9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 2149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 SLP (C) No. 10328/2018), Civil Appeal No. 7794/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10338/2018), Civil Appeal No. 7765/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10178/2018), Civil Appeal No. 7813/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10316/2018), Civil Appeal Nos. 7810-12/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10318-10320/2018), Civil Appeal Nos. 7805-06/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10324-10325/2018), Civil Appeal No. 7804/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10326/2018), Civil Appeal No. 7814/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10317/2018), Civil Appeal Nos. 7807-09/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10321-10323/2018) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (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. 16916/2018) and Civil Appeal Nos. 8007-14/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 16919-26/2018) For the Appearing Parties: Shashi Kiran Shetty, Vikas Singh, Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Advs., S.K. Kulkarni, M. Gireesh Kumar, Ankur S. Kulkarni, Shree Prakash Sinha, Rakesh Mishra, Ashutosh Kapoor, Nawalendra Kumar, Mohua Sinha, Shanth Kumar V. Mahale, Abdul Rahiman, Rajesh Mahale, Amit A. Pai, Sharan Thakur, Mahesh Thakur, Vipasha Singh, Vijay Kumar Paradeshi, V.N. Raghupathy, Parikshit Angadi, Shailesh Madiyal, Sudhanshu Prakash, D.K. Devesh, Hitesh Vats, V.P. Singh, Trideep Pais, G.V. Chandrashekar, N.K. V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opment 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 disregarded by the Officer assessing compensation for such parts of the said lands as will be finally acquired. 6. The BDA has to consider the objections to the preliminary notification and submit them to the Government as required under the BDA Act. Under Section 18(3) of the BDA Act it is for the Government to sanction the scheme and Under Section 19 of the said Act, it is for the Government to make a final declaration and publication. 7. The BDA received a large number of objections. State Government also issued a direction to withdraw the acquisition of the land to the extent o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eted 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 quashed the notification with respect to the lands of the Appellants. The Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 9640 of 2014 decided on 26th November 2014 along with other writ applications has observed that the Division Bench of the High Court in the case of H.N. Shivanna and Ors. v. the State of Karnataka, Department of Industries and Commerce, Bangalore, and Anr. (2013) 4 KCCR 2793 (DB) considering similar aspect held that, even though under Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, no time limit has been prescribed, the period of two years would be appropriate for the purpose of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re 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 Development Authority. It was contended that the action of Bangalore Development Authority in not proceeding further amounts to an abandonment of the acquisition proceedings and hence the preliminary Notification was sought to be quashed in so far as the property of the Petitioner was concerned. 13. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decisions, the appeals have been preferred by the BDA in this Court. The decisions of the Division Bench in H.N. Shivanna (supra) has been followed by the Single Judge. 14. The BDA in the appeals has urged that decision of the Constitution B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpletion 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 notification Under Section 19, it would not mean that with an unreasonable delay such steps can be taken, as there was restraint put upon the owners by issuance of initial notification Under Section 17. Right to enjoyment of the property could not have been denied for an unreasonable period. As there was a proposal to exclude the land, and after High Court has quashed the preliminary notification, certain developments have been made and the property has exchanged hands. Thus, it would not be appropriate to interfere in the matter owing to the delay on the part of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 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 would have to be applied to the acquisitions under the State Act but the bar contained in Sections 6 and 11A of the Central Act cannot be made an integral part of the State Act as the State Act itself has provided specific time-frames under its various provisions as well as consequences of default thereto. The scheme, thus, does not admit such incorporation. xxx xxx xxx 55. The principle stated in Munithimmaiah's case (supra) that the BDA Act is a self-contained code, was referred with approval by a three Judge Bench of this Court in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 contains specific provisions relating to preliminary notification and final declaration. In fact the procedure up to final declaration under the BDA Act is different from the procedure under the LA Act relating to acquisition proceedings up to the stage of final notification. therefore, having regard to the scheme for acquisition Under Sections 15 to 19 of the BDA Act and the limited application of the LA Act in terms of Section 36 of the BDA Act, the provisions of Sections 4 to 6 of the LA Act will not apply to the acquisitions under the BDA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 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 compensation and recourse to legal remedies provided under the said Act, can be read into an acquisition controlled by the provisions of the BDA Act but with a specific exception that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in so far as they provide different time frames and consequences of default thereof, including lapsing of acquisition proceedings, cannot be read into the BDA Act. Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act being one of such provisions cannot be applied to the acquisitions under the provisions of the BDA Act. 17. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es 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 the notice was issued to start the proceedings afresh. At this stage, the writ petitions were filed. In the aforesaid circumstances, it was not at all open to the High Court to quash the preliminary notification issued Under Section 17, as the land owners, State Government and BDA were responsible to create a mess in the way of planned development of the Bangalore city. 20. The scheme which was framed was so much benevolent scheme that 40% of the 55% of the land reserved for the residential purpose was to be given to the lan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ities 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 continuing inaction. As the proper development of such metropolitan is of immense importance, the public purpose for which the primary notification was issued was in order to provide civic amenities like laying down roads etc. which cannot be left at the whim or mercy of the concerned authorities. They were bound to act in furtherance thereof. There was a clear embargo placed while issuing the notification not to create any charge, mortgage, assign, issue or revise any improvement and after inquiry, it was clear that the notice h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 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 salaries. Further, the BDA is directed to pay their salaries. The State Government and the BDA are directed to produce the files/documents in relation to the aforesaid lands before the Inquiry Officer within a period of four weeks from today. We request the Inquiry Officer to submit his report to this Court as expeditiously as possible. 27. The State Government and the BDA are further directed to proceed with the acquisition of the aforementioned lands without excluding land from acquisition and submit a report to this Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
