Karnataka High Court
N C Basavaraju vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 December, 2024
Bench: Krishna S Dixit, M.Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT APPEAL No.1412 OF 2021 (LA - BDA)
BETWEEN:
N.C.BASAVARAJU
SINCE DEAD BY LR'S
1. N.B.SURESH
S/O N.C.BASAVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
2 . N.B.JAGANNATH
S/O N.C.BASAVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
3 . N.B.MUNEGOWDA
S/O N.C.BASAVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
Digitally signed
by VISHAL
NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL
Location: High
4 . N.B.VISHWANATH
Court of
Karnataka S/O N.C.BASAVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
ALL THE ABOVE ARE RESIDING AT
NAGADASANAHALLI VILLAGE
RAJANKUNTE POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI
2
BENGALURU NORTH - 560 064.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI N.S.SRIRAJ GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST, SANKEY ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU - 560 020.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT ANUKANKSHA KALKERI, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI SHIVAPRASAD M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR
R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
PRESENT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2021
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
IN WP 1140/2021.
3
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, M.
NAGAPRASANNA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) The appellants are knocking at the doors of this Court calling in question an order dated 29-11-2021 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No.1140 of 2021 in a batch of writ petitions.
2. Heard Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, Smt. Anukanksha Kalkeri, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Vikram Huilgol, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents 2 and 3. For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred to as per the ranking in the writ petition.
43. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:
The petitioner claims to be the owner of land measuring 2 acres 10 guntas in Sy.No.135 of Harohalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk (hereinafter referred to as 'the schedule property'). It is the averment in the petition that the schedule property fell to the share of the petitioner in terms of a partition in the family on 27-03-2002. Pursuant to the partition, all records, revenue or otherwise, are said to be in the name of the petitioner and the petitioner has paid taxes as necessary in law to all quarters in respect of the schedule property.
4. The Bangalore Development Authority ('BDA' for short) issued a preliminary notification under Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) seeking to acquire several pockets of lands for formation of Dr. Shivaram Karanth Layout. After issuance of the preliminary notification which called for objections from the hands of stake holders, the petitioner is said to have filed his objections on 16-01-2009 contending that the land has been converted and 5 has been put to use. The further objections were permitted to be filed by the BDA to the petitioner under Section 17(5) of the Act. It is again the averment in the petition that all the records stood in the name of the petitioner and he had paid all taxes on the land that was converted. On 27-03-2014, before issuance of the final notification, the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 5(a) of the Land Acquisition Act passes an order that the land of the petitioner is not required for the purpose for which it is notified for acquisition and consequently observes that it could be dropped from acquisition. On 05-04-2014 the BDA issues an endorsement in favour of several land owners including the petitioner that the Authority had deleted the land of the petitioner from acquisition and will not proceed with the acquisition with regard to the schedule property. Noticing that the land has been dropped from acquisition, the petitioner developed the property by entering into Joint Development Agreement ('JDA' for short) with several parties. On 12-11-2014 the petitioner is said to have applied for transfer of khata of the schedule property with an intention to develop the land further. All necessary approvals from BESCOM, Airports Authority of India and BWSSB were sought and were granted.
65. When things stood thus, on 03-08-2018 the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 7661-63 of 2018 and other cases allows the appeals filed by the BDA and directs final notification to be issued for acquisition of lands. Thus, comes the final notification including the land of the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that it had been dropped from acquisition. Then comes the challenge before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge, by the order impugned, dismisses all the writ petitions that led a challenge to the final notification in terms of his order dated 29-11-2021. This appeal is preferred against the said order. Several developments take place between the date of preliminary notification and the final notification and after the direction of the Apex Court to issue the final notification till the matter is placed before this Bench.
6. The learned senior counsel Sri Ashok Haranahalli appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that pursuant to the preliminary notification so issued seeking for objections, the petitioner has filed detailed objections. On the objections, inquiry is conducted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 17 of the Act and under sub-section (5) of Section 17, an order comes 7 to be passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer dropping the land of the petitioner from acquisition. This order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, if had remained only in the file, it would have been a different circumstance. It was after the inspection under Section 17(5) of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner of the BDA approves issuance of an endorsement on 05-04-2014. Till then, the status of the schedule property was in dilemma. After the endorsement of the BDA which depicted approval of the Deputy Commissioner for dropping the acquisition, the petitioner and his family in whose possession the land stood, enter into a JDA with third parties to develop the lands. Khatha is changed in the name of the petitioner. Electricity connections are secured from BESCOM and for the construction of an apartment complex height clearance is also issued by the Airports Authority of India. When things stood thus, pursuant to the direction issued by the Apex Court to acquire lands that were left over, the land of the petitioner also fell to the said direction. He would further contend that the Apex Court, in the case of the petitioner, has remitted the matter back to the hands of this Court to consider the issue in its entirety and pass necessary orders in accordance with law.
87. Per contra, the learned senior counsel Sri Vikram Huilgol appearing for the BDA would vehemently refute the submissions contending that Apex Court's directions were unequivocal. The lands that were left out by the Special Land Acquisition Officer were specifically directed to be acquired holding that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had, without authority of law, recommended dropping of lands from acquisition. The Apex Court thereafter protected certain constructions that had come up before the cut off date i.e., 03-08-2018, the date on which the Apex Court rendered its judgment. He would contend that land of the petitioner is vacant. No protection was given by the Apex Court to vacant lands.
It was only those layouts that have come up in the lands that formed part of acquisition were permitted to be retained by the Apex Court. The learned senior counsel would contend that the land of the petitioner cannot be dropped from acquisition, as the Special Land Acquisition Officer does not have the sanction of law for dropping the lands from acquisition.
98. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
9. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record, however, they would require a little reiteration. The petitioner coming in possession of the schedule property through a family partition is what is averred in the petition. It would suffice if the story would commence from the date of issuance of preliminary notification by the BDA. The preliminary notification comes to be issued on 30-12- 2008 seeking to acquire several thousands of acres of land for the purpose of Dr. Shivaram Karanth Layout. Objections were called by the BDA to the preliminary notification so issued on 30-12-2008. It appears that the petitioner files his objections to the preliminary notification on 16-01-2009. The objections read as follows:
"EªÀjAzÀ . . , , , , .
, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ 10 n ZËqÀAiÀÄå gÀ¸ÉÛ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ - 560 020.
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ,
: , ,
. 135 •
.
• . .
