TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 2149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORS. [ 2011 (1) TMI 1322 - SUPREME COURT] in which precisely the question involved in the instant cases had been dealt with. By indirect method by making applicable the time period of two years of 11A of LA Act mandate of BDA Act has been violated. However, it is shocking that various decisions have been taken into consideration particularly by the Single Judge, however, whereas the decision that has set the controversy at rest, has not even been noticed even by the Single Judge or by the Division Bench. It is apparent from the fact that the Single Judge has relied upon the decision in H.N. Shivanna [ 2012 (11) TMI 1333 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] in which it was observed by the Division Bench that scheme to be completed in 2 years otherwise it would lapse. It was precisely the question of time period which was dwelt upon and what was ultimately decided by this Court in Offshore Holdings has been blatantly violated by the Single Judge and that too in flagrant violation of the provisions and intendment of the Act. It is also apparent from the facts and circumstances of the case that there were a large number of irregularities in the course of an inquiry Under Section 18(1) of the BDA Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 7762/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10168/2018), Civil Appeal Nos. 7668-69/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10198-10199/2018), Civil Appeal Nos. 7791-92/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10339-10340/2018), Civil Appeal No. 7801/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10329/2018), Civil Appeal No. 7743/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10097/2018), Civil Appeal Nos. 7666-67/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10196-10197/2018), Civil Appeal No. 7742/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10098/2018), Civil Appeal No. 7803/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10327/2018), Civil Appeal No. 7763/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10181/2018), Civil Appeal Nos. 7795-98/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10332-10335/2018), Civil Appeal No. 7665/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10195/2018), Civil Appeal Nos. 7799-7800/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10330-10331/2018), Civil Appeal No. 7749/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10169/2018), Civil Appeal Nos. 7670-7736/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10100-10166/2018), Civil Appeal Nos. 7744-45/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10173-10174/2018), Civil Appeal No. 7764/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10179/2018), Civil Appeal No. 7802/2018 (Arising out of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f SLP (C) Nos. 21058-77/2018 (Arising out of Dairy No. 15857/2018), Civil Appeal Nos. 7929-33/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 21053-57/2018 (Arising out of Dairy No. 15872/2018), Civil Appeal Nos. 7918-28/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 21042-52/2018 (Arising out of Dairy No. 15866/2018), Civil Appeal Nos. 7908-17/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 21032-41/2018 (Arising out of Dairy No. 15900/2018)), Civil Appeal Nos. 7889-7907/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 21012-30/2018 (Arising out of Dairy No. 15952/2018), Civil Appeal Nos. 7818-88/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 20940-21010/2018 (Arising out of Dairy No. 15928/2018)), Civil Appeal No. 7993/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 16905/2018), Civil Appeal Nos. 8015-16/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 16930-31/2018), Civil Appeal No. 8004/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 16914/2018), Civil Appeal Nos. 7994-8000/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 16906-12/2018), Civil Appeal No. 8005/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 16915/2018), Civil Appeal No. 8003/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 16913/2018), Civil Appeal Nos. 8001-02/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 16917-18/2018), Civil Appeal No. 8006/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 169 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntial area i.e. 40% of 55% will be offered as compensation to the farmers as specified in the scheme and the remaining 60% of 55% will be the share of BDA. The farmers were also given the option to accept either the developed eligible residential land or opt for compensation as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the LA Act ). Notice to that effect was thereby given to all concerned in accordance with the provisions of Sub-Sections 1 and 3 of Section 17 of the BDA Act and in accordance with Section 36 of the BDA Act. