authority of the BDA,the State Government or in the political hands. Considering theproper development and planned development of Bangalore city,let the Government issue a final notification with respect to theland which has been notified in the initial notification and there isno question of leaving out of the land in the instant case as optionhas been given to land owners to claim the land or to claim thecompensation under the relevant LA Act which may be applicablein the case. In the instant case, the facts indicated that it was inthe interest of the public, landowners, BDA and StateGovernment. The scheme had prior approval of StateGovernment however at the cost of public interest yet anotherscheme was sought to be frustrated by powerful unforeseen handsand the issuance of final notification had been delayed. Threeinquiries were ordered, two by the State Government and one bythe BDA as the release of the land was being proposed in anillegal manner. Hue and cry was raised about their illegalities inthe Assembly as well as in the public. Thus, for the delay, ownerscannot escape the liability, they cannot take the advantage of theirown wrong having acted in collusion with the authorities. Thus,in the facts of the case the time consumed would not adverselyaffect the ultimate development of Bangalore city. The authoritiesare supposed to carry out the statutory mandate and cannot bepermitted to act against the public interest and planneddevelopment of Bangalore city which was envisaged as a statutorymandate under the BDA Act. The courts are not powerless tofrown upon such an action and proper development cannot be AB

C

DE

F

G

H

Adeterred by continuing inaction. As the proper development ofsuch metropolitan is of immense importance, the public purposefor which the primary notification was issued was in order toprovide civic amenities like laying down roads etc. which cannotbe left at the whim or mercy of the concerned authorities. Theywere bound to act in furtherance thereof. There was a clearBembargo placed while issuing the notification not to create anycharge, mortgage, assign, issue or revise any improvement andafter inquiry, it was clear that the notice had been issued in May,2014, thus, no development could have been made legally.Notification dated 3[rd ]May, 2014 was issued that re-inquiry wasCnecessary in the matter. The development made, if any, wouldbe at the peril of the owners and it has to give way to largerwelfare schemes and the individual interest and cannot come inthe way of the larger public interest. The acquisition was for theproper and planned development that was an absolute necessityfor the city of Bangalore. [Paras 21, 22] [458-F-G; 459-A-H;D460-A]

1.4 The State Government as well as the BDA is directedto proceed further to issue final notification without any furtherdelay. The impugned orders passed by the Single Judge and theDivision Bench are hereby quashed and set aside. The schemeEand notification under Section 17 of the BDA Act are herebyupheld. The Land Acquisition Officer proposed exclusion of 251acres of land from acquisition on being asked by the Governmentafter the preliminary notification was issued. The Land AcquisitionOfficer, has considered another 498 acres of land to be excludedFfrom being acquired. In connection to this, several questions wereraised in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, as a result of whichtwo inquiries were ordered by the State Government i.e on24.11.2012 and 19.01.2013. However, result of the inquiry is notforthcoming. Further, it appears that the exclusion of the landsfrom acquisition was proposed in connivance with influentialGpersons; political or otherwise. The BDA and the StateGovernment have to proceed with the acquisition of these lands.It is just and proper to hold an inquiry for fixing the responsibilityon the officials of the BDA and the State Government for tryingto exclude these lands from acquisition. Therefore, Hon’ble Mr.

H

H

Justice K.N. Keshavanarayana, former Judge of the KarnatakaHigh Court is appointed as the Inquiry Officer for fixing theresponsibility on the officials of the BDA and the StateGovernment who were responsible for the aforesaid. The InquiryOfficer to submit his report to this Court as expeditiously aspossible. [Paras 24-26] [460-C-H; 461-B]

1.5 The State Government and the BDA are further directedto proceed with the acquisition of the aforementioned landswithout excluding land from acquisition and submit a report toSupreme Court of the steps taken by them. [Para 27] [461-C]

Offshore Holdings Private Limited v. BangaloreDevelopment Authority and Others (2011) 3 SCC 139 :[2011] 1 SCR 453 – followed.

Munithimmaiah v. State of Karnataka (2002) 4 SCC326 : [2002] 2 SCR 825 ; Bondu Ramaswamy v.Bangalore Development Authority & Ors. (2010) 7 SCC129 : [2010] 6 SCR 29 ; H.N. Shivanna and Ors. v. TheState of Karnataka, Department of Industries andCommerce, Bangalore, and Anr. (2013) 4 KCCR 2793(DB) – referred to.

Case Law Reference

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.7661-7663 of 2018.

