1996 Supreme(SC) 1522

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Kuldip Singh : S.Saghir Ahmad
H.C.Venkataswamy
Versus
Bangalore Development Authority
Date of Decision : 9/23/96

Headnote:

Bangalore Development Authority (Third Amendment) Act, 1993 – Sections 9,5 - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Section 4 - Principle Act - Section 38-C - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Bangalore Development Authority - land owned by the appellants was acquired by Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) for a development scheme called "Rajamahal Vilas II Stage". BDA passed a resolution dated 26-6-1984 whereunder it was decided that each of the appellants would be given a site measuring 40 x 60 free of cost. BDA did not implement the decision on the ground that the resolution was not approved by the State Government. The appellants challenged the decision of the State Government by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Karnataka High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court by the judgment dated 8-2-1991 dismissed the writ petition. These appeals are directed against the judgment of the High Court. - : Land bearing various survey numbers measuring 1134 acres and 12 guntas owned by the appellants and other landowners was acquired by BDA for the development scheme as stated above. Under the scheme 558 high- income group houses were to be constructed. The appellants and other landowners (all farmers) did not allow the layout work to be carried out by BDA primarily on the ground that adequate compensation had not been awarded. The farmers physically obstructed the execution of the scheme. BDA failed to execute the scheme even with the help of police. As stated above, the resistance on the part of the farmers was primarily because of the low compensation offered to them. They were agitating for higher compensation. They also made representations before the State Government. As BDA was keen to execute the scheme, without any further delay it initiated discussion with the farmers to amicably settle the dispute. The settlement reached between the farmers and BDA was finally incorporated in the resolution dated 26-6-1984 – Held, 38-C. Power of Authority to make allotment in certain cases. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law or any development scheme sanctioned under this Act, or City Improvement Trust Board Act, 1985 where the Authority or the erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore has already passed a resolution in favour of any persons any site formed in the land which belong to them or vested in or acquired by them for the purpose of any development scheme and on the ground that it is not practicable to include such site for the purpose of the development scheme, the Authority may allot such site by way of sale or lease in favour of such person subject to the following conditions, (a) the allottee shall be liable to pay any charges as the Authority may levy from time to time; and (b) the total extent of the site allotted under this section together with the land already held by the allottee shall not exceed the ceiling limit specified under Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976." "9. Validation of certain allotment. Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or any judgment, decree or order of any court where in pursuance to any resolution passed by the Authority or the erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore to reconvey in favour of any person any site out of the land which belonged to them or vested in or acquired by them for the purpose of any development scheme, the Authority has made allotment of such site by way of sale, lease or otherwise in favour of such person after the twentieth day of December, 1973 and before eight day of May, 1986, such allotment shall be deemed to have been validly made and shall have effect for all purpose as if, it had been made under Section 38-C of the Principle Act as amended by this Act and accordingly (a) all acts, proceedings and things done or allotment made or action taken by the Authority shall for all purpose be deemed to be and to have always been done or taken in accordance with law; (b) no suit or other proceedings shall be instituted, maintained or continued in any court for cancellation of such allotment or for questioning the validity of any action or things taken or done under Section 38-C of the Principal Act as amended by this Act, and no court shall enforce or recognise any decree or order declaring such allotment made or any action taken or things done under the Principal Act as invalid." - ) WE are of the view that the provisions of Section 9 of the Act are fully applicable to the allotments made to the appellants during the period 1984-1985. The allotments were made pursuant to the resolution of BDA dated 26-6-1984. The resolution reconveyed in favour of the appellants one site each measuring 40 x 60 out of the land which belonged to them. The land was acquired for the purpose of a development scheme. It is not disputed that the allotments were made to all the appellants by the Authority during the period after December 1983 and before May 1986. Theseconditions having been satisfied the allotments are deemed to have been validly made and skill have effect for all purposes as if the said allotments had been made under Sections 38-C of the Principal Act. Even if it is assumed that the basis for the allotment of sites to the appellants was not the same as has been provided by the Amendment Act under Section 38-C, but that would not invalidate the allotments because the deeming fiction created by Section 9 of the Amendment Act would bring the allotments within the purview of Section 38-C. The effect of the deeming fiction is that even though these allotments may not have been made under Sections 38-C they would be saved by Section 9 of the Amendment Act by virtue of the deeming fiction. - petitions are disposed of.