2022 Supreme(SC) 681

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. KHANWILKAR, DINESH MAHESHWARI, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
The Karnataka Housing Board and Another – Appellants
Versus
State of Karnataka and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. of 2021, 7011-7013, 7017-7019, 9002-9003 of 2013, SLP (C) No. 1361 of 2021
Decided On : 28-07-2022

The initiation of proceedings for acquisition of land for the purposes of the Karnataka Housing Board, invoking the power under Section 33(2) of the Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962, without the housing scheme being in existence or the housing scheme not having been sanctioned under Section 24(2) thereof, would not render such acquisition proceedings void and non-est.

Headnote:

Whether initiation of proceedings for acquisition of land for the purposes of the Karnataka Housing Board, invoking the power under Section 33(2) of the Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962, without the housing scheme being in existence or the housing scheme not having been sanctioned under Section 24(2) thereof, would render such acquisition proceedings void and non-est.

Fact of the Case:

The Government of Karnataka as per Annexure ‘A’ Notification dated 15.12.1998, (marked thus in the appeal) issued under Clause (c) of Section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “L.A. Act”) appointed the Housing Commissioner of KHB to perform the functions of Deputy Commissioner under Section 4 of the L.A. Act in respect of the lands to be acquired for the purposes of KHB in Bengaluru and Mysore Revenue Divisions, namely, Bengaluru Urban and Bengaluru Rural, etc. S.3(c) itself makes it clear that the appropriate Government is empowered to appoint any officer to perform the functions of a collector under the L.A. Act. In exercise of the powers thus conferred, the Housing Commissioner, KHB, issued Annexure ‘B’ Preliminary Notification dated 18.4.2007 under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act in respect of two places, namely, Kowdenahalli village and K.R. Puram village in Bengaluru District for acquisition of a total extent of 56 acres and 37 guntas of land, for the housing projects of KHB. The said Notification was published in the official Gazette on 12.07.2007 and thereafter, in two daily newspapers on 18.08.2007 and local offices during the period from 13.08.2007 to 24.08.2007. Subsequently, the State Government issued the declaration and final Notification Annexure ‘C’ under Section 6(1) of the L.A. Act, dated 26.3.2009 declaring that the notified properties are required for public purpose, i.e. for construction of different categories of houses by KHB. It was also duly published in the official Gazette and in two local newspapers.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the initiation of proceedings for acquisition of land for the purposes of the Karnataka Housing Board, invoking the power under Section 33(2) of the Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962, without the housing scheme being in existence or the housing scheme not having been sanctioned under Section 24(2) thereof, would not render such acquisition proceedings void and non-est.

Issues: Whether initiation of proceedings for acquisition of land for the purposes of the Karnataka Housing Board, invoking the power under Section 33(2) of the Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962, without the housing scheme being in existence or the housing scheme not having been sanctioned under Section 24(2) thereof, would render such acquisition proceedings void and non-est.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that Section 33(2) of the Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962, empowers the KHB to take steps for compulsory acquisition of any land or any interest therein, required for the execution of a housing scheme in the manner provided in the L.A. Act, as modified by KHB Act. The Court further held that the L.A. Act stands modified by KHB Act to the extent that the acquisition of land or interest therein for the purposes of KHB Act shall be deemed as an acquisition for the purpose within the meaning of L.A. Act, viz. Section 3(f) of the L.A. Act that defines “public purpose.” Therefore, the Court held that in terms of the same L.A. Act stands modified by KHB Act to the extent mentioned above. Hence, it would be suffice if the Notification specifies that the acquisition is for the purpose of KHB.

Final Decision: The Court set aside the judgment and order dated 01.12.2020 in Writ Appeal No. 5712/2012, where the law on the question was exposited to the contrary. Consequently, it set aside Writ Petition No. 25184/2011 from which Writ Appeal No. 5712/2012 arose, and dismissed the same. The Court also directed that Civil Appeals Nos. 7011-7013/2013, 9002-9003/2013 and 7017-7019/2013 shall be listed before an appropriate Bench for consideration on their own merits, subject to this judgment.