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.04.2017 of the High Courtof Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Appeal No.252 of 2017 (LA-BDA)and Writ Appeal Nos.2270-2271 of 2017 respectively WITH

Civil Appeal Nos.7664, 7750-7758, 7759-7761, 7762, 7668-7669,7791-7792, 7801, 7743, 7666-7667, 7742, 7803, 7763, 7795-7798, 7665,7799-7800, 7749, 7670-7736, 7744-7745, 7764, 7802, 7794, 7765, 7813,

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A7810-7812, 7805-7806, 7804, 7814, 7807-7809, 7790, 7767, 7787-7789,7784-7786, 7768, 7815-7817, 7741, 7771, 7793, 7738, 7773, 7770, 7737,7769, 7740, 7739, 7772, 7746-7748, 7774-7783, 7766, 7976-7989,7968-7975, 7954-7967, 7934-7953, 7929-7933, 7918-7928, 7908-7917,7889-7907, 7818-7888, 7993, 8015-8016, 8004, 7994-8000, 8005, 8003,8001-8002, 8006, 8007-8014 of 2018.B

Ms. Shashi Kiran Shetty, Vikas Singh, Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Advs.,S. K. Kulkarni, M. Gireesh Kumar, Ankur S. Kulkarni, Shree PrakashSinha, Rakesh Mishra, Ashutosh Kapoor, Nawalendra Kumar, Ms. MohuaSinha, Shanthkumar V. Mahale, Abdul Rahiman, Rajesh Mahale, PaiAmit, Sharan Thakur, Mahesh Thakur, Vipasha Singh, Vijay KumarCPardesi, V.N. Raghupathi, Parikshit Angadi, Shailesh Madiyal, SudhanshuPrakash, D.K. Devesh, Hitesh Vats, V.P. Singh, Trideep Pais, G.V.Chandrashekar, N.K. Verma, Ms. Anjana Chandrashekar, BalajiSrinivasan, Ms. Palavi Sengupta, M.A. Chinnasamy, Ms. C. Rubavathi,V. Senthil Kumar, P. Raja Ram, Sharanagouda Patil, Ms. SupreetaDSharanagouda, Ms. Preeti Singh, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARUN MISHRA, J. 1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.E

E3. The Bangalore Development Authority (for short, “the BDA”)has questioned the orders passed by the Division Bench of the HighCourt dismissing writ appeals vide judgment and order dated 28.04.2017,confirming the order passed by the Single Bench. The appeals havealso been filed against the orders of the Single Bench directly before thisCourt as Division Bench has already dismissed the writ appeals arisingFout of the same scheme/orders.

4. The BDA is Town Planning Authority for the city of Bangalore,State of Karnataka and a notified developer. It is entrusted with thetask of preparation of city development schemes and its execution.Section 15 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for shortreferred to as “the BDA Act”) confers power to draw up the developmentschemes. Section 16 of the BDA Act provides for the particulars to beincluded in the development scheme. The same is required to be publishedin terms of provisions contained in Section 17 of the BDA Act in theofficial gazette and in the manner prescribed therein. On 30.12.2008

G

H

the BDA published a scheme and notification under Section 17 of theBDA Act for the formation of the layout at as “Dr. K. Shivaram KaranthLayout” including link roads.

5. The scheme was approved by Government of Karnataka videits orders dated 3.12.2008. 45% of the land covered under the schemewas to be used for the civic amenities, playgrounds, roads etc., and theresidential sites would be formed by utilizing the remaining 55% of theland. Out of this 55% developed residential area i.e. 40% of 55% willbe offered as compensation to the farmers as specified in the schemeand the remaining 60% of 55% will be the share of BDA. The farmerswere also given the option to accept either the developed eligibleresidential land or opt for compensation as per the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (for short “the LA Act”). Notice to that effect was thereby givento all concerned in accordance with the provisions of sub-Sections 1 and3 of Section 17 of the BDA Act and in accordance with Section 36 ofthe BDA Act. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, BangaloreDevelopment Authority, Bangalore, his staff, and workmen wereauthorized to exercise the powers conferred under Section 4(2) of theLA Act and section 52 of the BDA Act. Objections were also invitedfrom the interested persons to be filed within 30 days of the publicationof the notification. It was also mentioned that any sale, mortgage,assignment, exchange or otherwise of any layout or improvements madetherein without sanction of the Deputy Commissioner (Land Acquisition),Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore after the date of publicationof the notification shall under Section 24 of the LA Act be disregardedby the Officer assessing compensation for such parts of the said landsas will be finally acquired.

