IMPORTANT POINT
Sections 6 and 11A of Land Acquisition Act, as amended and inserted by the Central Amendment Act of 1984, do not apply to proceedings under the Bangalore Development Authority Act.

Headnote:Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976-Sections 19(1) and 36-Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Notifica-tion under Section 19(1) of Bangalore Act-Sanction of improvement scheme for formation of layout in question-Subsequent amendment of Land Acquisition Act - Applicability - Whether a scheme formulated, sanctioned and set for implementation under BDA Act, can be stultified or rendered ineffective and unenforceable by a provision in the Central Act, particularly of nature of Sections 6 and 11-A-(No)-Applicability of Sections 6 and 11A as amended and inserted by Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act of 1984 ex-cluded to proceedings under the BDA Act-Appellant s challenge to land acquisition proceedings under BDA Act, placing reliance on Section 11-A of Land Acquisition Act, held not sustainable.
       Held : So far as the B.D.A. Act is concerned, it is not an Act for mere acquisition of land but an Act to provide for the establishment of a Development Authority to
       facilitate and ensure a planned growth and development of the city of Bangalore and areas adjacent thereto and acquisition of lands, if any, therefor is merely incidental thereto. In pith and substance the Act is one which will squarely fall under, and be traceable to the powers of the State Legislature under Entry 5 of List II of the VIIth Schedule and not a law for acquisition of land like the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 traceable to Entry 42 of List III of the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution of India, the field in respect of which is already occupied by the Central Enactment of 1894, as amended from time to time. If at all, the B.D.A. Act, so far as acquisition of land for its developmental activities are concerned, in substance and effect will constitute a special law providing for acquisition for the special purposes of the B.D.A. and the same was not also considered to be part of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It could not also be legitimately stated, on a reading of Section 36 of the B.D.A. Act that the Karnataka Legislature intended thereby to bind themselves to any future additions or amendments, which might be made by altogether a different legislature, be it the Parliament, to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The procedure for acquisition under the B.D.A. Act vis-a-vis the Central Act has been analysed elaborately by the Division Bench, as noticed supra, and, in our view, very rightly too, considered to constitute a special and self-contained code of its own and the B.D.A. Act and Central Act cannot be said to be either supplemental to each other, or pari materia legislations. That apart, the B.D.A. Act could not be said to be either wholly unworkable and ineffectual if the subsequent amendments to the Central Act are not also imported into consideration. On an overall consideration of the entire situation also it could not either possibly or reasonably stated that the subsequent amendments to the Central Act get attracted or applied either due to any express provision or by necessary intendment or implication to acquisitions under the B.D.A. Act. When the B.D.A. Act, expressly provides by specifically enacting the circumstances under which and the period of time on the expiry of which alone the proceedings initiated thereunder shall lapse due to any default, the different circumstances and period of limitation envisaged under the Central Act, 1894, as amended by the amending Act of 1984 for completing the proceedings on pain of letting them lapse forever, cannot be imported into consideration for purposes of B.D.A. Act without doing violence to the language or destroying and defeating the very intendment of the State Legislature expressed by the enactment of its own special provisions in a special law falling under a topic of legislation exclusively earmarked for the State Legislature. A scheme formulated, sanctioned and set for implementation under the B.D.A. Act, cannot be stultified or rendered ineffective and unenforceable by a provision in the Central Act, particularly of the nature of Sections 6 and 11-A, which cannot also on its own force have any application to actions taken under the B.D.A. Act. (Para 15)

JUDGMENT

Raju, J.-Special leave granted.

2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 2.3.2000 of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No. 2083 of 1996, wherein the relief sought in the nature of a writ of certiorari to quash the entire acquisition proceedings pertaining to Survey No. 81/6 in Agrahara Dasarahalli Village, Yeswanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, and the Award said to have been passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, Development Authority, on 22.2.1995, came to be rejected on the ground that the matter is covered against the appellant by an earlier Division Bench Judgment reported in Khoday Distilleries Limited v. State of Karnataka [ILR 1997 Kar. 1419]. For appreciating the points raised as well as the grievance sought to be made out, it would be necessary to advert to certain salient factual details pertaining to the matter.

3. The appellant claims to be the owner in possession of the land comprised in Survey No. 81/6, Agrahara Dasarahalli Village, Yeswanthapur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. Permission was said to have been obtained by the appellant on 2.8.1969 from the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, sanctioning conversion of one acre 16 guntas in the said survey number into non-agricultural use, leaving the remaining 20 guntas as Kharab land. The permission was subject to certain conditions, which, among other things, included compliance with the formalities prescribed by and obligations to the City improvement Trust Board or heed to secure the approval for the layout and building plans from the said Board and obtaining of necessary licences, etc. from the competent authority before the commencement of any construction work on the said land. The appellant also claims to have substantially commenced construction. While the matter stood thus, a preliminary Notification was said to have been published in the Official Gazette dated 25.7.1974 proposing the acquisition of the land belonging to the appellant in Survey No. 81/6 along with some other lands in Survey Nos. 81/1, 81/2, 81/3, 81/4 and 81/5 for the formation of a layout known as the "West of Chord Road-IV Stage". The appellant claims to have filed objections, among other things, stating that already a proposal dated 12.8.1974 for formation of a private layout under Section 25 of the City Improvement Trust Board Act was submitted by him and the same was pending with the CIT Board. Once again, the appellant claims that the portions of the land were sold to various purchasers and buildings were put up leaving no vacant land for formation of any site in Survey No. 81/2 and only 27 guntas of land in Survey No. 81/2 was used by the owners of the buildings in the area as Kacha Road.

4. By a Gazette Notification on 31.1.1980 the Government of Karnataka published a Notification under Section 19(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) making known about the sanction of an improvement scheme for the formation of layout called "West of Chord Road, IV Stage", and the publication of preliminary Notification on 25-7-1974 and the declaration then made under Section 19 of the Act that the lands specified in the said Notification, noticed supra, are needed for a public purpose for the formation of the layout in question. Thereafter, an Award was also said to have been passed on 19.3.1981 in respect of Survey No. 81/2 measuring 27 guntas and possession of the same was also taken for forming a road. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, B.D.A., was also appointed to perform the functions of the Deputy Commissioner under the Land Acquisition Act in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 36 of the Act road with sub-section (2) of Sections 6 and 7 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended and extended from time to time by the Land Acquisition (Karnataka Extension and Amendment) Act, 1961. The appellant claims that the Commissioner of the Bangalore Development A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 411

IMPORTANT POINTSections 6 and 11A of Land Acquisition Act, as amended and inserted by the Central Amendment Act of 1984, do not apply to proceedings under the Bangalore Development Authority Act.

Cases Referred (6)

IMPORTANT POINT
Sections 6 and 11A of Land Acquisition Act, as amended and inserted by the Central Amendment Act of 1984, do not apply to proceedings under the Bangalore Development Authority Act.