Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, S. ABDUL NAZEER, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
M/s. Vinayak House Building Cooperative Society Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka & Ors - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3600 of 2011 With Contempt Petition (C) No. 823 of 2018 IN Civil Appeal No. 3600 of 2011
Decided On : 26-08-2019
(a) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 48 - Withdrawal of acquisition - Denotification of land - Before taking possession - Payment of compensation to owner - Power should not be exercised in arbitrary and whimsical manner - Beneficiary of acquisition has to be given an opportunity of hearing. (Para 27, 28)
(b) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 48 - Government should refrain from denotifying or dropping any land being acquired for the formation of a layout - Courts should also be very strict while considering the plea of the landowners seeking denotification - State Government directed to reconsider all orders denotifying lands issued during last 10-15 years (Para 38, 48)
(c) Bangalore Development Act, 1976 - Section 32 - Denotified land lying in approved layout plan - Likely to result in curtailment of civic amenities - Not desirable. (Para 39)
(d) Bangalore Development Act, 1976 - Sections 17 to 19 and 32 r/w section 14-A, Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 - Section 14-A empowering Planning Authority to grant permission for change of land use or development - Has no application to the lands acquired under Sections 17 to 19 of the BDA Act for implementation of scheme or the layout approved under Section 32 - Planning/development authorities prohibited from changing land use within approved layout plan. (Para 41, 42)
(e) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 48 - Appellant filing detailed objections before Government against denotification - State denotifying the disputed land without considering the objections or giving an opportunity of hearing to appellant - Non-application of mind - Order held arbitrary. (Para 45)
(f) Property law - Land acquisition - Owner selling disputed land - Having no subsisting interest in the land - Thereafter objecting to acquisition - Not entitled to object - Land resold during acquisition proceedings - Sale deed held void. (Para 47)
Facts of the case:
In the year 1982, the State Government accorded sanction for initiation of proceedings for acquisition of 78 acres 16 guntas of land for the benefit of the appellant. Even before the initiation of acquisition proceedings, Vijayanagar Industrial Workers Housing Cooperative Society Ltd had approached the appellant with a representation that it had already entered into an agreement dated 06.11.1982 with respondent No.3 to purchase the entire extent in Survey No.30, of which she claimed to be the owner. The said society requested the appellant to withdraw its request for acquisition of the said land.
The 3rd respondent, claiming to be the owner of an extent 4 acre 16 guntas of land in Sy.No.30, filed W.P. No. 12566 of 1986 before the High Court of Karnataka questioning the notifications issued under Section 4(1) and 6(1) of the L.A Act, which has been dismissed.
Respondent No.3 claiming to be the owner of 4 acres 16 guntas of land in Sy.No.30, again filed W.P. No. 5558 of 1991 before the High Court questioning the award determining the market value of the acquired land which was dismissed imposing cost. Appeal thereagainst was also dimissed with cost.
The State Government issued a withdrawal notification dated 19.08.1998 under Section 48 of the L.A Act in respect of the disputed property, even without affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The appellant challenged this order by filing writ petition No. 26558 of 1998 before the High Court which was allowed.
15. After lapse of about 5 years of the order dated 18.11.1998 in W.P. No. 26558 of 1998, in terms whereof the notification under Section 48 of L.A Act in respect of the disputed property had been quashed, the State Government issued notice to the appellant regarding its proposal to denotify the land. On 28.08.2003, the appellant filed detailed statement of objections to the proposed denotification of the acquired land. Ignoring objection raised by the appellant, the State Government proceeded to pass an order deciding to withdraw the aforesaid land measuring 3 acres 5 guntas in Sy.No.30.
Being aggrieved by the government order dated 27.12.2003 and the consequential notification dated 12.01.2004 issued under Section 48 of the L.A Act, the appellant filed W.P. No. 4912 of 2004 which was dismissed and the writ appeal filed by the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 2583 of 2004 challenging the said order has been dismissed by the Division Bench on 07.08.2008.
Finding of the Court:
Land owner has no subsisting interest in the land to object to acquisition proceedings.
Result: The appeal and all the pending applications disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
S.ABDUL NAZEER, J.
1. "Bangalore was a beautiful city – once" said Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy, in one of his judgments of the year 1987 (B.K. Srinivasan and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors.[(1987) 1 SCC 658)]). He went on to say "It was a city with magic and charm, with elegant avenues, gorgeous flowers, lovely gardens and plentiful spaces. Not now. That was before the invasion of concrete and steel, of soot and smoke, of high rise and the fast buck. Gone are the flowers, gone are the trees, gone are the avenues, gone are the spaces……" Indeed, Bangalore was a beautiful city. It had luscious gardens, beautiful lakes, well-laid roads, plenty of open spaces and wonderful weather throughout the year. It was one of the most beautiful cities in the country. It was rightly called the "Garden City" and a "Pensioner's Paradise". These are things of the past. The city's environment is degraded so much and so fast that the time will not be far away for us to say "once upon a time Bangalore was a beautiful city." Traffic jams, overcrowding, haphazard constructions, dying lakes, destruction of the flora, shrinking of lung spaces etc have become the order of the day. Its clear cool foggy air has turned into grey smoke and brown dust. All this has happened in the name of development. Of course, the development in today's time comes at a cost that the city of Bangalore has very dearly paid. What is lost has already been lost and no amount of work or effort can bring back the glorious garden days of Bangalore. The only thing that can be done and must be done is to at least wake up now, meticulously plan and develop the city in order to maintain whatever little is left of the old Bangalore city and develop the ever-growing city on the broad lines of the glorious days of the past.
2. Keeping the above in mind as a blue print, let us come to the facts of this case.
3. The appellant is a society registered under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act 1959, with the objective of inter alia acquiring lands for formation of house sites and for distributing the same to its members. The appellant had requested the State Government to acquire an extent of 100 acres of land in Nagarabhavi Village, Yeswanthapura Hobli, Bangalore. In the year 1982, the State Government accorded sanction for initiation of proceedings for acquisition of 78 acres 16 guntas of land for the benefit of the appellant. It appears that even before the initiation of acquisition proceedings, Vijayanagar Industrial Workers Housing Cooperative Society Ltd had approached the appellant with a representation that it had already entered into an agreement dated 06.11.1982 with respondent No.3 to purchase the entire extent in Survey No.30, of which she claimed to be the owner. Accordingly, the said society requested the appellant to withdraw its request for acquisition of the said land. This is evident from the agreement at Annexure P-1 entered into between the 3rd respondent and the said society. Under the said agreement, out of the total sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- per acre, respondent No.3 had received a sum of Rs.25,500/- and had parted with possession of the land in favour of the said society and stated that she had no objection to the land being acquired by the State Government.
4. In compliance with the procedure prescribed under Chapter VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'L.A. Act'), the State Government executed an agreement at Annexure P-2, undertaking to acquire land in favour of the appellant which included Sy.No.30 measuring 5 acres 33 guntas and 8 guntas of pot kharab land. On 16.01.1985, notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act was issued proposing to acquire the required extent of land including Sy.No.30. An enquiry under Section 5-A of the L.A Act was conducted and a report was submitted to the State Government recommending acquisition.
5. The State Government, having accepted the recommendation issued a declaration under Section 6(1) of t
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