••
, ,
, . 135 2
0-10 .
(Conversion) •• ,
SÁ •• .
" ||
. "
13.01.2009
.
•
.
•
( .•. ) ,
• :
(1) 17.04.2007
( .•. ) ).
(2) ¸ÉÌZï
(3) 15.10.2007
( .•. ) ),
(4) 17.11.2007
( .•. )
• ).
(5) •• ,
( gÀë 04.12.2004)
06.12.2007 .
(6) •
22.02.2008 •
( .•. ) ).
11
(7) 22.02.2008
( .•. ) ),
(8) 02/05.11.2007 •
( .•. )
).
,
,
¸À»/-
( . .
)"
The objections are received by the BDA. The BDA then undertakes an enquiry as obtaining under Section 17 of the Act. Section 17 of the Act reads as follows:
"17. Procedure on completion of scheme.--(1) When a development scheme has been prepared, the Authority shall draw up a notification stating the fact of a scheme having been made and the limits of the area comprised therein, and naming a place where particulars of the scheme, a map of the area comprised therein, a statement specifying the land which is proposed to be acquired and of the land in regard to which a betterment tax may be levied may be seen at all reasonable hours.
(2) A copy of the said notification shall be sent to the Corporation which shall, within thirty days from the date of receipt thereof, forward to the Authority for transmission to the Government as hereinafter provided, any representation which the Corporation may think fit to make with regard to the scheme.
(3) The Authority shall also cause a copy of the said notification to be published in the official Gazette and affixed in some conspicuous part of its own office, the Deputy 12 Commissioner's Office, the office of the Corporation and in such other places as the Authority may consider necessary.
(4) If no representation is received from the Corporation within the time specified in sub-section (2), the concurrence of the Corporation to the scheme shall be deemed to have been given.
(5) During the thirty days next following the day on which such notification is published in the official Gazette the Authority shall serve a notice on every person whose name appears in the assessment list of the local authority or in the land revenue register as being primarily liable to pay the property tax or land revenue assessment on any building or land which is proposed to be acquired in executing the scheme or in regard to which the Authority proposes to recover betterment tax requiring such person to show cause within thirty days from the date of the receipt of the notice why such acquisition of the building or land and the recovery of betterment tax should not be made.
(6) The notice shall be signed by or by the order of the Commissioner and shall be served,--
(a) by personal delivery or if such person is absent or cannot be found, on his agent, or if no agent can be found, then by leaving the same on the land or the building; or
(b) by leaving the same at the usual or last known place of abode or business of such person; or (c ) by registered post addressed to the usual or last known place of abode or business of such person."
(Emphasis supplied) Section 17 deals with procedure for completion of the scheme.
Sub-section (5) is what forms the fulcrum of the lis. Sub-section (5) empowers an inquiry to be conducted by the Special Land 13 Acquisition Officer who is appointed to execute the acquisition in the preliminary notification. Accordingly, the Special Land Acquisition Officer conducts an enquiry ostensibly under Section 17 of the Act, draws up proceedings and recommends dropping of the land of the petitioner from acquisition. The proceedings and the order read as follows:
"
-2 ••• , : / ••/ / /1806/2009-10.
: • . .
vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ GvÀÛgÀ (C¥ÀgÀ) «¹ÛÃtð:
:AiÀÄ®ºÀAPÀ L£ÀÄ RgÁ§Ä ¨ÁQ
ºÉÆç½
J UÀÄ J UÀÄ J UÀÄ
UÁæªÀÄ: ºÁgÉÆúÀ½î ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.135 2 10 0 0 2 10
/ :
1.
«gÀÄzÀÞ
-2
,
: ••• 209 2012, : 13/02/2014
|| .
,
.
•
, , ••• :
/ /357•/2013-14, : 20/02/2014
14
, 1 5(•)
17(5)
. ••
1976 17(5) • • /
, •
.
:
, || .
:
/ / ( )• /•5/ /283/2008-09,
: 30/12/2008 • :
31/12/2008 . • :
13/01/2009 , ,
,
,
30 •
.
(•••) , ,
, . 135
02 10 . :
21/09/2009 •
.
: 04/12/2004 • 02
10 02-00 ,
:
( )/ / / /2004-05
,
:
•••/ / M / . . 544/2008 40/7,
: 20/06/2008 • .
•• :
( )/ -6/||/2007-08/68, : 17/11/2007
: / - ( )/7653-55,
: 15/10/2007
•
.
15
• •
•. .
,
( . . . ) •••
, ••
. ••
( . . . )
.
. 135 • 02 10
(
),
. 133, . 134 •
( . . . )
. 136 • .
•
•. . .
•
. •
. •
.
•
.
•
. • || .
•
••
.
16
•
(•••)
, , , . 135
• •••
02 10
. •
,
.
-2
,
"
(sic)
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, in the aforesaid proceedings, observes that pursuant to the preliminary notification, objections were filed by the petitioner contending that the land had been converted as per the order of the Deputy Commissioner and he has obtained all necessary approvals for development of the property right from BESCOM to BWSSB and has procured permission for construction of residential apartment even before the preliminary notification. The Revenue Inspector inspects the lands, draws up an inventory/mahazar of the land, where it is recorded that certain constructions had already come up and certain houses were scattered in the land subsequent to conversion. Based thereon, the Special Land Acquisition Officer passes an order opining that the 17 land could be dropped from acquisition proceedings. If this had remained as it is, no semblance of right of the petitioner could have arisen. An endorsement comes to be issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Land Acquisition of the BDA upon approval of the Commissioner for dropping the land of the petitioner as was opined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The endorsement reads as follows:
"»A§gÀºÀ : || .
(•••) , ,
. 135
02 10
§UÉÎ.
: 3. : 02/04/2014.
4. -2
. .• 17(5)
:
27/03/2014 • .
* * * *
,
(•••) , ,
. 135 02 10
, :
/ / ( •) ••/•5/ /283/ 2008-09,
: 30/12/2008 || .
.
-2 ,
. .• 17(5)
, (2)
(•••) , ,
. 135 || .
02
10 ,
18
,
. • || .
•
.
(
.)
¸À»/-
•• ( ,)
,
,
, ,
"
With the endorsement, which depicts approval of the
Commissioner, BDA, the petitioner sought to perfect his plan of development of the land and enters into a JDA on 19-09-2014 for construction of a residential apartment complex. All necessary permissions are again taken - khata from the BBMP, height clearance from the hands of the Airports Authority of India as it was close to International Airport and water supply connection and electricity connection were already in place.