6. The BDA has to consider the objections to the preliminarynotification and submit them to the Government as required under theBDA Act. Under section 18(3) of the BDA Act it is for the Governmentto sanction the scheme and under Section 19 of the said Act, it is for theGovernment to make a final declaration and publication.

7. The BDA received a large number of objections. StateGovernment also issued a direction to withdraw the acquisition of theland to the extent of 257 acres and 20 guntas from various villages.Representations for deletion were also favourably considered for 446acres and 7 guntas of the land. In the year 2012, with regard to the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Awithdrawal of acquisition of 446 acres and 7 guntas, and action of StateGovernment questions were raised in the Assembly and the StateGovernment ultimately ordered an inquiry to be held in the year 14.11.2012and yet another inquiry was ordered by the State Government into thematter pertaining to the same acquisition on 19.01.2013.

B

8. The writ petitions were then filed on the ground that Governmentand the BDA had not taken any steps to issue a final notification or todevelop the land for the last 5 years. The BDA refused to give permissionto develop the land on the ground of preliminary notification under Section17 of the BDA Act. Thus, right to enjoy the property has been takenCaway without finalizing the acquisition. It was submitted that thepreliminary notification shall be deemed to have lapsed. Now, Right toFair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitationand Resettlement Act, 2013 has come into force. Therefore, it was urgedthat the impugned notification issued under Section 17(1) and 17(3) ofthe BDA Act was liable to be quashed, and a prayer was made to directDthe respondents to give permission to develop the land.

9. It was contended on behalf of the BDA that while the LandAcquisition Officer was considering the representations under Sections18(3) of the BDA Act, the State Government has directed the BDA towithdraw to the extent of 270 guntas of land from various villages. InEview of the large number of representations filed under Section 18(1) ofthe BDA Act, time has been consumed. Ultimately deletion of 446acres 7 guntas of land was favourably considered. In the meanwhile,the Board of BDA ordered an in-house inquiry to consider the findingsof the Special Land Acquisition Officer regarding exclusion of land. TheFState Government also initiated suo moto inquiry vide Government Orderdated 24.11.2012 and 19.1.2013 and constituted a Committee consistingof Additional Chief Secretary and Development Commissioner, basedon the newspaper reports and questions raised at the Assembly pertainingto illegal and discriminatory proposals for withdrawal/deletion of the landfrom the acquisition. It was learnt that the Committee has completedGthe inquiry and issue was before the State Government. In view of thependency of the inquiry report before the State Government and in viewof the practical difficulty, final notification under Section 19 of the BDAAct could not be issued on time.

10. It was also contended by the BDA that notice dated 3.5.2014was issued to the landowners as there was the need for fresh inquiry.Therefore, the further process would be taken pursuant to the notification.Thus, it was contended by the BDA that no interference was called forin the writ petitions.

11. The Single Bench allowed the writ application and quashedthe notification with respect to the lands of the appellants. The SingleJudge in Writ Petition No.9640 of 2014 decided on 26[th] November 2014along with other writ applications has observed that the Division Benchof the High Court in the case of H.N. Shivanna and Ors. vs the Stateof Karnataka, Department of Industries and Commerce, Bangalore,and Anr. (2013) 4 KCCR 2793 (DB) considering similar aspect heldthat, even though under Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act,no time limit has been prescribed, the period of two years would beappropriate for the purpose of completing acquisition. The Single Judgeobserved that:

“8. On the legal position as to whether the provisions ascontained in the Land Acquisition Act insofar as the time periodas fixed therein for passing the final notification and the awardthereof could be imported into the BDA Act which has been raisedby the respondents, a detailed consideration would not benecessary. This is due to the fact that the Hon’ble Division Benchof this Court while considering the matter in the case of Sri H.N.Shivanna and Others vs. State of Karnataka, Department ofIndustries and Commerce, Bangalore and Another reported in2013 (4) KCCR 2793 (DB) has elaborately considered this aspectof the matter while taking note of the acquisition process whichwas being done under the KIAD Act wherein also no time limithas been prescribed. The Hon’ble Division Bench having acceptedthe position that there is no time limit fixed under the specialenactment has also taken into consideration the observations madeby the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the earlier cases under differentcircumstances and has declared the position that even though atime frame is not fixed in the special enactment under which theacquisition is being made, the reasonableness of the delay shouldbe considered in the facts of a case and in that circumstance, adecision is to be taken, but unreasonable delay would not bepermitted. While stating so, the Hon’ble Division bench has also A

B

C

DE

FG

H

A

Akept in view the fact that the Land Acquisition Act prescribes aspecific time frame even for the enactments, roughly the periodof two years would be appropriate. Hence, on the legal aspect,the said decision would settle the issue. In the light of the judgmentas rendered by the Hon’ble Division Bench, the explanation asput forth in the instant case needs to be taken into consideration.”B

12. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the writ appealwas filed before the Division Bench, which has been dismissed. TheDivision Bench of the High Court in the writ appeal, observed thus:

“3. Being aggrieved by the order Dt.26.11.2014 passed byCthe Hon’ble Learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.9640/ 2014the appellants beg to prefer this appeal.

