2004 Supreme(Kar) 575

Karnataka High Court
Junjamma - Appellant
Versus
Bangalore Development Authority - Respondent
Decided On : 09-30-04
Writ Petition : 42517 of 2002
C.W.W.P. : 42869 of 2002

Headnote:Acquisition of buildings

       EMINENT DOMAIN

       Acquisition of buildings - Whether BDA has authority to acquire buildings? Held, yes.

       [N. Kumar, J]: As is clear from the definition things attached to earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth is also included in the definition of the word "land" which has to necessarily follow that any construction/building put up on the land falls within the definition of the word "land" under the Act. Therefore, having regard to the definition of the word land under the Act, the Act authorises acquisition of buildings which are constructed on the land.

       Cases Referred : ILR 1998 KAR 4172; ILR 1997 KAR 905; ILR 1999 KAR 1147; AIR 1991 SC 686; AIR 1966 SC 1593; 1995(4) Kar. L. J. 408; ILR 1996 KAR 642; (2001)7 SCC 545; AIR 1984 SC 1767; AIR 1995 SC 705; AIR 1996 SC 114.

       Followed: 1989 (3) Kar. L. J 17; 1998(2) KLJ 274; AIR 1995 KAR 351.

       Relied: AIR 1960 SC 1203; AIR 1996 SC 671; AIR 1996 SC 697.

       Distinguished: 1992 (2) SCC 168.

       Acquisition of land outside Bangalore Metropolitan Area

       EMINENT DOMAIN

       Acquisition of land outside Bangalore Metropolitan Area - Whether BDA has jurisdiction to acquire lands outside Bangalore Metropolitan Area? Held, yes.

       [N. Kumar, J.]: In law by issuing a notification the Government can extend the area of operation of the Authority. In other words it can extend the boundaries of Bangalore Metropolitan Area. Even in the absence of such notification extending the Bangalore Metropolitan Area, the Act empowers the Authority to acquire lands which are situated outside the Bangalore Metropolitan Area for the purpose of developmental schemes in order to give effect to the object for which the Authority has been constituted under the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Authority has no jurisdiction to acquire lands which are situated outside the Bangalore Metropolitan Area or it can acquire only lands which are adjacent either to the land which is situated within the Corporation of the City of Bangalore or the Metropolitan Area.

       Appointment of LAO

       EMINENT DOMAIN

       Appointment of LAO -Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 -Acquisition by LAO appointed under BDA Act - Acquisition by LAO appointed under BDA Act - Validity of - Held, valid.

       [N. Kumar, J.]: Merely because the Additional Land Acquisition Officer of the Bangalore Development Authority is not an Officer of the Government it cannot be said that he cannot be appointed under the provisions nor such an appointment would vitiate the acquisition proceedings. Under the Act though the preliminary notification is issued by the BDA the final notification is issued by the Government after sanction of the Scheme submitted by the BDA and it is the Government which publishes the declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act. There is no substance in the contention that because of the appointment of Additional LAO attached to the BDA the acquisition proceedings are vitiated.

       Discrimination in land acquisition

       EMINENT DOMAIN

       Discrimination in land acquisition -Acquisition of land by BDA for forming layout - Whether acquisition of built up area, converted land, garden land, nursery land, land falling within green belt is liable to be quashed as similar lands are excluded from acquisition? Held, no - But, authorities should consider the objections.

       [N. Kumar, J.]: The present objection has arisen after their objections are over-ruled whereas the objections of persons who are similarly placed are accepted. Therefore the authorities have to necessarily take into consideration the material which was before them while upholding the objections of others and compare the same with the petitioners herein who have raised similar objections and then come to their own conclusion on merits and pass appropriate orders. It is in the nature of a subsequent event. Therefore, there is no necessity to quash the acquisition which is otherwise valid and legal and this it would meet the ends of justice.

       Lack of prior permission from BMRDA

       EMINENT DOMAIN

       Lack of prior permission from BMRDA- Notification for acquisition of land under Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 -Prior permission necessary before undertaking developmental work - Not necessary for acquisition - Hence, acquisition not vitiated for want of permission.