10. During all these proceedings, the preliminary notification had been questioned before this Court in several writ petitions. The 19 learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.55863-55865 of 2014 allows the writ petitions by setting aside the preliminary notification seeking acquisition. The order passed by the learned single Judge reads as follows:
"4. The respondents have filed the objection statement. In the objection statement it is contended that since there were large extents of lands which had been notified, the respondents require sometime to go through the process and thereafter complete the acquisition proceedings.
5. In that background, I do not propose to refer to the contentions in detail for the reason that in respect of the very same notification, this Court had made a detailed consideration in W.P.No.9640 of 2014 and connected petitions on 26-11-2014. During the said consideration, this Court had taken note of contention put forth on behalf of the respondents with regard to the delay that has occasioned in the process as there were certain deletions at the initial stages and when subsequent deletions were made by the Land Acquisition Officer, the Government has initiated enquiries in that regard and therefore there was delay. This Court having not accepted such contention and further relying on a decision of this Court had arrived at the conclusion that the delay as explained by the respondents is not acceptable and therefore, the notification insofar as the lands of the petitioners therein was held as lapsed. Since in the instant case also the position is not different from the said cases, a similar consideration requires to be made.
6. Accordingly, the notification dated 30-12-2008 assailed in these petitions is held as having lapsed as against the lands of the petitioners referred to in these petitions which were included in the said notification.20
In terms of the above, these petitions are allowed to that extent.
In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.2/ 2014 for dispensation also stands disposed of."
A writ appeal comes to be preferred by the BDA assailing the order passed by the learned single Judge supra. The writ appeal comes to be dismissed on 28-04-2017, by the following order:
"2. As prayed for by Mr. G.S. Kannur, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants, the appeal is taken up for preliminary hearing.
3. The writ petitioner assailed a notification dated December 30, 2008, proposing to acquire the land for formation of a layout. The preliminary notification was issue on December 30, 2008. Thereafter, neither the final notification was issued nor possession was taken. Consequently, the Hon'ble single Judge held that as within the reasonable time, no further action was taken, the proposal for acquisition got lapsed.
4. We do not find any merit in the appeal
5. The application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is, also dismissed."
BDA challenges both the orders in several cases before the Apex Court. The Apex Court in the case of BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT 21 AUTHORITY V. STATE OF KARNATAKA1 (Civil Appeal Nos.7661- 63 of 2018 and connected cases decided on 03-08-2018) sets aside both the orders of this Court and issues several directions holding:
".... .... ....
15. First, we take up the question as to whether the High Court was legally justified on merits in quashing the preliminary notification issued under Section 17. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Offshore Holdings (P) Ltd. [Offshore Holdings (P) Ltd. v. BDA, (2011) 3 SCC 139: (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 662] has decided the question affirmatively. The BDA has issued preliminary notification for acquisition of the lands. Non- finalisation of the acquisition proceedings resulted in the filing of the writ petitions before the High Court of Karnataka by the owners in the year 1987. Certain lands were denotified and the permission which was granted earlier was withdrawn. The denotification of the land was also withdrawn. It was urged that the time-frame which was prescribed under Sections 6 and 11-A of the LA Act would form an integral part of the BDA Act. This Court considered the scheme under the BDA Act and has observed thus: (SCC pp. 158-59, 162, 164-66 & 192, paras 33, 35, 50, 55, 123, 124 & 125) "33. The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, which provide for time-frame for compliance and the consequences of default thereof, are not applicable to acquisition under the BDA Act. They are Sections 6 and 11- A of the Land Acquisition Act. As per Section 11-A, if the award is not made within a period of two years from the date of declaration under Section 6, the acquisition proceedings will lapse. Similarly, where declaration under Section 6 of this Act is not issued within three years from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act [such notification being issued after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 but before the commencement of Central Act 68 of 1984] or within one year where Section 4 notification was published subsequent to the passing of Central Act 68 of 1984, no such declaration under Section 6 1 (2018) 9 SCC 122 22 of the Land Acquisition Act can be issued in any of these cases.
***
35. Be that as it may, it is clear that the BDA Act is a self-contained code which provides for all the situations that may arise in planned development of an area including acquisition of land for that purpose. The scheme of the Act does not admit any necessity for reading the provisions of Sections 6 and 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, as part and parcel of the BDA Act for attainment of its object. The primary object of the State Act is to carry out planned development and acquisition is a mere incident of such planned development. The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, where the land is to be acquired for a specific public purpose and acquisition is the sum and substance of that Act, all matters in relation to the acquisition of land will be regulated by the provisions of that Act. The State Act has provided its own scheme and provisions for acquisition of land.
***
50. Applying the above principle to the facts of the case in hand, it will be clear that the provisions relating to acquisition like passing of an award, payment of compensation and the legal remedies available under the Central Act would have to be applied to the acquisitions under the State Act but the bar contained in Sections 6 and 11-A of the Central Act cannot be made an integral part of the State Act as the State Act itself has provided specific time-frames under its various provisions as well as consequences of default thereto. The scheme, thus, does not admit such incorporation.
***
55. The principle stated in Munithimmaiah case [Munithimmaiah v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 326] that the BDA Act is a self-contained code, was referred with approval by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Bondu Ramaswamy [Bondu Ramaswamy v. BDA, (2010) 7 SCC 129 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 1] . The Court, inter alia, specifically discussed and answered the questions whether the provisions of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act will apply to the acquisition under the BDA Act and if the final declaration under Section 19(1) is not issued within one year of the publication of the notification under Section 17(1) of the BDA Act, whether such final declaration will be invalid and held as under: (Bondu Ramaswamy case [Bondu 23 Ramaswamy v. BDA, (2010) 7 SCC 129 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 1] , SCC p. 170, paras 79-81) '79. This question arises from the contention raised by one of the appellants that the provisions of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the LA Act", for short) will apply to the acquisitions under the BDA Act and consequently if the final declaration under Section 19(1) is not issued within one year from the date of publication of the notification under Sections 17(1) and (3) of the BDA Act, such final declaration will be invalid. The appellants' submissions are as under: the notification under Sections 17(1) and (3) of the Act was issued and gazetted on 3-2- 2003 and the declaration under Section 19(1) was issued and published on 23-2-2004. Section 36 of the Act provides that the acquisition of land under the BDA Act within or outside the Bangalore Metropolitan Area, shall be regulated by the provisions of the LA Act, so far as they are applicable. Section 6 of the LA Act requires that no declaration shall be made, in respect of any land covered by a notification under Section 4 of the LA Act, after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of such notification under Section 4 of the LA Act. As the provisions of the LA Act have been made applicable to acquisitions under the BDA Act, it is necessary that the declaration under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act (which is equivalent to the final declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act) should also be made before the expiry of one year from the date of publication of notification under Sections 17(1) and (3) of the BDA Act [which is equivalent to Section 4(1) of the LA Act].
