JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 07.10.2017 passed by learned Single Judge, by which the writ petition preferred by the respondents 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as 'the land owners' for short) has been allowed and the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority' for short) has been directed to grant equal extent of land measuring 22 guntas of similar value having similar potentiality in the nearby locality or to pay compensation in respect of land alleging the same to have been acquired under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency Under The Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2013 Act' for short).

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the respondents No.2 and 3 are the owners of land measuring 22 guntas of land of Sy.No.90/4 situated in Valagerahalli Village, Bangalore South (hereinafter referred to as 'the schedule land' for short). The authority was in need of several other lands including the schedule land for formation of a layout viz., 'Gnana bharathi Layout'. Thereupon the process of acquisition of land under the Bangalore Development authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) was set in motion. A preliminary notification dated 26.01.1989 was issued. The land owners filed an objection to the said preliminary notification,. However, a final notification under Section 19(1) of the Act was issue don 19.01.1994. It is the case of the Authority that an award was passed on 23.03.1996 by which compensation payable to the land was determined. It is also the case of the authority that the possession of the land in question was taken over on 20.04.1996. However, the compensation was not paid to the land owners. Thereupon the land owners filed a petition seeking a direction to the respondents either to pay compensation together with solatium in terms of 2013 Act or in the alternative to allot the land of similar value having similar potentiality in a nearby locality. The Learned Single Judge by an order dated 06.10.2017 inter alia held that the action of the authority in unilaterally depositing the amount of compensation before the civil court is not justified. It was further held that no notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act' for short) was issued to the land owners. The Learned Single Judge therefore, concluded that the right of land owners guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India has been infringed. The Learned Single Judge has therefore, directed the authority to grant equal extent of land measuring 22 guntas of similar value and similar potentiality in a nearby locality or to pay the amount of compensation under 2013 Act. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the Authority while referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS', 2022 SCC ONLINE SC 69 submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated the provisions of 2013 Act have no application to the acquisition proceeding initiated under the provisions 1976 Act and therefore, the learned Single Judge erred in directing the appellants to pay compensation in respect of the schedule land under the 2013 Act. It is however, fairly submitted that the land held by the land owners has been utilized by the authority.

4. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant as well as the submission made by learned Additional Government Advocate and have perused the record. There is no material on record to indicate that any notice under Section 12(2) of the 1894 Act was issued or was served on the land owners. The action of the authority in unilaterally depositing the amount of compensation interest on the aforesaid amount on 20.12.2009 without com