       [N. Kumar, J]: The permission under Section 10 is required before undertaking any development and not before acquiring the land for development. If after acquisition the Authority is yet to take permission from BMRDA that would not vitiate the acquisition proceedings without the prior permission of the BMRDA, the BDA cannot develop the land acquired as a layout. It is always open to the BDA to obtain the necessary permission and form the layout. On that score the acquisition of land cannot be quashed.

       Notification for acquisition of land for forming layout

       EMINENT DOMAIN

       Notification for acquisition of land for forming layout - Sanction accorded by Government under Section 18(3) of the LA Act - Whether vitiated by non-application of mind and non consideration of material facts? Held on facts, no.

       [N. Kumar, J.]: On consideration of the facts the Government has accorded sanction subject to the condition that the said layout should be formed out of the funds of the Authority and they should not seek any assistance from the Government, they would not stand as guarantors to any loan to be borrowed by the Authority nor they would be liable for any transaction entered by the Authority and the Government will in no way participate in any agreement entered into between the Authority and others and in the event if the Authority wants to change the land use they should obtain prior permission of the Government. These materials on record clearly disclose the application of the mind by the authority as well as by the Government before according sanction under Section 18(3) of the Act which is in conformity with the statutory provision and, therefore, the contention that the scheme is vitiated on account of non-application of mind has no substance.

       One final Notification for two preliminary Notifications

       EMINENT DOMAIN

       One final Notification for two preliminary Notifications - Whether bad and vitiate acquisition proceedings? Held, no.

       [N. Kumar]: The Government on its part after applying its mind to the proposals and the report of the Authority has accorded sanction. After so according sanction it has issued the declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act as required. Therefore it cannot be said that the declaration under Section 19(1) issued by the Government is vitiated for having issued the same in respect of two notifications under Section 17(1) of the Act. The said notification under Section 19(1) is not faulty, is not defective and issue of one final notification under Section 19(1) of the Act is not fatal.

       Permission to change land use

       EMINENT DOMAIN

       Permission to change land use -Whether acquisition of garden land, nursery land and converted land for forming layout is one without authority under the BDA Act? Held, no.

       [N. Kumar, J.]: The very fact that there is a provision for change of land use implies that the owner of the land is entitled to approach the planning authorities for change of land use. But, such a request is to be made by the owner of the land. The ownership of the land could be acquired by the Authority by the mode of acquisition. Therefore, not obtaining prior permission from the Planning Authority for change of land use does not in any way vitiate the acquisition of land.

       Vagueness of Notification

       EMINENT DOMAIN

       Vagueness of Notification -Notification for acquisition of land for forming layout - Challenged on grounds of vagueness, not mentioning public purpose and not giving clear description of property - Held, grounds stated not correct - Notification upheld.

       [N. Kumar, J.]: It is mentioned that it appears to the Bangalore Development Authority that the lands specified in the schedule hereto is likely to be needed for the purpose of formation of a Layout called Sir M.Visweswaraiah layout and in that regard a development scheme has been proposed and that the particulars of the scheme, the maps of the area comprised therein and the statement specifying the lands which is proposed to be acquired may be seen in the office of the Additional Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Development Authority Bangalore, during the office hours on all working days. Thus, the notification issued under Section 17(1) of the Act complies with all the legal requirements mentioned in the aforesaid provision. It is not vague. The notification issued is strictly in conformity with the requirements of law. The land sought to be acquired is clearly mentioned by giving the names of the kathedars/anubhavadars, the survey numbers, the nature of the land, the extent of land owned, extent of land proposed for acquisition and the boundaries of the land which is proposed to be acquired, name of the Village where the land is situated and also the total land acquired under the scheme. Under these circumstances, merit in the submission that the notification is liable to be quashed on the ground of vagueness.

       Validity of acquisition

       EMINENT DOMAIN

       Validity of acquisition - Prior approval from Government not obtained - Whether acquisition is vitiated by? Held, no.

       [N. Kumar, J]: Sub-section (2) of Section 15 makes it very clear that if the authority has sufficient resources or if a local authority places at the disposal of the authority the necessary funds for framing and carrying out any scheme they can take up new or additional development schemes. Therefore, it is clear only for the expenditure to be incurred either for undertaking, framing or execution of the developmental scheme previous approval of the Government is required. If the authority is able to take up these developmental scheme on its own and it does not depend upon the Government for raising the necessary resources, then there is no necessity to have the previous approval of the Government.