80. The BDA Act contains provisions relating to acquisition of properties, up to the stage of publication of final declaration. The BDA Act does not contain the subsequent provisions relating to completion of the acquisition, that is, issue of notices, enquiry and award, vesting of land, payment of compensation, principles relating to determination of compensation, etc. Section 36 of the BDA Act does not make the LA Act applicable in its entirety, but states that the acquisition under the BDA Act, shall be regulated by the provisions, so far as they are applicable, of the LA Act. Therefore, it follows that where there are already provisions in the BDA Act regulating certain aspects or stages of acquisition or the proceedings relating thereto, the corresponding provisions of the LA Act will not apply to the acquisitions under the BDA Act. Only 24 those provisions of the LA Act, relating to the stages of acquisition, for which there is no provision in the BDA Act, are applied to the acquisitions under the BDA Act.
81. The BDA Act contains specific provisions relating to preliminary notification and final declaration. In fact the procedure up to final declaration under the BDA Act is different from the procedure under the LA Act relating to acquisition proceedings up to the stage of final notification. Therefore, having regard to the scheme for acquisition under Sections 15 to 19 of the BDA Act and the limited application of the LA Act in terms of Section 36 of the BDA Act, the provisions of Sections 4 to 6 of the LA Act will not apply to the acquisitions under the BDA Act. If Section 6 of the LA Act is not made applicable, the question of amendment to Section 6 of the LA Act providing a time-limit for issue of final declaration, will also not apply.' We may notice that, in the above case, the Court declined to examine whether the provisions of Section 11-A of the Central Act would apply to the acquisition under the BDA Act but categorically stated that Sections 4 and 6 of the Central Act were inapplicable to the acquisition under the BDA Act.
***
123. Accepting the argument of the appellant would certainly frustrate the very object of the State law, particularly when both the enactments can peacefully operate together. To us, there appears to be no direct conflict between the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the BDA Act. The BDA Act does not admit reading of provisions of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act into its scheme as it is bound to debilitate the very object of the State law. Parliament has not enacted any law with regard to development the competence of which, in fact, exclusively falls in the domain of the State Legislature with reference to Schedule VII List II Entries 5 and 18.
124. Both these laws cover different fields of legislation and do not relate to the same List, leave apart the question of relating to the same entry. Acquisition being merely an incident of planned development, the Court will have to ignore it even if there was some encroachment or overlapping. The BDA Act does not provide any provision in regard to compensation and manner of acquisition for which it refers to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. There are no provisions in the BDA Act which lay down detailed 25 mechanism for the acquisition of property, i.e. they are not covering the same field and, thus, there is no apparent irreconcilable conflict. The BDA Act provides a specific period during which the development under a scheme has to be implemented and if it is not so done, the consequences thereof would follow in terms of Section 27 of the BDA Act. None of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act deals with implementation of schemes. We have already answered that the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act cannot, in law, lapse if vesting has taken place. Therefore, the question of applying the provisions of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act to the BDA Act does not arise. Section 27 of the BDA Act takes care of even the consequences of default, including the fate of acquisition, where vesting has not taken place under Section 27(3). Thus, there are no provisions under the two Acts which operate in the same field and have a direct irreconcilable conflict.
125. Having said so, now we proceed to record our answer to the question referred to the larger Bench as follows:
For the reasons stated in this judgment, we hold that the BDA Act is a self-contained code. Further, we hold that provisions introduced in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by Central Act 68 of 1984, limited to the extent of acquisition of land, payment of compensation and recourse to legal remedies provided under the said Act, can be read into an acquisition controlled by the provisions of the BDA Act but with a specific exception that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act insofar as they provide different time-frames and consequences of default thereof, including lapsing of acquisition proceedings, cannot be read into the BDA Act. Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act being one of such provisions cannot be applied to the acquisitions under the provisions of the BDA Act."
(emphasis supplied)
16. This Court has emphasised that the primary object of the BDA Act is to carry out planned development. The State Act has provided its own scheme. The time constraints of the land acquisition are not applicable to the BDA Act. Making applicable the time-frame of Section 11-A of the LA Act would debilitate the very object of the BDA Act. It is apparent that the decision of the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench is directly 26 juxtaposed to the decision of the five-Judge Bench of this Court in Offshore Holdings [Offshore Holdings (P) Ltd. v. BDA, (2011) 3 SCC 139: (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 662] in which precisely the question involved in the instant cases had been dealt with. By indirect method by making applicable the time period of two years of Section 11-A of the LA Act mandate of BDA Act has been violated. However, it is shocking that various decisions have been taken into consideration particularly by the Single Judge, however, whereas the decision that has set the controversy at rest, has not even been noticed even by the Single Judge or by the Division Bench. If this is the fate of the law of the land laid down by this Court that too the decision by the Constitution Bench, so much can be said but to exercise restraint is the best use of the power. Least said is better, the way in which the justice has been dealt with and the planned development of Bangalore City has been left at the mercy of unscrupulous persons of the Government and the BDA.
17. It is apparent from the fact that the Single Judge has relied upon the decision in H.N. Shivanna [H.N. Shivanna v. State of Karnataka, 2012 SCC OnLine Kar 8956:
(2013) 4 KCCR 2793] in which it was observed by the Division Bench that scheme was to be completed in 2 years otherwise it would lapse. It was precisely the question of time period which was dwelt upon and what was ultimately decided by this Court in Offshore Holdings [Offshore Holdings (P) Ltd. v. BDA, (2011) 3 SCC 139: (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 662] has been blatantly violated by the Single Judge and that too in flagrant violation of the provisions and intendment of the Act.