4. It is respectfully submitted that the respondent no.2 whowas the appellant, filed the writ petition challenging the Preliminarynotification issued by the Bangalore Development Authority forthe formation of the “Dr. K. Shiarama Karanth Layout”.

D

5. The Petitioner was amongst the notified Khatedars of Sy.No.15 of and Sy.No.31 of Veerasagara Village, Yelahanka Hobli,Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore. It was contended that afterissuance of the Preliminary notification by the BangaloreDevelopment Authority for the formation of the layout no stepsEhave been taken by the Bangalore Development Authority for thecompletion of the acquisition proceedings. It was contended thattheir right to enjoy the property has been curtailed by the issuanceof the Notification by the Bangalore Development Authority. Itwas contended that the action of Bangalore Development AuthorityFin not proceeding further amounts to an abandonment of theacquisition proceedings and hence the preliminary Notification wassought to be quashed in so far as the property of the petitionerwas concerned.”

E

13. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decisions, the appeals have beenpreferred by the BDA in this Court. The decisions of the Division Benchin H.N. Shivanna (supra) has been followed by the Single Judge.

G

14. The BDA in the appeals has urged that decision of theConstitution Bench of this Court interpreting the provisions of BangaloreDevelopment Authority Act, 1976 has been totally ignored and overlooked.

H

This Court has decided the same issue in Offshore Holdings PrivateLimited v. Bangalore Development Authority and Others (2011) 3SCC 139, after consideration of the previous judgments of this Court inMunithimmaiah v. State of Karnataka (2002) 4 SCC 326 and BonduRamaswamy v. Bangalore Development Authority & Ors. (2010) 7SCC 129. It was held that the BDA Act is a self-contained code and thetime frame of two years provided under Section 11A of the LandAcquisition Act is not applicable to the BDA Act. The High Court hasfailed to consider the judgment. This Court has held that the period offive years as prescribed under Section 27 of the BDA Act start from thedate of publication of the declaration under sub-Section (1) of Section19 of the BDA Act in the Official Gazette. The High Court has grosslyerred in law in holding otherwise. The learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the BDA has relied upon the Constitution Bench decision ofthis Court in the case of Offshore Holdings (supra). The High Courthas totally ignored the said decision and had flouted the same. In thefacts and circumstances of the case, there was no delay as a largenumber of objections were filed. The Land Acquisition Officer considereddeletion of certain land in an illegal manner. The Government had alsoissued a direction in regard to approx. 257 acres of the land. Ultimately,there was a question raised about the proposed exclusion of the land inan illegal manner, in the Assembly and the State Government has orderedan inquiry in the year 2012. Yet another inquiry was ordered in January,2013. The in-house inquiry was also conducted by the BDA and ultimatelynotice was issued in May 2014 that the entire matter has to be consideredafresh. Thereafter, the writ petitions were filed to quash the initialnotification and the notification was illegally quashed by the High Court.Writ appeals were also dismissed. They have also been illegally dismissedby a laconic order without considering the decision of this Court and alsothe facts and circumstances. The land was required for the planneddevelopment of Bangalore city. Thus, the impugned orders are liable tobe quashed.

15. It was contended on behalf of the landowners that there wasundue delay in completion of the land acquisition procedure, as for morethan five years the final notification was not issued. The writ petitionswere filed. There was an undue delay, even if the period of two yearsof time frame provided under the LA Act, does not apply for issuance offinal notification under Section 19, there cannot be undue delay in taking AB

C

DEF

G

H

Athe steps. The acquisition could not have been kept in lurch for such anunreasonable period as done in the instant case. Thus, the High Courtwas fully justified in quashing the final notification. When no time hasbeen fixed under the BDA Act to complete the issuance of finalnotification under Section 19, it would not mean that with an unreasonabledelay such steps can be taken, as there was restraint put upon the ownersBby issuance of initial notification under Section 17. Right to enjoymentof the property could not have been denied for an unreasonable period.As there was a proposal to exclude the land, and after High Court hasquashed the preliminary notification, certain developments have beenmade and the property has exchanged hands. Thus, it would not beCappropriate to interfere in the matter owing to the delay on the part ofthe BDA in approaching before the High Court as well as this Court.