       Acquisition of land outside Bangalore Metropolitan Area

       BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1976 - Sections 2(c) & 35 -Acquisition of land outside Bangalore Metro-politan Area - Whether BDA has jurisdiction to acquire lands outside Bangalore Metropolitan Area? Held, yes.

       [N. Kumar, J.]: In law by issuing a notification the Government can extend the area of operation of the Authority. In other words it can extend the boundaries of Bangalore Metropolitan Area. Even in the absence of such notification extending the Bangalore Metropolitan Area, the Act empowers the Authority to acquire lands which are situated outside the Bangalore Metropolitan Area for the purpose of developmental schemes in order to give effect to the object for which the Authority has been constituted under the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Authority has no jurisdiction to acquire lands which are situated outside the Bangalore Metropolitan Area or it can acquire only lands which are adjacent either to the land which is situated within the Corporation of the City of Bangalore or the Metropolitan Area.

       Cases Referred : ILR 1998 KAR 4172; ILR 1997 KAR 905; ILR 1999 KAR 1147; AIR 1991 SC 686; AIR 1966 SC 1593; 1995(4) Kar. L. J. 408; ILR 1996 KAR 642; (2001)7 SCC 545; AIR 1984 SC 1767; AIR 1995 SC 705; AIR 1996 SC 114;

       Followed: 1989 (3) Kar. L. J 17; 1998(2) KLJ 274; AIR 1995 KAR 351;

       Relied: AIR 1960 SC 1203; AIR 1996 SC 671; AIR 1996 SC 697;

       Distinguished: 1992 (2) SCC 168.

       Acquisition of land outside Bangalore Metropolitan Area

       BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1976 - Sections 2(c) & 35 -Acquisition of land outside Bangalore Metro-politan Area - Whether BDA has jurisdiction to acquire lands outside Bangalore Metropolitan Area? Held, yes.

       [N. Kumar, J.]: In law by issuing a notification the Government can extend the area of operation of the Authority. In other words it can extend the boundaries of Bangalore Metropolitan Area. Even in the absence of such notification extending the Bangalore Metropolitan Area, the Act empowers the Authority to acquire lands which are situated outside the Bangalore Metropolitan Area for the purpose of developmental schemes in order to give effect to the object for which the Authority has been constituted under the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Authority has no jurisdiction to acquire lands which are situated outside the Bangalore Metropolitan Area or it can acquire only lands which are adjacent either to the land which is situated within the Corporation of the City of Bangalore or the Metropolitan Area.

       Cases Referred : ILR 1998 KAR 4172; ILR 1997 KAR 905; ILR 1999 KAR 1147; AIR 1991 SC 686; AIR 1966 SC 1593; 1995(4) Kar. L. J. 408; ILR 1996 KAR 642; (2001)7 SCC 545; AIR 1984 SC 1767; AIR 1995 SC 705; AIR 1996 SC 114;

       Followed: 1989 (3) Kar. L. J 17; 1998(2) KLJ 274; AIR 1995 KAR 351;

       Relied: AIR 1960 SC 1203; AIR 1996 SC 671; AIR 1996 SC 697;

       Distinguished: 1992 (2) SCC 168.

       One final Notification for two preliminary Notifications

       BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1976 - Sections 15, 17 & 19 -One final Notification for two preliminary Notifications - Whether bad and vitiate acquisition proceedings? Held, no.

       [N. Kumar]: The Government on its part after applying its mind to the proposals and the report of the Authority has accorded sanction. After so according sanction it has issued the declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act as required. Therefore it cannot be said that the declaration under Section 19(1) issued by the Government is vitiated for having issued the same in respect of two notifications under Section 17(1) of the Act. The said notification under Section 19(1) is not faulty, is not defective and issue of one final notification under Section 19(1) of the Act is not fatal.

       Validity of acquisition

       BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1976 - Sections 15 & 17 -Validity of acquisition -Prior approval from Government not obtained - Whether acquisition is vitiated by? Held, No.

