Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Vikramajit Sen and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.
Bangalore Development Authority – Appellant
Vs.
Doddammuniswamappa – Respondents
Writ Appeal Nos. 768-784 of 2012 (BDA)
Decided On: 04.09.2012
The Government stood on the same footing as a private individual so far as the obligation of law is concerned. The Government, committed as it is to the rule of law, cannot claim immunity from the applicability of rule of promissory estoppel and repudiate a promise made to it on the ground that such a promise may fetter its future executive action. It was pointed out that since the doctrine of promissory estoppel is equitable doctrine it must yield when the equity so requires and if it can be shown by the Government that, having regard to the facts as they have transpired, it would be inequitable to hold the Government to the promise made by it, the Court will not raise an equity in favour of the promise and enforce the promise against the Government. Another exception carved out was that doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to compel the Government or even a private party to do an act prohibited by law.
INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - Section 115: [Vikramajit Sen, Chief Justice & Mrs. B.V. Nagarathna, JJ] Doctrine of promissory estoppel - The doctrine of promissory estoppel is not based on the principle of estoppel. It is a doctrine evolved by equity in order to prevent injustice. Where a party by his word or conduct makes a promise to another person in unequivocal and clear terms intending to create legal relations knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the party to whom the promise is made and it is so acted upon by the other party the promise would be binding on the party making it. It would not be entitled to go back on the promise made.
The Government stood on the same footing as a private individual so far as the obligation of law is concerned. The Government, committed as it is to the rule of law, cannot claim immunity from the applicability of rule of promissory estoppel and repudiate a promise made to it on the ground that such a promise may fetter its future executive action. It was pointed out that since the doctrine of promissory estoppel is equitable doctrine it must yield when the equity so requires and if it can be shown by the Government that, having regard to the facts as they have transpired, it would be inequitable to hold the Government to the promise made by it, the Court will not raise an equity in favour of the promise and enforce the promise against the Government. Another exception carved out was that doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to compel the Government or even a private party to do an act prohibited by law.
KARNATAKA PARKS, PLAY FIELDS & OPEN SPACES (PRESERVATION & REGULATION) ACT, 1985 - Sections 2(f), 2(g), 2(h): [Vikramajit Sen, Chief Justice & Mrs. B.V. Nagarathna, JJ] Intent and scope - The intention behind the statute is indeed salutary inasmuch as it acknowledge the wisdom of the implacable and abiding necessity of maintaining ’open space’, ’park’ and ’play field’ in urban conglomeration. The accent and emphasis is on enforcing an embargo on public using existing ’park’ ’play-fields’ and ’open space’ to alternative use even as civic amenity of hospital etc.
KARNATAKA PARKS, PLAY FIELDS & OPEN SPACES (PRESERVATION & REGULATION) ACT, 1985 - Sections 2(f), 2(g), 2(h): [Vikramajit Sen, Chief Justice & Mrs. B.V. Nagarathna, JJ] The intention behind the statute is indeed salutary inasmuch as it acknowledge the wisdom of the implacable and abiding necessity of maintaining ’open space’, ’park’ and ’play field’ in urban conglomeration. The accent and emphasis is on enforcing an embargo on public using existing ’park’ ’play-fields’ and ’open space’ to alternative use even as civic amenity of hospital etc.
Vikramajit Sen, J.
1. These Appeals have been filed by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), assailing the Order of the learned Single Judge allowing several writ petitions filed by owners/occupants of the lands which were part of the subject matter of acquisition pursuant to the Preliminary and Final Notifications issued in the year 1964, i.e., half a century ago. This acquisition was intended for the formation of a layout called HAL-II Stage by the erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board which has been succeeded by the BDA. The prayers in the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge who passed the impugned Order dated 16.09.2010 in W.P. Nos. 37489 and 37763-37778 of 2009 read thus:
(a) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent B.D.A. to implement the Board Resolution dated 06.08.1982 in Subject No. 168 to re-convey the lands 1A-06 Guntas in Sy. No. 107/1, 107/2 and 112 of Thippasandra village to its respective owners forthwith, and restrain BDA 2nd respondent by writ of prohibition from interfering with the use and enjoyment of respective owners.
(b) Direct the 3rd respondent for issuance of khatha Certificates to the respective owners in Sy. No. 107/1, 107/2 and 112 of Thippasandra village in pursuance of the re-conveyance of the lands by the B.D.A. for the benefit of its actual owners.
(c) Declare that the letter dated 26.05.2009 in No. BDA/TPM/CLU-149/2009-10 issued by the Respondent-4 Town Planning Member is illegal, void and unconstitutional and not binding on the respective owners of lands in Sy. Nos. 107/1, 107/2 and 112 of Thippasandra village, to an extent of 01 Acre 06 Guntas.
The operative part of the impugned Order reads as follows:
"A mandamus shall ensue to the 2nd respondent-BDA to implement the resolution dated 6.10.1982 in Subject No. 168 Annexure-"A", form the layout of sites in the said area, allot the sites in favour of the petitioners on receipt of the betterment fee under the BDA Act, 1976, while ensuring that the existing buildings are not demolished, in any event, within a period of six months.
It is needless to state that the petitioners would not obstruct BDA in the formation of the roads.
The communication dated 26.05.2009 Annexure-"S" of the 4th respondent is quashed."
Although a notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 came to be issued for acquisition of total extent of land measuring 04 acres 20 guntas in four survey numbers, the uncontroverted position is that possession of land admeasuring 1 acre 06 guntas in three survey numbers, that is 17 guntas in Sy. No. 107/1, 16 guntas in Sy. No. 107/2; and 13 guntas in Sy. No. 112/2 of Thippasandra village was not taken over for the reason that it was fully built up and occupied by a large number of persons. A resolution came to be passed by the BDA on 06.10.1982 (also mentioned as 06.08.1992) for reconveyance of this fraction of the land which was the subject matter of the acquisition, on verification of the title and on calculation of reconveyance charges as per the Rules. It is also not disputed that the BDA in its subsequent meeting held on 23.10.1996 reiterated its resolve to reconvey the land in question to the Petitioners/owners/occupants on payment of betterment fee of Rs. 2,77,385/-, at the rate of Rs. 10/- per square meters. A public notice also came to be issued by the BDA on 11.03.1998 proposing to change the use of the subject land from park to residential.
2. The issuance of the public notice dated 11.03.1998 had the effect of following of a so-called Public Interest Litigation bearing Writ Petition No. 5950/1998. We used the phrase 'so-called' for the reason that, the petitioners in those proceedings were the allottees of plots situated in the subject 01 acre 06 guntas of land. By Orders dated 26.07.2004, the Division Bench presided over by the Hon'ble Chief Justice had dismissed the Public Interest Litigation with costs; making it clear that the dismissal of PIL would not preclude the BDA
SupremeToday
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
