K Venkatesh vs The Commissioner on 5 January, 2018

[Cites 74, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

K Venkatesh vs The Commissioner on 5 January, 2018

Bench: B.V.Nagarathna

                            1



   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF JANUARY 2018

                         BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

   WRIT PETITION NOS.40874 -40877 OF 2017 (LA-BDA)

BETWEEN:

K.VENKATESH
S/O LATE M.KAVERAPPA
AGE: 52 YEARS
NO.13, 8TH MAIN ROAD
BYRASANDRA, 1ST BLOCK
JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 042
                                             ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.RAGHAVENDRA K., ADV. FOR SRI.SHANTHI BHUSHAN H.,
ADV.)

AND :

1. THE COMMISSIONER
   BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
   BANGALORE - 20

2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION
   OFFICER
   BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
   BANGALORE - 20

3. ASST. ENGINEER
   BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
   BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE
   B.D.A. COMPLEX
   BANGALORE - 50
                                           ... RESPONDENTS

(SRI.K.KRISHNA, ADV.)
                           ---
                               2




       These writ petitions are filed under Article 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to declare that the
acquisition proceedings initiated in terms of the preliminary
notification dated 19.9.1977 vide Ann-C and final notification
dated 7.2.1978 vide Ann-D deemed to have lapsed by virtue
of Section 27 of the BDA Act r/w Section 24(2) of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Re-
habilitation and Re-settlement Act and etc.

     These petitions coming on for Orders this day, the court
made the following :


                         ORDER

These writ petitions were filed on 4.9.2017 seeking relief under Section 27 of the Bengaluru Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BDA Act' for the sake of brevity) and Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the '2013 Act' for the sake of brevity).

2. According to the petitioner, he is the absolute owner of lands bearing Sy.No.46/2 measuring 31 guntas, Sy.No.51/2 measuring 1-06 acres, Sy.No.52/3 measuring 10 guntas and Sy.No.19/1B measuring 20 guntas. All 3 these lands are situated at Byrasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. According to the petitioner, Sy.No.19/1B was purchased by the father of the petitioner whereas other survey numbers are inherited lands.

3. That the Bengaluru Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the 'BDA' for the sake of brevity) issued preliminary notification dated 19.9.1977 under Section 17(1) of the BDA Act which was followed by the final notification dated 7.2.1978 issued under Section 19 of the BDA Act intending to acquire the said lands for the purpose of BTM scheme. The petitioner has also averred that Annexure-E is the copy of the award passed on 21.5.1982 in respect of Sy.No.46/2.

Annexure-H is the copy of the award dated 29.7.1982 which was approved on 11.8.1982 in respect of Sy.No.51/2.

4. The petitioner has also stated that O.S.No.998/2014 has been filed seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the respondents herein and that petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.5827/2017. The said writ petition was withdrawn on 30.08.2017 with liberty to file these writ petitions.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a two fold submission. Firstly, he contended that the acquisition has lapsed as per Section 27 of the BDA Act.

Section 27 of the BDA Act deals with the lapse of acquisition and Section 36 of the Act becoming inoperative if the scheme is not substantially implemented within five years from the date of issuance of declaration. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the instant case, as far as the lands in question are concerned, the scheme has not been implemented at all.

6. His next submission is that having regard to Section 24 of 2013 Act, petitioner is entitled to relief by issuance of a declaration by this Court to the effect that the acquisition has lapsed. In this regard, he placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Pune Municipal Corporation and another vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and others' reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that as far as the relief sought under Section 27 of the BDA Act is concerned, it is sought highly belatedly and the writ petitions would have to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. In this regard, he places reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of 'Krishnamurthy vs. Bangalore Development Authority' reported in ILR 1996 KAR 1258.

8. As far as the relief sought under Section 24(2) of 2013 Act is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on a recent decision of this Court in the case of M/s.Evershine Monuments and others vs. State of Karnataka and others in W.P.No.17852-17856/2014 and connected matters disposed of on 14.12.2017. He submits that Section 24 of 2013 Act does not apply to an acquisition initiated under the BDA Act. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no merit in the writ petitions and the same may be dismissed.