       [N. Kumar, J]: Sub-section (2) of Section 15 makes it very clear that if the authority has sufficient resources or if a local authority places at the disposal of the authority the necessary funds for framing and carrying out any scheme they can take up new or additional development schemes. Therefore, it is clear only for the expenditure to be incurred either for undertaking, framing or execution of the developmental scheme previous approval of the Government is required. If the authority is able to take up these developmental scheme on its own and it does not depend upon the Government for raising the necessary resources, then there is no necessity to have the previous approval of the Government.

       Acquisition of buildings

       BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1976 - Sections 17 & 3 -Acquisition of buildings - Whether BDA has authority to acquire buildings? Held, Yes.

       [N. Kumar, J]: As is clear from the definition things attached to earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth is also included in the definition of the word "land" which has to necessarily follow that any construction/building put up on the land falls within the definition of the word "land" under the Act. Therefore, having regard to the definition of the word land under the Act, the Act authorises acquisition of buildings which are constructed on the land.

       Notification for acquisition of land for forming layout

       BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1976 - Section 17 (1) -Notification for acquisition of land for forming layout -Challenged on grounds of vagueness, not mentioning public purpose and not giving clear description of property - Held, grounds stated not correct - Notification upheld.

       [N. Kumar, J.]: It is mentioned that it appears to the Bangalore Development Authority that the lands specified in the schedule hereto is likely to be needed for the purpose of formation of a Layout called Sir M. Visweswaraiah layout and in that regard a development scheme has been proposed and that the particulars of the scheme, the maps of the area comprised therein and the statement specifying the lands which is proposed to be acquired may be seen in the office of the Additional Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Development Authority Bangalore, during the office hours on all working days. Thus, the notification issued under Section 17(1) of the Act complies with all the legal requirements mentioned in the aforesaid provision. It is not vague. The notification issued is strictly in conformity with the requirements of law. The land sought to be acquired is clearly mentioned by giving the names of the kathedars/anubhavadars, the survey numbers, the nature of the land, the extent of land owned, extent of land proposed for acquisition and the boundaries of the land which is proposed to be acquired, name of the Village where the land is situated and also the total land acquired under the scheme. Under these circumstances, there is no merit in the submission that the notification is liable to be quashed on the ground of vagueness.

       Notification for acquisition of land

       BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1976 - Section 17 -Notification for acquisition of land - Prior permission under Section 10 of Bangalore Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1985 - Necessary before undertaking developmental work - Not necessary for acquisition - Hence, acquisition not vitiated for want of prior permission.

       [N. Kumar, J]: The permission under Section 10 is required before undertaking any development and not before acquiring the land for development. If after acquisition the Authority is yet to take permission fro BMRDA that would not vitiate the acquisition proceedings without the prior permission of the BMRDA, the BDA cannot develop the land acquired as a layout. It is always open to the BDA to obtain the necessary permission and form the layout. On that score the acquisition of land cannot be quashed.

       Permission to change land use

       BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1976 - Sections 17 & 18(3) -Permission to change land use -Whether acquisition of garden land, nursery land and converted land for forming layout is one without authority under the Act? Held, No.

       [N. Kumar, J.]: The very fact that there is a provision for change of land use implies that the owner of the land is entitled to approach the planning authorities for change of land use. But, such a request is to be made by the owner of the land. The ownership of the land could be acquired by the Authority by the mode of acquisition. Therefore, not obtaining prior permission from the Planning Authority for change of land use does not in any way vitiate the acquisition of land.

       Notification for land acquisition for forming layout

       BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1976 - Section 18(3) -Notification for land acquisition for forming layout - Sanction accorded by Government under Section 18(3) of the Act - Whether vitiated by non-application of mind and non consideration of material facts? Held on facts, no.

       [N. Kumar, J.]: On consideration of the facts the Government has accorded sanction subject to the condition that the said layout should be formed out of the funds of the Authority and they should not seek any assistance from the Government, they would not stand as guarantors to any loan to be borrowed by the Authority nor they would be liable for any transaction entered by the Authority and the Government will in no way participate in any agreement entered into between the Authority and others and in the event if the Authority wants to change the land use they should obtain prior permission of the Government. These materials on record clearly disclose the application of the mind by the authority as well as by the Government before according sanction under Section 18(3) of the Act which is in conformity with the statutory provision and, therefore, the contention that the scheme is vitiated on account of non-application of mind has no substance.