18. It is also apparent from the facts and circumstances of the case that there were a large number of irregularities in the course of an inquiry under Section 18(1) of the BDA Act. The Government had nothing to do with respect to the release of the land at this stage, as the stage of final notification had not reached but still the landowners in connivance with the influential persons, political or otherwise, managed the directions in respect of 251 acres of the land and the Special Land Acquisition Collector also considered exclusion of 498 acres of the land against which the question was raised in the Assembly and eyebrows were raised in public domain. Two inquiries were ordered on 24-11-2012 and 19-1-2013 by the State Government and based upon that inquiry, it was ordered 27 and a public notice was issued on 3-5-2014 that the BDA will consider the entire matter afresh.
19. In the aforesaid backdrop of the facts, the writ petitions came to be filed, it would not be termed to be the bona fide litigation, but was initiated having failed in attempt to get the land illegally excluded at the hands of the Special Land Acquisition Collector and the State Government and after the inquiries held in the matter and the notice was issued to start the proceedings afresh. At this stage, the writ petitions were filed. In the aforesaid circumstances, it was not at all open to the High Court to quash the preliminary notification issued under Section 17, as the landowners, the State Government and BDA were responsible to create a mess in the way of planned development of Bangalore City.
20. The scheme which was framed was so much benevolent scheme that 40% of the 55% of the land reserved for the residential purpose was to be given to the landowners at their choice and they were also given the choice to obtain the compensation, if they so desired, under the provisions of the LA Act. Thus, it was such a scheme that there was no scope for any exclusion of the land in the ultimate final notification.
21. It is apparent from the circumstances that the matter cannot be left at the mercy of unscrupulous authority of the BDA, the State Government or in the political hands. Considering the proper development and planned development of Bangalore City, let the Government issue a final notification with respect to the land which has been notified in the initial notification and there is no question of leaving out of the land in the instant case as option has been given to landowners to claim the land or to claim the compensation under the relevant LA Act which may be applicable in the case.
22. It was contended on behalf of the landowners that certain developments have taken place after the orders were passed regarding exclusion of the land and when Section 27 provides a limitation of five years after final notification, in case development was not undertaken within five years, even the final scheme would lapse. Thus, the principle enunciated in Section 27 should be followed by this Court with respect to the lapse of preliminary notification as well. We find that there is a 28 vast difference in the provisions and action to be taken pursuant to the preliminary notification and the final notification under Section 19. In the instant case, the facts indicated that it was in the interest of the public, landowners, BDA and the State Government. The scheme had prior approval of the State Government however at the cost of public interest yet another scheme was sought to be frustrated by powerful unforeseen hands and the issuance of final notification had been delayed. Three inquiries were ordered, two by the State Government and one by the BDA as the release of the land was being proposed in an illegal manner. Hue and cry has been raised about their illegalities in the Assembly as well as in the public. Thus, for the delay, owners cannot escape the liability, they cannot take the advantage of their own wrong having acted in collusion with the authorities. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that in the facts of the case the time consumed would not adversely affect the ultimate development of Bangalore City.
23. The authorities are supposed to carry out the statutory mandate and cannot be permitted to act against the public interest and planned development of Bangalore City which was envisaged as a statutory mandate under the BDA Act. The State Government, as well as the authorities under the BDA Act, are supposed to cater to the need of the planned development which is a mandate enjoined upon them and also binding on them. They have to necessarily carry it forward and no dereliction of duty can be an escape route so as to avoid fulfilment of the obligation enjoined upon them. The courts are not powerless to frown upon such an action and proper development cannot be deterred by continuing inaction. As the proper development of such metropolitan is of immense importance, the public purpose for which the primary notification was issued was in order to provide civic amenities like laying down roads, etc. which cannot be left at the whim or mercy of the authorities concerned. They were bound to act in furtherance thereof. There was a clear embargo placed while issuing the notification not to create any charge, mortgage, assign, issue or revise any improvement and after inquiry, it was clear that the notice had been issued in May 2014, thus, no development could have been made legally. Notification dated 3-5-2014 was issued that re-inquiry was necessary in the matter. The development made, if any, would be at the peril of the owners and it has to give way to larger welfare schemes and 29 the individual interest and cannot come in the way of the larger public interest. The acquisition was for the proper and planned development that was an absolute necessity for the city of Bangalore.
24. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation in condoning the delay. Though, it is apparent that the authorities had come with certain delay, in certain matters and the writ appeals were also filed belatedly with the delay in the High Court, however, considering the provisions of the scheme and the method and manner, wrong has been committed, it has compelled us not only to condone the delay but also to act in the matter so as to preserve the sanctity of the legal process and decision of this Court in Offshore Holdings [Offshore Holdings (P) Ltd. v. BDA, (2011) 3 SCC 139: (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 662].
25. We, therefore, direct the State Government as well as the BDA to proceed further to issue final notification without any further delay in the light of the observations made in the order. The impugned orders passed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench are hereby quashed and set aside. The scheme and notification under Section 17 of the BDA Act are hereby upheld with the aforesaid directions.
26. As noticed above, the Land Acquisition Officer proposed exclusion of 251 acres of land from acquisition on being asked by the Government after the preliminary notification was issued. The Land Acquisition Officer, has considered another 498 acres of land to be excluded from being acquired. In connection to this, several questions were raised in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, as a result of which two inquiries were ordered by the State Government i.e. on 24-11- 2012 and 19-1-2013. However, result of the inquiry is not forthcoming. Further, it appears that the exclusion of the lands from acquisition was proposed in connivance with influential persons; political or otherwise. We are of the view that the BDA and the State Government have to proceed with the acquisition of these lands. We are also of the view that it is just and proper to hold an inquiry for fixing the responsibility on the officials of the BDA and the State Government for trying to exclude these lands from acquisition.
3027. Therefore, we appoint Hon'ble Mr Justice K.N. Keshavanarayana, former Judge of the Karnataka High Court as the inquiry officer for fixing the responsibility on the officials of the BDA and the State Government who were responsible for the aforesaid. The Commissioner, BDA is hereby directed to consult the inquiry officer and pay his remuneration. Further, we direct BDA to provide appropriate secretarial assistance and logistical support to the inquiry officer for holding the inquiry. In addition, we authorise the inquiry officer to appoint requisite staff on temporary basis to assist him in the inquiry and to fix their salaries. Further, the BDA is directed to pay their salaries. The State Government and the BDA are directed to produce the files/documents in relation to the aforesaid lands before the inquiry officer within a period of four weeks from today. We request the inquiry officer to submit his report to this Court as expeditiously as possible.