16. First, we take up the question as to whether the High Courtwas legally justified on merits in quashing the preliminary notificationissued under Section 17. The Constitution Bench of this Court inDOffshore Holdings (supra) has decided the question affirmatively. TheBDA has issued preliminary notification for acquisition of the lands.Non-finalization of the acquisition proceedings resulted in the filing ofthe writ petitions before the High Court of Karnataka by the owners inthe year 1987. Certain lands were de-notified and the permission whichwas granted earlier was withdrawn. The de-notification of the land wasEalso withdrawn. It was urged that the timeframe which was prescribedunder section 6 and 11A of the LA Act would form an integral part ofthe BDA Act. This Court considered the scheme under the BDA Actand has observed thus:

“33. The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, which provideFfor timeframe for compliance and the consequences of defaultthereof, are not applicable to acquisition under the BDA Act. Theyare Sections 6 and 11A of the Land Acquisition Act. As per Section11A, if the award is not made within a period of two years fromthe date of declaration under Section 6, the acquisition proceedingsGwill lapse. Similarly, where declaration under Section 6 of this Actis not issued within three years from the date of publication ofnotification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act [suchnotification being issued after the commencement of the LandAcquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 butbefore the commencement of Central Act 68 of 1984] or withinH

one year where Section 4 notification was published subsequentto the passing of Central Act 68 of 1984, no such declarationunder Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act can be issued in anyof these cases.

xxx

xxxxxx

35. Be that as it may, it is clear that the BDA Act is a self-containedcode which provides for all the situations that may arise in planneddevelopment of an area including acquisition of land for thatpurpose. The scheme of the Act does not admit any necessity forreading the provisions of Sections 6 and 11A of the LandAcquisition Act, as part and parcel of the BDA Act for attainmentof its object. The primary object of the State Act is to carry outplanned development and acquisition is a mere incident of suchplanned development. The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,where the land is to be acquired for a specific public purpose andacquisition is the sum and substance of that Act, all matters inrelation to the acquisition of land will be regulated by the provisionsof that Act. The State Act has provided its own scheme andprovisions for acquisition of land.

xxx

xxxxxx

50. Applying the above principle to the facts of the case in hand,it will be clear that the provisions relating to acquisition like passingof an award, payment of compensation and the legal remediesavailable under the Central Act would have to be applied to theacquisitions under the State Act but the bar contained in Sections6 and 11A of the Central Act cannot be made an integral part ofthe State Act as the State Act itself has provided specific time-frames under its various provisions as well as consequences ofdefault thereto. The scheme, thus, does not admit suchincorporation.

xxx

xxxxxx

55. The principle stated in Munithimmaiah’s case (supra) that theBDA Act is a self-contained code, was referred with approval bya three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of BonduRamaswamy (supra). The Court, inter alia, specifically discussedand answered the questions whether the provisions of Section 6

A

B

CD

EF

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

of the Land Acquisition Act will apply to the acquisition under theBDA Act and if the final declaration under Section 19(1) is notissued within one year of the publication of the notification underSection 17(1) of the BDA Act, whether such final declaration willbe invalid and held as under:

“79. This question arises from the contention raised by oneof the appellants that the provisions of Section 6 of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 (“the LA Act”, for short) will apply tothe acquisitions under the BDA Act and consequently if thefinal declaration under Section 19(1) is not issued within oneyear from the date of publication of the notification underSections 17(1) and (3) of the BDA Act, such final declarationwill be invalid. The appellants’ submissions are as under: thenotification under Sections 17(1) and (3) of the Act was issuedand gazetted on 3-2-2003 and the declaration under Section19(1) was issued and published on 23-2-2004. Section 36 ofthe Act provides that the acquisition of land under the BDAAct within or outside the Bangalore Metropolitan Area, shallbe regulated by the provisions of the LA Act, so far as theyare applicable. Section 6 of the LA Act requires that nodeclaration shall be made, in respect of any land covered by anotification under Section 4 of the LA Act, after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of such notificationunder Section 4 of the LA Act. As the provisions of the LAAct have been made applicable to acquisitions under the BDAAct, it is necessary that the declaration under Section 19(1) ofthe BDA Act (which is equivalent to the final declaration underSection 6 of the LA Act) should also be made before the expiryof one year from the date of publication of notification underSections 17(1) and (3) of the BDA Act [which is equivalent toSection 4(1) of the LA Act].