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore, his staff, and workmen were authorized to exercise the powers conferred Under Section 4(2) of the LA Act and Section 52 of the BDA Act. Objections were also invited from the interested persons to be filed within 30 days of the publication of the notification. It was also mentioned that any sale, mortgage, assignment, exchange or otherwise of any layout or improvements made therein without sanction of the Deputy Commissioner (Land Acquisition), Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore after the date of publication of the notification shall Under Section 24 of the LA Act be disr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the meanwhile, the Board of BDA ordered an in-house inquiry to consider the findings of the Special Land Acquisition Officer regarding exclusion of land. The State Government also initiated suo moto inquiry vide Government Order dated 24.11.2012 and 19.1.2013 and constituted a Committee consisting of Additional Chief Secretary and Development Commissioner, based on the newspaper reports and questions raised at the Assembly pertaining to illegal and discriminatory proposals for withdrawal/deletion of the land from the acquisition. It was learnt that the Committee has completed the inquiry and issue was before the State Government. In view of the pendency of the inquiry report before the State Government and in view of the practical difficulty, final notification Under Section 19 of the BDA Act could not be issued on time. 10. It was also contended by the BDA that notice dated 3.5.2014 was 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 for in the writ petitions. 11. The Single Bench allowed the writ application and quashe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se needs to be taken into consideration. 12. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the writ appeal was filed before the Division Bench, which has been dismissed. The Division Bench of the High Court in the writ appeal, observed thus: 3. Being aggrieved by the order Dt. 26.11.2014 passed by the Hon'ble Learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 9640/2014 the Appellants beg to prefer this appeal. 4. It is respectfully submitted that the Respondent No. 2 who was the Appellant, filed the writ petition challenging the Preliminary notification issued by the Bangalore Development Authority for the formation of the Dr. K. Shiarama Karanth Layout . 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 after issuance of the Preliminary notification by the Bangalore Development Authority for the formation of the layout no steps have been taken by the Bangalore Development Authority for the completion of the acquisition proceedings. It was contended that their right to enjoy the property has been curtailed by the issuance of the Notification by the Bangalore D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the entire matter has to be considered afresh. Thereafter, the writ petitions were filed to quash the initial notification and the notification was illegally quashed by the High Court. Writ appeals were also dismissed. They have also been illegally dismissed by a laconic order without considering the decision of this Court and also the facts and circumstances. The land was required for the planned development of Bangalore city. Thus, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. 15. It was contended on behalf of the landowners that there was undue delay in completion of the land acquisition procedure, as for more than five years the final notification was not issued. The writ petitions were filed. There was an undue delay, even if the period of two years of time frame provided under the LA Act, does not apply for issuance of final notification Under Section 19, there cannot be undue delay in taking the steps. The acquisition could not have been kept in lurch for such an unreasonable period as done in the instant case. Thus, the High Court was fully justified in quashing the final notification. When no time has been fixed under the BDA Act to complete the issuance of final notific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Land Acquisition Act can be issued in any of these cases. xxx xxx xxx 35. Be that as it may, it is clear that the BDA Act is a self-contained code which provides for all the situations that may arise in planned development of an area including acquisition of land for that purpose. The scheme of the Act does not admit any necessity for reading the provisions of Sections 6 and 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, as part and parcel of the BDA Act for attainment of its object. The primary object of the State Act is to carry out planned development and acquisition is a mere incident of such planned development. The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, where the land is to be acquired for a specific public purpose and acquisition is the sum and substance of that Act, all matters in relation to the acquisition of land will be regulated by the provisions of that Act. The State Act has provided its own scheme and provisions for acquisition of land. xxx xxx xxx 50. Applying the above principle to the facts of the case in hand, it will be clear that the provisions relating to acquisition like passing of an award, payment of compensation and the legal remedies available under the Central Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry of one year from the date of publication of notification Under Sections 17(1) and (3) of the BDA Act [which is equivalent to Section 4(1) of the LA Act]. 