IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ALOK ARADHE, ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, JJ.
The Commissioner, Bengaluru Development Authority & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of urban Development & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 129 of 2021 (LA-BDA) In Writ Petition No. 47449 of 2018 (LA-BDA)
Decided On : 22-05-2023
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 48 - Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 - Section 17(1) and (3) – Appeal - Seeking denotification of land – whether the order dated 21.04.2014 passed in W.P.No.4287/2012 which is admittedly not been challenged by any of the parties to the said writ petition is a void order - The word "void" is relative has a relative rather than an absolute meaning. (Para 7).
Finding of the Court:
Order dated 21.04.2014 cannot be termed as void and it binds the authority which has neither chosen to seek modification of the same. Sofar reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Harshad Chiman Lal Modi vs. DLF Universal Ltd supra is concerned, suffice to say that the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with an issue of territorial jurisdiction of the Court. Therefore, the same is has no application to the facts of the case.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
This intra Court appeal emanates from an order dated 22.10.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in a Writ petition preferred by respondent No.2 (hereafter referred to as 'the land owner'). By the said order learned Single Judge has quashed the endorsements dated 18.08.2018 and 20.08.2018 issued by the State Government under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the writ petition has been allowed. In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellant, relevant facts need mention, which are stated infra.
2. The land owner was the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.95/1, measuring 1 acre 30 guntas situated at Bheemana Kuppe Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South taluk and in the part of the aforesaid land, a brick factory is built. In the aforesaid land in addition to other lands were acquired for formation of Nadaprabhu Kempegowda residential layout. Accordingly, preliminary notification dated 21.05.2008 was issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter for short referred to as 'the Act'). Thereafter, final notification dated 18.08.2020 under Section 19 of the Act measuring 1 acre 23 guntas out of the land held by the land owner. The land measuring 1 acre 30 guntas was notified for acquisition.
3. The land owner challenged the validity of the notification issued under Section 17 and 19 of the Act dated 21.05.2008 and 18.08.2018 respectively, in the writ petition namely W.P.No.4287/2012. In the aforesaid writ petition, Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter refered to as 'the authority') was also impleaded as respondent. Learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 21.04.2014 disposed of the writ petition in the following terms :
MEMO
The respondents 2 and 3 respectfully submits that in view of the status report of the Schedule Property in the above Writ Petition there is a Brick Factory in the name and style of "Beershwara Table Bricks" which is registered on 1989. Accordingly, the case of the petitioner along with the report of the Land Acquisition Section, proposal will be sent to the Government for appropriate action. In view of the same the above writ petition may be disposed off, in the interest of justice and equity".
In view of the memo, it is now for the State Government to pass appropriate orders. The State Government to pass orders. The State Government shall expedite consideration and shall pass orders on or before 30th June 2014, failing which, it shall be deemed that the lands are withdrawn from the acquisition proceedings.
The petition stands disposed of."
4. Admittedly, it is not in dispute that the State Government did not consider the prayer of the land owner within the time limit set out by the Court in the aforesaid order. Subsequently, nearly after a period of four years by an endorsement dated 18.08.2018, the claim made by the land owner under Section 48 of the Act, seeking denotification of the land, was rejected. The land owner challenged the endorsement dated 18.08.2018 and 20.08.2018 in a writ petition which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge. In the aforesaid factual background this appeal arises for our consideration.
5. Learned counsel for the authority submitted that the order dated 21.04.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4287/2012 is a nullity and therefore the issue with regard to its validity can be set-up even in the co-lateral proceeding. It is further submitted that the order dated 21.04.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge has been passed in contravention of the mandate contained in Section 48 of the Act. It is also urged that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that only on a small portion of land brick factory was built and no other structures were situated on the land. It is therefore contended
Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs. DLF Universal Ltd and Another
SupremeToday
Mere use of word "void" is not determinative of its legal impact.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an illegal order passed in contravention of a statutory mandate is not ab initio void, and the binding nature of an order passed by the court ....
Denotification and rescinding orders in land acquisition must be gazetted to protect stakeholders' rights and ensure transparency in the acquisition process.
The principle of res judicata applies to bar subsequent challenges to notifications under the Land Acquisition Act, and delay and laches in challenging land acquisition proceedings render the petitio....
(1) Power to issue Notification would include a power to rescind Notification.(2) Proceeding under Section 48(1) of Land Acquisition Act is administrative in nature.(3) An order secured by fraud and ....
Failure to comply with statutory timelines for land acquisition leads to the lapse of the acquisition, reviving the original owner's title to the land.
The authority to withdraw land acquisition ceases once possession is taken, necessitating fair hearing protections.
The exercise of power under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 must be conducted in a fair and bona fide manner, and the authority must offer an opportunity to the beneficiary before withdr....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.