Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 Supreme(SC) 736

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, JJ.
N.A.L. Layout Residents Association – Appellants
Versus
Bangalore Development Authority & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos.9790-9791 of 2017 (Arising Out of SLP(C) Nos. 5911-5912 of 2010)
With
P.M. Anupkumar – Appellant
Versus
Bangalore Development Authority & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos.9792-9793 of 2017 (Arising Out Of SLP(C) Nos. 29553-29554 of 2011)
Decided On : 09-08-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Rajesh Mahale, (M/s. Khaitan & Co.), Adv.
For the Respondents:- K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv., Navin Prakash, Ms. N. Annapoorani, S.J. Amith, Dr. (Mrs. ) Vipin Gupta, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, S.K. Kulkarni, M. Gireesh Kumar, Ankur S. Kulkarni, (Respondent-in-person), R. Gopalakrishnan, Joseph Aristotle S., Ms. Priya Aristotle, Ashish Yadav, Ms. Romsha Raj, Advs.

IMPORTANT POINTS
Jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 136 is discretionary and equitable in nature.
Provision of section 21 of General Clauses Act, 1897 applies to exercise of power u/s 48 also.
Writ petitions decided earlier on same cause of action between same parties operate as res judicata.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 136 is discretionary and equitable in nature – Appeals held maintainable. (Para 27)
       (b) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Locus standi of appellant – BDA allotting land to N.A.L. Employees Cooperative Housing Society which in turn allotted individual plots to the residents – Residents in turn forming the Association – Association espousing cause of residents foiling instant appeal – Held, association has locus to file the appeal. (Para 28, 29)
       (c) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 48 – Withdrawal from acquisition has to be notified. (Para 31)
       (1998) 4 SCC 387 – Relied upon
       (d) General Clauses Act, 1897 – Section 21 – Applies to Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Notification u/s 4 and declaration u/s 6 can be cancelled where notification u/s 9 has not been issued – However, notifications u/s 4 and 6 cannot be rescinded where much has been done towards the acquisition process. (Para 33, 34)
       (1998) 4 SCC 387 – Relied upon
       (1996) 4 SCC 212; (1996) 8 SCC 259; (2009) 10 SCC 501; (2016) 9 SCC 13 – Referred
       (e) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 48 – Notification issued u/s 8 can be cancelled by another notification – Provision of section 21 of General Clauses Act, 1897 applies to exercise of power u/s 48 also. (Para 35)
       AIR 1966 SC 1593 – Relied upon
       (f) Land acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 16(2) – Taking possession of acquired land – Notification u/s 16(2) published in the Karnataka Gazette evidencing the fact of possession – Besides, High Court, in earlier proceedings returning finding that possession has been taken and the land has vested in the State/ BDA – Impugned judgment contrary to earlier findings held unsustainable – Res judicata. (Para 59, 61)
       (1976) 1 SCC 700; (1996) 4 SCC 212; (2011) 5 SCC 394; (2005) 12 SCC 489 – Relied upon
       (g) Administration of justice – Equity – Two writ petitions filed by land owners praying for de-notification of acquired land dismissed – Land owners approaching State Government suppressing this fact – Not permissible. (Para 68, 70)
       Facts of the case:
       The State Government withdrew Survey No.50, area 6 acres, 20 guntas from the acquisition on basis of representations made by lands owners. However coming to know that the possession of land has already been taken and hence it cannot be withdrawn, the notification was cancelled by another notification.
       Writ petition filed by the land owners challenging the second notification was allowed.
       However the order was reversed in writ appeal.
       Finding of the Court:
       Impugned judgment is not sustainable.
       Result: Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

Ashok Bhushan, J.

The issue raised in these two appeals centres around the Notification dated 12.04.2001, issued by State Government, withdrawing Survey No.50, area 6 acres, 20 guntas from the acquisition made by the State Government by Notification under Section 4 dated 19.09.1977 and declaration under Section 6 dated 07.02.1978 of the of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1894").

2. All the appeals have been filed against the Division Bench judgment dated 11.12.2008 dismissing the Writ Appeal filed against the judgment dated 30.03.2007 in Writ Petition No.13404 of 2005. Writ Petition No.13404 of 2005 was filed by the land owners challenging the Notification dated 22.03.2005 issued by the State Government by which the State Government had withdrawn the earlier Notification dated 12.04.2001. The learned Single Judge had allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the Notification dated 22.03.2005 and restoring the earlier Notification dated 12.04.2001 by which Survey No.50 was withdrawn from acquisition.

3. Land acquisition proceeding for acquisition of various plots including Survey No.50(which is the subject matter of dispute) has a chequered history. It is necessary to note the series of events and various litigations undertaken by the parties and their predecessors before we consider the issues raised in these appeals.

4. The Bangalore Development Authority framed a Scheme for formation of layout known as BTM layout which was sanctioned by State of Karnataka. For the above purpose the State of Karnataka decided to acquire land to the extent of 1703-10 acres. A Notification under Section 4 dated 19.09.1977 was published on 29.09.1977. Declaration under Section 6 dated 07.02.1978 was issued, which was published on 09.03.1978, acquiring large extent of land. The acquired land included Survey No.50, 51 and 52 of the Tavarekere Village. Notice under Section 9 of the Act was published on 05.06.1978. Land owners filed W.P.Nos.21097-21107 of 1983, praying for quashing the Notification dated 19.09.1977 under Section 4 and Notification dated 07.02.1978 under Section 6. The Writ Petitions were dismissed by the High Court vide its judgment and order dated 10.02.1984. Writ Appeal Nos.271-281 of 1984, challenging the judgment of the Single Judge were also dismissed. The award was passed on 08.02.1984, which was approved by the competent authority on 19.03.1984. On 23.03.1984, the possession of Survey No.50 at Tavarekere Village was taken and handed over to the Bangalore Development Authority by going on to the spot and preparing a Mahazer. Compensation for Survey No.50 was also deposited in the Civil Court. A Notification dated 07.05.1985 under Section 16(2) of the Act was also published in the Karnataka Gazette on 24.10.1985 notifying the taking of possession of the land.

5. The Writ Petition No.5508 of 1984 was filed by Munivenkatappa, one of the co-land owners, challenging Notification under Section 4 to 6. The Writ Petition was dismissed by Karnataka High Court vide its judgment dated 14.12.1984. The High Court in its judgment also held that the development plan has been completed by the Bangalore Development Authority and the Scheme is in process of implementation. N.A.L. Employees Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. had made a request to Bangalore Development Authority for allotment for forming a housing colony. BDA passed a resolution dated 17.11.1982, allotting an area of 8 acres of land for forming a housing colony. The Sale Deed dated 09.05.1985 was executed by BDA in favour of NAL Employees Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. which included land in Survey Nos.50, 51 and 52. In spite of sale, in favour of N.A.L. Employees Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as 'Society'), family members of the owners attempted to interfere in the possession of the society. Hence, the OS No.1492 of 1985 was filed for permanent injunction. Trial Court granted a temporary injunction, which was confirmed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 Supreme(SC) 736

Cases Referred (9)