80. The BDA Act contains provisions relating to acquisitionof properties, up to the stage of publication of final declaration.The BDA Act does not contain the subsequent provisionsrelating to completion of the acquisition, that is, issue of notices,enquiry and award, vesting of land, payment of compensation,principles relating to determination of compensation, etc. Section36 of the BDA Act does not make the LA Act applicable in itsentirety, but states that the acquisition under the BDA Act, shall be regulated by the provisions, so far as they are applicable,of the LA Act. therefore it follows that where there are alreadyprovisions in the BDA Act regulating certain aspects or stagesof acquisition or the proceedings relating thereto, thecorresponding provisions of the LA Act will not apply to theacquisitions under the BDA Act. Only those provisions of theLA Act, relating to the stages of acquisition, for which there isno provision in the BDA Act, are applied to the acquisitionsunder the BDA Act.

81. The BDA Act contains specific provisions relating topreliminary notification and final declaration. In fact theprocedure up to final declaration under the BDA Act is differentfrom the procedure under the LA Act relating to acquisitionproceedings up to the stage of final notification. therefore,having regard to the scheme for acquisition under Sections 15to 19 of the BDA Act and the limited application of the LA Actin terms of Section 36 of the BDA Act, the provisions of Sections4 to 6 of the LA Act will not apply to the acquisitions under theBDA Act. If Section 6 of the LA Act is not made applicable,the question of amendment to Section 6 of the LA Act providinga time-limit for issue of final declaration, will also not apply.”

We may notice that, in the above case, the Court declined toexamine whether the provisions of Section 11A of the CentralAct would apply to the acquisition under the BDA Act butcategorically stated that Sections 4 and 6 of the Central Act wereinapplicable to the acquisition under the BDA Act.

123. Accepting the argument of the appellant would certainlyfrustrate the very object of the State law, particularly when boththe enactments can peacefully operate together. To us, thereappears to be no direct conflict between the provisions of theLand Acquisition Act and the BDA Act. The BDA Act does notadmit reading of provisions of Section 11A of the Land AcquisitionAct into its scheme as it is bound to debilitate the very object ofthe State law.The Parliament has not enacted any law with regardto development the competence of which, in fact, exclusively fallsin the domain of the State Legislature with reference to Entries 5and 18 of List II of Schedule VII.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

124. Both these laws cover different fields of legislation and donot relate to the same List, leave apart the question of relating tothe same Entry. Acquisition being merely an incident of planneddevelopment, the Court will have to ignore it even if there wassome encroachment or overlapping. The BDA Act does not provideany provision in regard to compensation and manner of acquisitionfor which it refers to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.There are no provisions in the BDA Act which lay down detailedmechanism for the acquisition of property, i.e. they are notcovering the same field and, thus, there is no apparent irreconcilableconflict. The BDA Act provides a specific period during whichthe development under a scheme has to be implemented and if itis not so done, the consequences thereof would follow in terms ofSection 27 of the BDA Act. None of the provisions of the LandAcquisition Act deals with implementation of schemes. We havealready answered that the acquisition under the Land AcquisitionAct cannot, in law, lapse if vesting has taken place. therefore, thequestion of applying the provisions of Section 11A of the LandAcquisition Act to the BDA Act does not arise. Section 27 of theBDA Act takes care of even the consequences of default, includingthe fate of acquisition, where vesting has not taken place underSection 27(3). Thus, there are no provisions under the two Actswhich operate in the same field and have a direct irreconcilableconflict.

125. Having said so, now we proceed to record our answer to thequestion referred to the larger Bench as follows:

For the reasons stated in this judgment, we hold that the BDAAct is a self-contained code. Further, we hold that provisionsintroduced in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by Central Act68 of 1984, limited to the extent of acquisition of land, paymentof compensation and recourse to legal remedies provided underthe said Act, can be read into an acquisition controlled by theprovisions of the BDA Act but with a specific exception thatthe provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in so far as theyprovide different time frames and consequences of default thereof, including lapsing of acquisition proceedings ,cannot beread into the BDA Act. Section 11A of the Land AcquisitionAct being one of such provisions cannot be applied to theacquisitions under the provisions of the BDA Act.”

