IMPORTANT POINT
Binding precedent cannot be ignored.

ORDER :

1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal Nos. 3051-3067 of 2012 and Writ Appeal No. 3492 of 2013, dated 10.12.2014.

2. Shocking state of affairs is reflected in the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka. The lands had been acquired by issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) on 26.11.1959.

3. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 28.09.1965 and award was passed on 29.11.1966. The amount of compensation was paid and possession of the land was taken in the year 1975. Some incumbents sought for relief as regards to enhancement of compensation amount by filing reference under Section 18 of the Act. On 26.06.1969 a resolution was passed by City Improvement Trust Board (CITB), Bangalore to re-convey an extent of 8 acres, 21 guntas of the total land acquired to R. Hanumaiah. Another resolution was passed by CITB on 19.04.1972 modifying its earlier resolution and agreeing to re-convey 6 acres 20 guntas and 42 Sq.yards in favour of R. Hanumaiah with some riders. After formation of site R. Hanumaiah filed petition before the High Court of Karnataka seeking mandamus directing the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) to re-convey 6 acres and 20 guntas and 42 Sq. yards of land as per resolution of CITB dated 19.04.1972.

4. The learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the Writ Petition No. 15487 of 1987 summarily at the admission stage. The Writ Appeal filed by R. Hanumaiah was also dismissed summarily. Thereafter, R. Hanumaiah approached this Court by way of filing appeal (R. Hanumaiah Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and Ors.), (2002) 10 SCC 221 decided on 31.01.2001. This Court vide afore-mentioned judgment accepted the appeal and remitted the matter to the Division Bench of the High Court to re-consider the matter on merits, in view of the contentions raised on behalf of R. Hanumaiah in a judgment in Muniyappa vs. Bangalore Development Authority, ILR 1992 Kant 125 in which the High Court had taken the view that re-conveyance was permissible.

5. The Division Bench after remand of the matter considered the matter afresh and set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge relying upon Muniyappa's case (supra). Aggrieved by the same, BDA preferred the appeal before this Court (Bangalore Development Authority and Ors. vs. R. Hanumaiah and Ors.), (2005) 12 SCC 508, decided on 03.10.2005. This Court had allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment under appeal. While dealing with the matter this Court had held that power of re-conveyance could not be exercised after vesting of the land with the State Government under provisions of Section 48 of the Act. The following discussion was made by this Court in the aforesaid decision :-

“46. 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.

47. The High Court also erred in holding that land acquisition process and the vesting process became incomplete since the land owners were asked to re-deposit the amount of compensation. High Court failed to take notice of Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 31 contemplates that on making of an award under Section 11 the Collector shall tender amount of compensation awarded by him to the person interested and entitled thereto according to the award and shall pay to them unless prevented by any one or more of the contingencies mentioned