       Appointment of Land Acquisition Officer under BDA Act

       BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1976 - Sections 36 & 16 -Appointment of Land Acquisition Officer under Bangalore Development Authority Act - Whether valid ? Held, yes.

       [N. Kumar, J.]: Merely because the Additional Land Acquisition Officer of the Bangalore Development Authority is not an Officer of the Government it cannot e said that he cannot to appointed under the provisions nor such an appointment would vitiate the acquisition proceedings. Under the Act though the preliminary notification is issued by the BDA the final notification is issued by the Government after sanction of the Scheme submitted by the BDA and it is the Government which publishes the declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act. There is no substance in the contention that because of the appointment of Additional LAO attached to the BDA the acquisition proceedings are vitiated.

       Lack of prior permission from BMRDA

       BANGALORE METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1985 - Section 10 -Lack of prior permission from Bangalore Metropolitan Regional Development Authority- Notification for acquisition of land under Section 17 of Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 - Prior permission necessary before undertaking developmental work - Not necessary for acquisition - Hence, acquisition not vitiated for want of permission.

       [N. Kumar, J]: The permission under Section 10 is required before undertaking any development and not before acquiring the land for development. If after acquisition the Authority is yet to take permission from BMRDA that would not vitiate the acquisition proceedings without the prior permission of the BMRDA, the BDA cannot develop the land acquired as a layout. It is always open to the BDA to obtain the necessary permission and form the layout. On that score the acquisition of land cannot be quashed.

       Cases Referred :

       Referred : ILR 1998 KAR 4172; ILR 1997 KAR 905; ILR 1999 KAR 1147; AIR 1991 SC 686; AIR 1966 SC 1593; 1995(4) Kar. L. J. 408; ILR 1996 KAR 642; (2001)7 SCC 545; AIR 1984 SC 1767; AIR 1995 SC 705; AIR 1996 SC 114;

       Followed: 1989 (3) Kar. L. J 17; 1998(2) KLJ 274; AIR 1995 KAR 351;

       Relied: AIR 1960 SC 1203; AIR 1996 SC 671; AIR 1996 SC 697;

       Distinguished: 1992 (2) SCC 168.

       Acquisition of land

       COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF BANGALORE (CDP), 1984 - Acquisition of land under Section 17 of BDA Act, 1976 - Whether acquisition of land within green belt area is void? Held, No.

       [N. Kumar, J.]: In any Comprehensive Development Plan sufficient area is to be earmarked as green belt area. If a portion of a green belt area is utilised for the formation of a layout, consequently the authorities may earmark equivalent extent of land as green belt by extending the original green belt area. That is the reason why the boundary of the Bangalore Metropolitan area is extended from time to time by issuing notifications by the Government including more and more villages. The need is ever growing. It is for the planning authorities who are vested with the power to prepare a Comprehensive Development Plan, to take into consideration the needs of the public and other factors and earmark the green belt area. However, all this would not in any way affect the power of the Government under the Land Acquisition Act or the power of the Authority or the Government under the Act to acquire land which is situated within the green belt area for the formation of layout.

       Cases Referred: ILR 1998 KAR 4172; ILR 1997 KAR 905; ILR 1999 KAR 1147; AIR 1991 SC 686; AIR 1966 SC 1593; 1995(4) Kar. L. J. 408; ILR 1996 KAR 642; (2001)7 SCC 545; AIR 1984 SC 1767; AIR 1995 SC 705; AIR 1996 SC 114.

       Followed: 1989 (3) Kar. L. J 17; 1998(2) KLJ 274; AIR 1995 KAR 351.

       Relied: AIR 1960 SC 1203; AIR 1996 SC 671; AIR 1996 SC 697.

       Distinguished: 1992 (2) SCC 168.