(emphasis supplied)

17. This Court has emphasized that the primary object of the BDAAct is to carry out planned development. The State Act has provided itsown scheme. The time constraints of the land acquisition are notapplicable to the BDA Act. Making applicable the time frame of Section11A of LA Act would debilitate very object of the BDA Act. It is apparentthat the decision of the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench isdirectly juxtaposed to the decision of Five Judge Bench of this Court inOffshore Holdings (supra) in which precisely the question involved inthe instant cases had been dealt with. By indirect method by makingapplicable the time period of two years of 11A of LA Act mandate ofBDA Act has been violated. However, it is shocking that variousdecisions have been taken into consideration particularly by the SingleJudge, however, whereas the decision that has set the controversy atrest, has not even been noticed even by the Single Judge or by the DivisionBench. If this is the fate of the law of the land laid down by this Courtthat too the decision by the Constitution Bench, so much can be said butto exercise restraint is the best use of the power. Least said is better,the way in which the justice has been dealt with and the planneddevelopment of Bangalore city has been left at the mercy of unscrupulouspersons of Government and the BDA.

18. It is apparent from the fact that the Single Judge has reliedupon the decision in H.N. Shivanna (supra) in which it was observed bythe Division Bench that scheme to be completed in 2 years otherwise itwould lapse. It was precisely the question of time period which wasdwelt upon and what was ultimately decided by this Court in OffshoreHoldings (supra) has been blatantly violated by the Single Judge andthat too in flagrant violation of the provisions and intendment of the Act.

19. It is also apparent from the facts and circumstances of thecase that there were a large number of irregularities in the course of aninquiry under Section 18(1) of the BDA Act. Government had nothing todo with respect to the release of the land at this stage, as the stage of

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Afinal notification had not reached but still the landowners in connivancewith the influential persons, political or otherwise, managed the directionsin respect of 251 acres of the land and Special Land Acquisition Collectoralso considered exclusion of 498 acres of the land against which thequestion was raised in the Assembly and eyebrows were raised in publicdomain. Two inquiries were ordered on 24.11.2012 and 19.1.2013 by theBState Government and based upon that inquiry, it was ordered and apublic notice was issued on 3[rd ]May, 2014 that the BDA will consider theentire matter afresh. In the aforesaid backdrop of the facts, the writpetitions came to be filed, it would not be termed to be the bona fidelitigation, but was initiated having failed in attempt to get the land illegallyCexcluded at the hands of Special Land Acquisition Collector and theState Government and after the inquiries held in the matter and the noticewas issued to start the proceedings afresh. At this stage, the writ petitionswere filed. In the aforesaid circumstances, it was not at all open to theHigh Court to quash the preliminary notification issued under Section 17,as the land owners, State Government and BDA were responsible toDcreate a mess in the way of planned development of the Bangalore city.

20. The scheme which was framed was so much benevolentscheme that 40% of the 55% of the land reserved for the residentialpurpose was to be given to the landowners at their choice and they werealso given the choice to obtain the compensation, if they so desire, underEthe provisions of the LA Act. Thus, it was such a scheme that there wasno scope for any exclusion of the land in the ultimate final notification.

21. It is apparent from the circumstances that the matter cannotbe left at the mercy of unscrupulous authority of the BDA, the StateGovernment or in the political hands. Considering the proper developmentFand planned development of Bangalore city, let the Government issue afinal notification with respect to the land which has been notified in theinitial notification and there is no question of leaving out of the land in theinstant case as option has been given to land owners to claim the land orto claim the compensation under the relevant LA Act which may beGapplicable in the case.

22. It was contended on behalf of the landowners that certaindevelopments have taken place after the orders were passed regardingexclusion of the land and when Section 27 provides a limitation of fiveyears after final notification, in case development was not undertakenwithin five years, even the final scheme would lapse. Thus, the principleH