28. The State Government and the BDA are further directed to proceed with the acquisition of the aforementioned lands without excluding land from acquisition and submit a report to this Court the steps taken by them in this regard within a period of three months from today."
The Apex Court, on the reasons so rendered, directs the State Government and the BDA to proceed with the acquisition for the formation of layout without excluding any land from acquisition and submit a report to the Apex Court the steps taken towards the said acquisition. It directed completion within 3 months.
11. Pursuant to the directions of the Apex Court, the BDA issues final notification. In the final notification the axe falls on the land of the petitioner, as the Apex Court had directed that all the lands that had been given up be acquired as the lands were given 31 up illegally. Then comes a few miscellaneous applications in the disposed of case before the Apex Court. The Apex Court on the miscellaneous applications, to consider several nuances of the lands to be dropped from acquisition appointed a Committee. The order directing constitution of the Committee reads as follows:
"1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused affidavit dated 26-11-2020, filed by the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority.
2. During the course of hearing, it is pointed out that after quashing of the preliminary notification by the High Court and before setting aside of the said order by this court, several constructions have been put up either by the land owners or purchasers of the sites from the land owners. It is submitted that these constructions are mainly dwelling houses. In this factual background, we are of the considered opinion that some protection against demolition of dwelling houses may be justified. Further the layout is meant for residential sites and this object of formation of layout would not be frustrated by saving lawfully constructed dwelling houses belonging to poor and middle income groups.
3. Judgment dated 03-08-2018, inter alia, observes that 45% of the land covered under the scheme was to be utilized for the civic amenities like play grounds, roads etc. and residential sites would be formed by utilizing remaining 55% of the land covered under the scheme. It is also clear that out of the said 55% of developed residential area, 40% of 55% will be offered as compensation to the land owners as specified in the scheme and remaining 60% of 55% will be the share of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). The land-owners would be given option to accept the developed eligible residential land or opt for compensation as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the LA Act').32
4. Needless to state that the acquisition of the land under the BDA Act is regulated by the provisions of the LA Act so far as they are applicable. (See: Section 38 of the BDA Act). The borrowed provisions of LA act, become an integral part of the BDA Act and are totally unaffected by the repeal of the LA Act. In other words, the provisions of the LA Act are incorporated into the BDA Act so far as they are applicable. Of course, the bar contained in Sections 6 and 11-A of the LA Act, are not applicable to the BDA Act. We have discussed this aspect of the matter in our main judgment dated 3-08-2018. It is also clear that the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 are not applicable for the acquisition made under the BDA Act. Final notification has also been issued after the pronouncement of judgment by this court in Civil Appeal No(s). 7661-7663 of 2018 dated 3-08-2018. We direct the BDA to proceed with the acquisition of the land as proposed in the notification.
5. if the land-owner who has put up the construction opts for land by way of a developed plot in lieu of compensation, the constructed portion would be adjusted in the land that would be allotted in his favour. It is also clarified that the persons who have put up construction/ dwelling house are not entitled for compensation in respect of the constructed portion of the land. If the incentive scheme as per Bangalore Development Authority (Incentive Scheme for Voluntary Surrender of Land) Rules, 1989, is applied, the constructed portion can also be adjusted towards incentive site for voluntary surrender of land. However, where a person has constructed a dwelling house or any other building and where the constructed portion is not adjusted for any reason, betterment charges could be levied on him under Section 20 of the BDA Act. BDA is directed to integrate the said constructions into the layout.
6. As stated above, the buildings constructed in the layout with valid sanction/permission from the competent authority/authority(ies) needs to be saved from demolition. Therefore, it is important to identify the lawful constructions made in the notified lands. For this purpose, we appoint a Committee comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.V. Chandrashekhar, former Judge of the Karnataka High Court, as its Chairman, Mr. Jayakar Jerome, former Commissioner of the BDA and Mr. S.T. 33 Ramesh, former Director General of Police as its Members. The Committee is required to look into each of the requests of the owners of the dwelling houses/buildings for its regularization. The Committee should also find out whether the said dwelling houses/buildings have been constructed in accordance with the sanction/permission of the competent authorities. The constructions which have come up after the date of pronouncement of the judgment by this Court i.e.,3.08.2018, shall not be eligible for regularization. The Committee is permitted to devise its own mechanism/ procedure for holding the enquiry including issuing notices in the local newspapers in this regard. Final orders regarding dwelling houses/buildings which will be protected, would be passed after we receive the report of the Committee.
7. To ensure that in the interregnum and from now onwards no further constructions come up, the Commissioner, BDA, would undertake exercise for satellite imaging of the area in question for identifying and noting the constructions as they exist. The said exercise would be undertaken within a period of three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This exercise would be repeated periodically every month and in case any new constructions are noticed, they would be brought to the notice of the Committee and action, including demolition etc. would be undertaken.
8. The Commissioner of the BDA is hereby directed to consult the Chairman and its Members of the Committee and accordingly fix and pay their remunerations. We direct the BDA to provide appropriate secretarial assistance, transport and other logistical support to the Chairman and the members of the Committee for holding an enquiry within two weeks from today. We authorize the Chairman of the Committee to appoint requisite staff, if needed, on a temporary basis to assist the Committee in conducting enquiry and fix their salaries which would be paid by the BDA. The BDA is also directed to provide enough office space in its headquarters for the smooth functioning of the Committee within two weeks. The Committee is also permitted to take assistance of any of the employees including surveyors from the BDA or of the State Government for the purpose of spot inspection, measurement and for its overall functioning.34
9. We make it clear that there is no bar for the Chairman or the Members of the Committee to accept any other engagement/arbitration matters during the subsistence of the Committee.
10. The Committee is requested to submit its report before this court preferably within a period of six months from to-day.
11. It appears that certain writ petitions are pending before the Karnataka High Court challenging the final notification for acquisition of lands for the formation of Dr.ShivaramaKaranth Layout. BDA is directed to furnish the list of pending cases in respect of the said layout to the Registrar General of the High Court within a week from today. We request the Registrar General to list them before the Court within two weeks. We request the high Court to dispose of the said cases on their merits expeditiously.
12. The State Government is directed to grant approval to the 60:40 scheme in respect of the layout in question, if necessary within two weeks from to-day. The State Government is also directed to depute additionally six Land Acquisition Officers to the BDA within two weeks from today.