       Constitution of India -Discrimination in land acquisition -Article 14 -Discrimination in land acquisition -Acquisition of land by BDA for forming layout - Whether acquisition of built up area, converted land, garden land, nursery land, land falling within green belt is liable to be quashed as similar lands are excluded from acquisition? Held, no - But, authorities should consider the objections. [N. Kumar, J.]: The present objection has arisen after their objections are over-ruled whereas the objections of persons who are similarly placed are accepted. Therefore the authorities have to necessarily take into consideration the material which was before them while upholding the objections of others and compare the same with the petitioners herein who have raised similar objections and then come to their own conclusion on merits and pass appropriate orders. It is in the nature of a subsequent event. Therefore, there is no necessity to quash the acquisition which is otherwise valid and legal and this it would meet the ends of justice.

       Cases Referred : ILR 1998 KAR 4172; ILR 1997 KAR 905; ILR 1999 KAR 1147; AIR 1991 SC 686; AIR 1966 SC 1593; 1995(4) Kar. L. J. 408; ILR 1996 KAR 642; (2001)7 SCC 545; AIR 1984 SC 1767; AIR 1995 SC 705; AIR 1996 SC 114.

       Followed: 1989 (3) Kar. L. J 17; 1998(2) KLJ 274; AIR 1995 KAR 351.

       Relied: AIR 1960 SC 1203; AIR 1996 SC 671; AIR 1996 SC 697.

       Distinguished: 1992 (2) SCC 168.

       issuing notifications by the Government including more and more villages. The need is ever growing. It is for the planning authorities who are vested with the power to prepare a Comprehensive Development Plan, to take into consideration the needs of the public and other factors and earmark the green belt area. However, all this would not in any way affect the power of the Government under the Land Acquisition Act or the power of the Authority or the Government under the Act to acquire land which is situated within the green belt area for the formation of layout.

       Cases Referred: ILR 1998 KAR 4172; ILR 1997 KAR 905; ILR 1999 KAR 1147; AIR 1991 SC 686; AIR 1966 SC 1593; 1995(4) Kar. L. J. 408; ILR 1996 KAR 642; (2001)7 SCC 545; AIR 1984 SC 1767; AIR 1995 SC 705; AIR 1996 SC 114.

       Followed: 1989 (3) Kar. L. J 17; 1998(2) KLJ 274; AIR 1995 KAR 351.

       Relied: AIR 1960 SC 1203; AIR 1996 SC 671; AIR 1996 SC 697.

       Distinguished: 1992 (2) SCC 168.

       Discrimination

       CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Article 14 -Discrimination in land acquisition -Acquisition of land by BDA for forming layout - Whether acquisition of built up area, converted land, garden land, nursery land, land falling within green belt is liable to be quashed as similar lands are excluded from acquisition? Held, no - But, authorities should consider the objections.

       [N. Kumar, J.]: The present objection has arisen after their objections are over-ruled whereas the objections of persons who are similarly placed are accepted. Therefore the authorities have to necessarily take into consideration the material which was before them while upholding the objections of others and compare the same with the petitioners herein who have raised similar objections and then come to their own conclusion on merits and pass appropriate orders. It is in the nature of a subsequent event. Therefore, there is no necessity to quash the acquisition which is otherwise valid and legal and this it would meet the ends of justice.

       Cases Referred : ILR 1998 KAR 4172; ILR 1997 KAR 905; ILR 1999 KAR 1147; AIR 1991 SC 686; AIR 1966 SC 1593; 1995(4) Kar. L. J. 408; ILR 1996 KAR 642; (2001)7 SCC 545; AIR 1984 SC 1767; AIR 1995 SC 705; AIR 1996 SC 114.

       Distinguished: 1992 (2) SCC 168.

       Followed: 1989 (3) Kar. L. J 17; 1998(2) KLJ 274; AIR 1995 KAR 351.

       Relied: AIR 1960 SC 1203; AIR 1996 SC 671; AIR 1996 SC 697.

       Acquisition of land by BDA

       KARNATAKA MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1964 - Sections 170 & 171 -Acquisition of land by BDA - Prior permission of Municipal Council - Whether necessary? Held, no.

       [N. Kumar, J]: Section 170 deals with forming of new extensions or layouts or making new private streets. Section 171 deals with alternation or demolition of extension, layout or streets. All that Section 170 states is notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law for the time being in force no person shall form or attempt to form any extension or layout for the purpose of constructing buildings thereon or make any new private street without the express sanction in writing of the Municipal Council and except in accordance with such conditions as the Municipal Council may specify. Therefore that provision does not prohibit acquisition of land but it states that if any layout is to be formed within the limits of the Municipality permission of the Municipality is required.