enunciated in Section 27 should be followed by this Court with respectto the lapse of preliminary notification as well. We find that there is avast difference in the provisions and action to be taken pursuant to thepreliminary notification and the final notification under Section 19. In theinstant case, the facts indicated that it was in the interest of the public,landowners, BDA and State Government. The scheme had prior approvalof State Government however at the cost of public interest yet anotherscheme was sought to be frustrated by powerful unforeseen hands andthe issuance of final notification had been delayed. Three inquiries wereordered, two by the State Government and one by the BDA as the releaseof the land was being proposed in an illegal manner. Hue and cry hasbeen raised about their illegalities in the Assembly as well as in the public.Thus, for the delay, owners cannot escape the liability, they cannot takethe advantage of their own wrong having acted in collusion with theauthorities. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that in the facts ofthe case the time consumed would not adversely affect the ultimatedevelopment of Bangalore city. The authorities are supposed to carryout the statutory mandate and cannot be permitted to act against thepublic interest and planned development of Bangalore city which wasenvisaged as a statutory mandate under the BDA Act. The StateGovernment, as well as Authorities under the BDA Act, are supposed tocater to the need of the planned development which is a mandate enjoinedupon them and also binding on them. They have to necessarily carry itforward and no dereliction of duty can be an escape route so as to avoidfulfilment of the obligation enjoined upon them. The courts are notpowerless to frown upon such an action and proper development cannotbe deterred by continuing inaction. As the proper development of suchmetropolitan is of immense importance, the public purpose for which theprimary notification was issued was in order to provide civic amenitieslike laying down roads etc. which cannot be left at the whim or mercy ofthe concerned authorities. They were bound to act in furtherance thereof.There was a clear embargo placed while issuing the notification not tocreate any charge, mortgage, assign, issue or revise any improvementand after inquiry, it was clear that the notice had been issued in May,2014, thus, no development could have been made legally. Notificationdated 3[rd ]May, 2014 was issued that re-inquiry was necessary in thematter. The development made, if any, would be at the peril of theowners and it has to give way to larger welfare schemes and the individualinterest and cannot come in the way of the larger public interest. The AB

C

DEFG

H

Aacquisition was for the proper and planned development that was anabsolute necessity for the city of Bangalore.

23. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation in condoning thedelay. Though, it is apparent that the authorities had come with certaindelay, in the certain matters and the writ appeals were also filed belatedlyBwith the delay in the High Court, however, considering the provisions ofthe scheme and the method and manner wrong has been committed, ithas compelled us not only to condone the delay but also to act in thematter so as to preserve the sanctity of the legal process and decision ofthis Court in Offshore Holdings (supra).

C24. We, therefore, direct the State Government as well as theBDA to proceed further to issue final notification without any furtherdelay in the light of the observations made in the order. The impugnedorders passed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench are herebyquashed and set aside. The scheme and notification under Section 17 ofthe BDA Act are hereby upheld with the aforesaid directions.D

25. As noticed above, the Land Acquisition Officer proposedexclusion of 251 acres of land from acquisition on being asked by theGovernment after the preliminary notification was issued. The LandAcquisition Officer, has considered another 498 acres of land to beexcluded from being acquired. In connection to this, several questionsEwere raised in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, as a result of whichtwo inquiries were ordered by the State Government i.e on 24.11.2012and 19.01.2013. However, result of the inquiry is not forthcoming.Further, it appears that the exclusion of the lands from acquisition wasproposed in connivance with influential persons; political or otherwise.We are of the view that the BDA and the State Government have toFproceed with the acquisition of these lands. We are also of the view thatit is just and proper to hold an inquiry for fixing the responsibility on theofficials of the BDA and the State Government for trying to excludethese lands from acquisition.

26. Therefore, we appoint Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana, former Judge of the Karnataka High Court as theInquiry Officer for fixing the responsibility on the officials of the BDAand the State Government who were responsible for the aforesaid. TheCommissioner, BDA is hereby directed to consult Inquiry Officer and G

H

pay his remuneration. Further, we direct BDA to provide appropriatesecretarial assistance and logistical support to the Inquiry Officer forholding the inquiry. In addition, we authorize the Inquiry Officer to appointrequisite staff on temporary basis to assist him in the inquiry and to fixtheir salaries. Further, the BDA is directed to pay their salaries. TheState Government and the BDA are directed to produce the files/documents in relation to the aforesaid lands before the Inquiry Officerwithin a period of four weeks from today. We request the Inquiry Officerto submit his report to this Court as expeditiously as possible.

27. The State Government and the BDA are further directed toproceed with the acquisition of the aforementioned lands withoutexcluding land from acquisition and submit a report to this Court thesteps taken by them in this regard within a period of three months fromtoday.

28. In addition, it was submitted at the Bar that several caseswhere similar orders of exclusion in relation to lands notified foracquisitions for the formation of ‘Dr. K. Shivarama Karantha Layout’have been passed by the High Court and that BDA has failed to challengethose orders in connivance with the landowners and influential persons.We hereby direct the BDA to challenge all such orders/seek review ofthe said orders in accordance with law within a period of three monthsfrom today.

29. The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms leaving theparties to bear their own costs.

Divya Pandey

Appeals disposed of.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H