13. BDA to file status report on or before 11.02.2021.
14. List these cases on 19-01-2021."
12. The petitioner and others had challenged the final notification before this Court in a conglomeration of cases in which the writ petition of the petitioner was W.P.No.1140 of 2021. The learned single Judge by his order dated 29-11-2021 rejected all the writ petitions, in the light of the direction of the Apex Court dated 35 03-08-2018. The order of the learned single Judge insofar as it is germane is as follows:
".... .... ....
26. The cumulative effect of various orders passed by the Apex Court referred to supra and a conjoint reading of the same will clearly indicate that while in the first instance, the Apex Court has specifically directed that the Final Notification is to be issued in respect of the entire extent of 3546 Acres 12 Guntas and no portion is to be excluded/dropped/deleted from the Final Notification, the only small category of cases which can be dealt with differently have been identified, recognized and categorized by the Apex Court itself in its subsequent orders. Under these circumstances, the scope of interference to the Final Notification by this Court is completely and totally circumscribed by the orders passed by the Apex Court and consequently, the words "on merits" cannot be relied upon by the petitioners or made basis by them to contend that despite the orders of Apex Court it is still open for this Court to reopen the acquisition or re- examine the impugned notifications; in the teeth of the orders of the Apex Court in respect of the entire subject layout and the scheme in relation to the entire extent of 3546 Acres 12 Guntas, such an endeavour/attempt by this Court will clearly tantamount to overstepping its jurisdiction and overreaching the orders of the Apex Court, which is continuously monitoring the progress, development and effective implementation and execution of the scheme by issuing necessary directions from time to time. I am therefore of the view that the said contentions of the petitioners cannot be accepted.
27. Insofar as the contention of some of the petitioners that they are not parties to the earlier round of litigation before the Apex Court and that consequently any order passed by the Apex Court is not binding upon them is concerned, it is necessary to state that the order dated 03.08.2018 passed by the Apex Court in relation to the entire extent of 3546 Acres 12 Guntas would necessarily include and encompass all parties including non-parties notwithstanding some of the petitioners not being parties to the said decision; in view of specific 36 directions issued by the Apex Court directing issuance of Final Notification in respect of the entire extent of 3546 Acres 12 Guntas, the Final Notification clearly applies to all persons including persons who are not parties before Apex Court also and consequently even this contention of some of the petitioners cannot be accepted.
28. Insofar as the contention of some of the petitioners that they have purchased their respective properties prior to the order dated 03.08.2018 passed by the Apex Court and consequently, none of the orders of the Apex Court are binding upon them is concerned, it is necessary to state that the revival of the Preliminary Notification by the Apex Court by virtue of its order dated 03-08-2018 would relate back to the date of Preliminary Notification dated 30-12-2008; as a consequence of upholding the Preliminary Notification which has been declared as legal, proper and valid from 30-12-2008 onwards, all subsequent transaction after 30-12-2008 would be the subject matter of acquisition proceedings and all transactions in respect of any portion of the subject lay-out would be subject to, circumscribed, limited, restricted and governed by the orders of the Apex Court and consequently, even this contention of the petitioners cannot be not accepted.
29. It is also necessary to state that restoration of the preliminary notification by Apex Court on 03-08-2018 in respect of the entire extent of 3546 Acres 12 Guntas would relate back to the date of the original preliminary notification dated 30-12-2008; this relation back would have the effect of validating, confirming and affirming the preliminary notification with effect from 30-12-2008 onwards and not from any later date. Consequently, all acts, deeds and things as well as all transactions, documents, etc., which have been done or come into existence after 30-12-2008 onwards, by or at the instance of any person in respect of any portion of the notified land measuring 3546 Acres 12 Guntas would get subsumed by the judgment of the Apex Court and become subject to the outcome of the acquisition proceedings pursuant to the preliminary notification; in other words, none of the events, transactions etc., that have occurred after 30.12.2008 will have any bearing or impact on the legality or validity of the final notification and the same cannot be relied upon by the petitioners nor made the 37 basis to contend that the final notification in respect of any portion of land is liable to be quashed.
30. Insofar as all other contentions urged by the petitioners with regard to the legality and validity of Final Notification and the various decisions relied upon by the petitioners and respondents are concerned, in view of my findings above that in the backdrop of the orders passed by Apex Court, the scope of interference in the present petitions by this Court is extremely restricted and limited, there is no merit in any of the contentions urged by the petitioners and the same are liable to be rejected; so also, in the peculiar/special fact situation obtaining in the cases on hand and in the teeth of the orders passed by the Apex Court in relation to the subject layout, none of the decisions relied upon by the petitioners can be applied to the facts of the instant case and the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard also is liable to be rejected.
31. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) All the petitions are hereby dismissed.
(ii) Consequently, interim applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and the same are accordingly disposed of.
(iii) Office objections, if any, are accordingly overruled.
(iv) The interim orders that were in force in these petitions till to-day are hereby extended up to 20-12-2021, so as to enable the petitioners to challenge this order."
The petitioner files the subject writ appeal on 20-12-2021 challenging the order passed by the learned single Judge. The writ 38 appeal comes to be dismissed by an order dated 23-05-2022, as identical appeals against the orders passed by the learned single had already been upheld by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1400 of 2021 vide judgment dated 28-02-2022. The petitioner then approaches the Apex Court. The Apex Court on 22-01-2024 passes the following order:
"1. Delay condoned.
2. Application seeking an amendment to the Special Leave Petition is allowed.
3. Leave granted.
4. The appellants in these cases are aggrieved by the Notifications, first dated 30.12.2008 issued under Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (in short, "the Act") and which eventually led to the final Notification under Section 19 of the said Act published on 30.10.2018.
5. These Notifications were challenged by the appellants before the High Court on various grounds including that their lands were initially included in the Development Scheme known as the 'Dr.Shivaram Karanth Layout Scheme' but after the publication of the preliminary Notification, their lands were subsequently deleted from the aforementioned Scheme.
6. Meanwhile, the preliminary Notification dated 30.12.2008 was quashed by the High Court. The said decision of the High Court, however, was reversed by this Court vide judgment dated 03.08.2018 passed in C.A. Nos.7661-63/2018 titled "Bangalore Development Authority & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr."39
7. This Court resultantly restored, revived and upheld the Dr.Shivaram Karanth Layout Scheme and consequently directed the State of Karnataka and BDA to implement the said Scheme.
8. It is in purported compliance of the above-cited decision of this Court that the final Notification dated 30.10.2018 was issued, which the appellants unsuccessfully assailed before the High Court.