       Cases Referred : ILR 1998 KAR 4172; ILR 1997 KAR 905; ILR 1999 KAR 1147; AIR 1991 SC 686; AIR 1966 SC 1593; 1995(4) Kar. L. J. 408; ILR 1996 KAR 642; (2001)7 SCC 545; AIR 1984 SC 1767; AIR 1995 SC 705; AIR 1996 SC 114.

       Distinguished: 1992 (2) SCC 168.

       Followed: 1989 (3) Kar. L. J 17; 1998(2) KLJ 274; AIR 1995 KAR 351.

       Relied: AIR 1960 SC 1203; AIR 1996 SC 671; AIR 1996 SC 697.

       Acquisition of land by BDA

       KARNATAKA MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1964 - Sections 170 & 171 -Acquisition of land by BDA - Prior permission of Municipal Council - Whether necessary? Held, no.

       [N. Kumar, J]: Section 170 deals with forming of new extensions or layouts or making new private streets. Section 171 deals with alternation or demolition of extension, layout or streets. All that Section 170 states is notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law for the time being in force no person shall form or attempt to form any extension or layout for the purpose of constructing buildings thereon or make any new private street without the express sanction in writing of the Municipal Council and except in accordance with such conditions as the Municipal Council may specify. Therefore that provision does not prohibit acquisition of land but it states that if any layout is to be formed within the limits of the Municipality permission of the Municipality is required.

       Cases Referred : ILR 1998 KAR 4172; ILR 1997 KAR 905; ILR 1999 KAR 1147; AIR 1991 SC 686; AIR 1966 SC 1593; 1995(4) Kar. L. J. 408; ILR 1996 KAR 642; (2001)7 SCC 545; AIR 1984 SC 1767; AIR 1995 SC 705; AIR 1996 SC 114.

       Distinguished: 1992 (2) SCC 168.

       Followed: 1989 (3) Kar. L. J 17; 1998(2) KLJ 274; AIR 1995 KAR 351.

       Relied: AIR 1960 SC 1203; AIR 1996 SC 671; AIR 1996 SC 697.

       Acquisition of land by BDA in Panchayat limits -

        KARNATAKA PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT, 1993 - Sections 63, 310 & 315 -Acquisition of land by BDA in Panchayat limits - Whether permitted? Held, yes.

       [N. Kumar, J.]: Section 310 deals with establishment of District Planning Committee. Section 315 empowers the Grama Panchayat to make bye-laws for prevention of erection of building, form layout etc. None of these provisions contain any prohibition for acquisition of land within their limits belonging to the private persons for formation of layouts.

       Acquisition by LAO appointed under BDA Act

       LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - Section 4 -Acquisition by LAO appointed under BDA Act - Validity of - Held, valid.

       [N. Kumar, J.]: Merely because the Additional Land Acquisition Officer of the Bangalore Development Authority is not an Officer of the Government it cannot be said that he cannot be appointed under the provisions nor such an appointment would vitiate the acquisition proceedings. Under the Act though the preliminary notification is issued by the BDA the final notification is issued by the Government after sanction of the Scheme submitted by the BDA and it is the Government which publishes the declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act. There is no substance in the contention that because of the appointment of Additional LAO attached to the BDA the acquisition proceedings are vitiated.

       Cases Referred :

       ILR 1998 KAR 4172; ILR 1997 KAR 905; ILR 1999 KAR 1147; AIR 1991 SC 686; AIR 1966 SC 1593; 1995(4) Kar. L. J. 408; ILR 1996 KAR 642; (2001)7 SCC 545; AIR 1984 SC 1767; AIR 1995 SC 705; AIR 1996 SC 114;

       Distinguished: 1992 (2) SCC 168.

       Followed: 1989 (3) Kar. L. J 17; 1998(2) KLJ 274; AIR 1995 KAR 351.

       Relied: AIR 1960 SC 1203; AIR 1996 SC 671; AIR 1996 SC 697.