2005 Supreme(SC) 1289

2005(7) Supreme 433
Supreme Court of India
(From Karnataka High Court)
Ashok Bhan & S.B. Sinha, JJ.
Bangalore Development Authority & Ors. —Appellants
versus
R. Hanumaiah & Ors. —Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 971 of 2003
Decided on 3-10-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Altaf Ahmad, Sr. Advocate, S.K. Kulkarni and Vijay Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondents : K. Ramamurthy, Sr. Advocate, V. Anand, B.K. Choudhary, Arul Muruganandham N.K., K. Lingaraja and E.C. Vidya Sagar, Advocates.

Important point
Bangalore Development Authority Act does not confer any power on the Bangalore Development Authority to reconvey the land vested in it, upon acquisition of the land, the same vests in the State.

Headnote:(i) Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 As Amended by Bangalore Development Authorities (Amendment) Act, 1993—Section 38-C rw/s 9—Re-conveyance of land out of total land acquired—Powers of Bangalore Development Authority—A preliminary notification was published proposing to acquire land of respondent for formation of a scheme to set up a layout—Award was made in 1966—Amount of compensation was paid—In cases in which reference had been sought for enhancement of compensation, amount of compensation was deposited in the Civil Court—Immediately after passing of the award, possession of the land in question was taken—On 26.6.1968 a resolution was passed by the Bangalore Board to reconvey an extent of 8 acres and 21 guntas of land out of total land acquired to 1st respondent—1st respondent gave it in writing to the authority that amount of compensation deposited in Civil Court would not be withdrawn by him or claimed by him—He withdrew his reference application—However, subsequently, resolution passed by the authority to reconvey 6 acres and 20 guntas of land was not given effect to—Formation of sites in 6 acres and 20 guntas and their allotment—Writ petition filed by 1st respondent—Whether directions can be issued to the Bangalore Development Authority to reconvey the land—(No)—There is no provision in the Act or Rules enabling the Authority to reconvey the land—Principle of promissory estoppel held not applicable—Evidence Act, 1872—Section 115.

       Held : There is no provision in the Act and the Rules framed thereunder enabling the BDA to re-convey the land acquired to implement a scheme for forming of sites and their allotment as per rules. The rules do not provide for re-conveyance. In the absence of any provision in the Act or the Rules framed thereunder authorizing the BDA to re-convey the land direction cannot be issued to the BDA to re-convey a part of the land on the ground that it had promised to do so. The rule of promissory estoppel cannot be availed to permit or condone a breach of law. It cannot be invoked to compel the Government to do an act prohibited by law. It would be going against the statute. The principle of promissory estoppel would under the circumstances be not applicable to the case in hand. (Para 38)

       Notification under Section 4 was issued under the Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which is pari materia with the Central Act i.e. Land Acquisition Act. By the Land Acquisition (Karnataka Extension & Amendment) Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act No. 17 of 1961) the earlier Act of Mysore State was repealed and the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894) was extended to the whole of the State of Karnataka in its application to the State of Karnataka. It was specifically provided that all amendments made by the Act repealed shall cease to continue and shall be omitted from the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 and such of the provisions thereof as were affected by the repealed Act shall stand revived to the extent to which they would have otherwise continued in operation but for the passing of the repealed Act. Preliminary notification under Section 4 dated 26.11.1959 was published under the Karnataka Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (The Mysore Land Acquisition Act). But all proceedings thereafter including the final notification and the subsequent proceedings were under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Division Bench in the impugned order has taken the view applying the principle laid down in Section 21 of the General Clauses Act which provides that power to issue the notification, order or rules or bye-laws would include the power to add, amend, vary or rescind any notification, order, rule or bye-law held that where the authority is vested with the power to do something then it is entrusted with the power to undo it as well. Since the State Government had the power to acquire the land it has the power to release the land from the acquisition as well. In our considered view, the Division Bench has erred in holding that the State Government could release the lands in exercise of its power under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 from the acquisition. (Paras 46 to 48)

       The possession of the land in question was taken in the year 1966 after the passing of the award by the Land Acquisition Officer. Thereafter, the land vested in the Government which was then transferred to CITB, predecessor-in-interest of the appellant. After the vesting of the land and taking possession thereof, the notification for acquiring the land could not be withdrawn or cancelled in exercise of powers under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. Power under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act cannot be exercised after vesting of the land statutorily in the State Government. (Para 51)

       In equity we deem it appropriate to direct the appellant to pay the amount of compensation which was determined by the Land Acquisition Officer along with enhanced compensation which may have been granted by the High Court in any of the reference filed either by the 1st respondent or any other land owner inclusive of statutory benefits with interest @ 9 per annum with effect from the date on which it became due till its payment. As the 1st respondent has been deprived of the amount due for quite some time we direct the appellant to re-deposit the entire amount within three months from today. (Para 65)

       It is not in dispute that Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act would apply to the acquisitions made under the 1976 Act and in that view of the matter the State could exercise its jurisdiction for re-conveyance of the property in favour of the owner thereof only in the event possession thereof had not been taken. Once such possession is taken even the State cannot direct re-convey the property. It has been accepted before us that Section 21 of the General Clauses Act has no application but reliance has been sought to be placed on Section 65 of the 1976 Act which empowers the Government to issue such directions to the authority as in its opinion are necessary or expedient for carrying out the purpose of the Act. The power of the State Government being circumscribed by the conditions precedent laid down therein and, thus, the directions can be issued only when the same are necessary or expedient for carrying out the purpose of the Act. In a case of this nature, the State Government did not have any such jurisdiction and, thus, the Bangalore Development Authority has rightly refused to comply therewith. (Para 60)

       (ii) Evidence Act, 1872—Section 115—Estoppel—Principle of—Doctrine of Promissory estoppel is not based on principle of estoppel—It is a doctrine evolved by equity in order to prevent injustice—There can be no estoppel against the statute.

       Held : The doctrine of promissory estoppel is not based on the principle of estoppel. It is a doctrine evolved by equity in order to prevent injustice. Where a party by his word or conduct makes a promise to another person in unequivocal and clear terms intending to create legal relations knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the party to whom the promise is made and it is so acted upon by the other party the promise would be binding on the party making it. It would not be entitled to go back on the promise made. (Para 32)