80. The BDA Act contains provisions relating to acquisition of properties, up to the stage of publication of final declaration. The BDA Act does not contain the subsequent provisions relating 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. Section 36 of the BDA Act does not make the LA Act applicable in its entirety, 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 already provisions in the BDA Act regulating certain aspects or stages of acquisition or the proceedings relating thereto, the corresponding provisions of the LA Act will not apply to the acquisitions under the BDA Act. Only those provisions of the LA Act, relating to the stages of acquisition, for which there is no provision in the BDA Act, are applied to the acquisitions under the BDA Act. 81. The BDA Act con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vides a specific period during which the development under a scheme has to be implemented and if it is not so done, the consequences thereof would follow in terms of Section 27 of the BDA Act. None of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act deals with implementation of schemes. We have already answered that the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act cannot, in law, lapse if vesting has taken place. therefore, the question of applying the provisions of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act to the BDA Act does not arise. Section 27 of the BDA Act takes care of even the consequences of default, including the fate of acquisition, where vesting has not taken place Under Section 27(3). Thus, there are no provisions under the two Acts which operate in the same field and have a direct irreconcilable conflict. 125. Having said so, now we proceed to record our answer to the question referred to the larger Bench as follows: For the reasons stated in this judgment, we hold that the BDA Act is a self-contained code. Further, we hold that provisions introduced in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by Central Act 68 of 1984, limited to the extent of acquisition of land, payment of compensati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o apparent from the facts and circumstances of the case that there were a large number of irregularities in the course of an inquiry Under Section 18(1) of the BDA Act. Government had nothing to do with respect to the release of the land at this stage, as the stage of final notification had not reached but still the landowners in connivance with the influential persons, political or otherwise, managed the directions in respect of 251 acres of the land and Special Land Acquisition Collector also considered exclusion of 498 acres of the land against which the question was raised in the Assembly and eyebrows were raised in public domain. Two inquiries were ordered on 24.11.2012 and 19.1.2013 by the State Government and based upon that inquiry, it was ordered and a public notice was issued on 3rd May, 2014 that the BDA will consider the entire matter afresh. In the aforesaid backdrop of the facts, the writ petitions came to be filed, it would not be termed to be the bona fide litigation, but was initiated having failed in attempt to get the land illegally excluded at the hands of Special Land Acquisition Collector and the State Government and after the inquiries held in the matter and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the State Government and one by the BDA as the release of the land was being proposed in an illegal manner. Hue and cry has been raised about their illegalities in the Assembly as well as in the public. Thus, for the delay, owners cannot escape the liability, they cannot take the advantage of their own wrong having acted in collusion with the authorities. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that in the facts of the case the time consumed would not adversely affect the ultimate development of Bangalore city. The authorities are supposed to carry out the statutory mandate and cannot be permitted to act against the public interest and planned development of Bangalore city which was envisaged as a statutory mandate under the BDA Act. The State Government, as well as Authorities under the BDA Act, are supposed to cater to the need of the planned development which is a mandate enjoined upon them and also binding on them. They have to necessarily carry it forward and no dereliction of duty can be an escape route so as to avoid fulfilment of the obligation enjoined upon them. The courts are not powerless to frown upon such an action and proper development cannot be deterred by continu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State Government i.e. on 24.11.2012 and 19.01.2013. However, result of the inquiry is not forthcoming. Further, it appears that the exclusion of the lands from acquisition was proposed in connivance with influential persons; political or otherwise. We are of the view that the BDA and the State Government have to proceed with the acquisition of these lands. We are also of the view that it is just and proper to hold an inquiry for fixing the responsibility on the officials of the BDA and the State Government for trying to exclude these lands from acquisition. 26. Therefore, we appoint Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.N. Keshavanarayana, former Judge of the Karnataka High Court as the Inquiry Officer for fixing the responsibility on the officials of the BDA and the State Government who were responsible for the aforesaid. The Commissioner, BDA is hereby directed to consult Inquiry Officer and pay his remuneration. Further, we direct BDA to provide appropriate secretarial assistance and logistical support to the Inquiry Officer for holding the inquiry. In addition, we authorize the Inquiry Officer to appoint requisite staff on temporary basis to assist him in the inquiry and to fix their sala ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