9. The case of the appellants appears to be that notwithstanding the directions issued by this Court, they ought to have been given an opportunity to submit their objections before issuance of the final Notification dated 30.10.2018. However, the contention of the respondents before the High Court as well as before this Court is that, in view of the Bangalore Development Authority case (supra), they were not obligated to accord an opportunity of being heard to the affected land owners.
10. Since the judgment rendered by this Court in Bangalore Development Authority case (supra) adversely affected various land owners, who were not parties before this Court, they moved miscellaneous applications seeking modification/clarification of the said judgment.
11. It seems that some review applications were also filed. It is not in dispute that all those review/miscellaneous/curative/clarificatory applications have been disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Order dated 12.12.2023 in the following terms:-
"We are of the opinion that the present proceedings should be transferred to the High Court of Karnataka, at Bengaluru. Whether or not the term of the Committee should be extended as well as, the question of composition of the Committee, will be examined by the High Court.
The entire records of the present proceedings including all the applications, reports submitted by the Committee till date, and the orders passed thereon, will be sent to the High Court. An electronic/shadow file will, however, be maintained in this Court. The High Court will examine the latest reports filed by the Committee, that is, the 31st Report and the 32nd Report and pass appropriate orders.40
The physical records will be transferred to the BDA, after storing an e-copy/set on cloud. The credentials/details to access such e-copy shall be given to the authorized officers of BDA. The BDA will make a copy of the cloud records and store this one set on its server/cloud facility, as available with it. The original e-set will not be altered, modified or tampered.
Any person/entity, including the BDA, having an objection or issue arising from any reports of the Committee, may move an application before the High Court. The High Court will be entitled to decide all the pending issues and applications including the application(s) challenging any of the decisions taken by the Committee, or a subject matter of its reports.
However, in case there is any specific order or direction regarding a particular property, passed by this Court, applications regarding the same will be entertained by this Court.
Any person aggrieved by any order passed by the High Court will be entitled to approach this Court.
All interim orders passed by this Court with regard to transfer or retaining of the officers are hereby recalled.
Learned Advocate General for the State of Karnataka has drawn our attention to paragraph 23 of the order dated 20.01.2022, and submits that the State would like to pay additional compensation over and above the compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Accordingly, the direction may be modified. We make no comments in this regard. It will be open to the State to move an appropriate application before the High Court indicating grounds and justification. The prayer will be considered in accordance with law.
Pending miscellaneous applications are also transferred.
We would request the Chief Justice of the High Court to nominate a Bench to deal with the cases arising out of the judgment dated 03.08.2018 and the order dated 03.12.2020."
12. Since the matter has been referred to the High Court to consider all the claims, we see no reason to keep these proceedings pending before us. Suffice it to observe that in view of the directions reproduced above, the High Court will examine all the issues, which will necessarily include the appellants' 41 contention that the lands, which had been deleted from the Dr. Shivaram Karanth Layout Scheme, cannot be re-acquired without initiating a fresh acquisition process in accordance with law or that after the deletion/endorsement of such lands, the appellants have utilized the same in such a manner that no public purpose can be achieved by way of a fresh acquisition process.
13. The High Court will thus examine the legal effect of the deletion/endorsement of appellants' lands from the Scheme.
14. We may hasten to add that various other contentions urged before us, in our considered opinion, can be effectively raised before the High Court, in accordance with the law.
15. In view of the subsequent events noticed above, namely the order dated 12.12.2023 passed by this Court, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the appellants' claim, we set aside the impugned judgments/orders and remit these cases back to the High Court to be heard along with the matters, which are listed before the Bench constituted by the Chief Justice of the High Court in compliance with the order dated 12.12.2023 of this Court.
16. Till the matters are decided by the High Court afresh, status quo re: further construction/demolition/possession and development shall be maintained.
17. The parties are, accordingly, directed to appear before the High Court on 12.02.2024.
18. All the pending interlocutory applications, including those for impleadment, are also disposed of with liberty and directions as mentioned above.
19. Accordingly, the Civil Appeals are disposed of.
CONMT.PET.(C) No.34-35/2024
20. In view of the order passed in above C.A. No.830 /2024 and connected matters, the Contempt Petitions stand dismissed.
42 SLP (C) Dy. No.30336/202321. On the joint request of Mr. Mahesh Thakur, learned senior counsel and the learned counsel for the respondent, Diary No.30336/2023 is taken on board.
22. Delay condoned.
23. Leave granted.
24. In view of the order passed in C.A. No.830 /2024 and connected matters, the appeal is disposed of."
The Apex Court notices an order dated 12-12-2023, by which all the petitions that were pending, challenging the acquisition for formation of Dr. K.Shivarama Karanth Layout be placed before a specially constituted Bench and this matter was also directed to placed before this Bench by the aforesaid order. While so doing, the Apex Court observes that all the grounds urged before the Apex Court in the Special Leave Petitions could be effectively raised before this Court and therefore, the matters are remitted after setting aside the order of the Division Bench. The matter, thus lands before us.
13. The issue now would be, whether the lands that are dropped from acquisition could be confirmed, as the Apex Court had 43 directed acquisition of lands without qualification in its order dated 03-08-2018. Since the Apex Court in the later order directs all the issues to be considered, the issue whether the dropping of lands from acquisition was correct or otherwise is also to be considered by this Bench and on consideration, what would unmistakably emerge is that, it was not only the order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer that led dropping of the lands from acquisition, but the Commissioner, BDA had also put his imprimatur to the order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, all of which have statutorily happened exercising the power under Section 17 of the Act, which permits conduct of an inquiry. If the land had been sought to be given up pursuant to the proceedings drawn in accordance with law and that had been crystalized prior to issuance of the final notification, in our considered view, the land of the petitioner like other exemptions granted by the Apex Court from time to time, could be dropped from such acquisition.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Appeal is allowed.44
(ii) The dated 29-11-2021 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.1140 of 2021 concerning the petitioner is rendered unsustainable and is set aside.
(iii) Writ Petition No.1140 of 2021 is allowed and it is declared that the lands of the petitioner - subject lands, have been dropped from the acquisition for the purpose of formation of Dr. Shivarama Karanth Layout.
(iv) No costs.
Consequently, pending applications if any also stand
disposed.
SD/-
(KRISHNA S DIXIT)
JUDGE
SD/-
(M. NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
Bkp