9. As far as the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner under Section 27 of the BDA Act is concerned, it is noted that in the instant case, the preliminary notification is dated 19.9.1977 and the declaration and final notification is dated 7.2.1978, Annexures-C and D respectively to the writ petitions.

10. The lands in question along with hundreds of other acres were to be acquired by the BDA for the purpose of Byrasandra Thavarekere Madivala Scheme (BTM Layout).

11. Section 27 of the BDA Act reads as under:

"27. Authority to execute the scheme within five years.-Where within a period of five years from the date of the publication in the official Gazette of the declaration under sub- section (1) of section 19, the Authority fails to execute the scheme substantially, the scheme shall lapse and the provisions of section 36 shall become inoperative."

12. Upon reading of the said Section, it is observed that if within a period of five years from the date of publication in the Official Gazette and declaration issued under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act, BDA fails to execute the scheme substantially, the scheme shall lapse and the provisions of Section 36 shall become inoperative.

13. As already noted, in the instant case, the acquisition notifications are of the year 1977-78. These writ petitions have been filed on 4.9.2017 almost four decades after the notifications have been issued. If at all the petitioner wanted to seek relief under Section 27 of the BDA Act and if the said Section was applicable to the lands in question, then he ought to have approached this Court within a reasonable time. The fact that he has approached this Court after nearly four decades of the issuance of the notification, would imply that there is gross delay and laches in approaching this Court in seeking relief under that section.

14. Apart from the judgment of this Court in the case of Krishnamurthy referred to above, there are a plethora of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue regarding delay and as to how a Court of equity exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot extend its hands to such persons 9 who approach the Court after several years, which could be relied upon. In fact, the Apex Court has held in several decisions that stale claims ought not to be entertained by High Courts exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Some of the decisions in that regard are as follows:-

a) In a recent decision of the Apex Court reported in 2011 AIR SCW 1332 [State of Orissa & Anr. vs. Mamata Mohanty] the consideration of an application where delay and laches could be attributed against a person who approaches in a writ petition is discussed by stating that though the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to writ jurisdiction, however, the Doctrine of Limitation being based on public policy, the principles enshrined therein are applicable and writ petitions could be dismissed at the initial stage on the ground of delay and laches.

b) In the case of Shankar Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. vs. M.Prabhakar & Ors. [2011 AIR SCW 3033], the Apex Court at Para 53 has given the relevant 10 considerations, in determining whether delay or laches in approaching the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The same reads as follows;

"53. The relevant considerations, in determining whether delay or laches should be put against a person who approaches the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution is now well settled. They are: (1) there is no inviolable rule of law that whenever there is a delay, the court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition; it is a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion, and each case must be dealt with on its owns facts. (2) The principle on which the court refuses relief on the ground of laches or delay is that the rights accrued to others by the delay in filing the petition should not be disturbed, unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay, because court should not harm innocent parties if their rights had emerged by the delay on the part of the petitioners. (3) The satisfactory way of explaining delay in making an application under Article 226 is for the petitioner to show that he had been seeking relief elsewhere in a 11 manner provided by law. If he runs after a remedy not provided in the Statute or the statutory rules, it is not desirable for the High Court to condone the delay. It is immaterial what the petitioner chooses to believe in regard to the remedy. (4) No hard and fast rule, can be laid down in this regard. Every case shall have to be decided on its own facts. (5) That representations would not be adequate explanation to take care of the delay."

c) Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of Sawaran Latha and others vs. State of Haryana and others [2010(4) SCC 532] has held that when the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued in the year 2001 and the award was passed in the year 2004, writ petitions filed for quashing of the notification in the year 2009 have to be dismissed on the ground of delay as the litigants who dare to abuse the process of the Court in disregard of the law of limitation, delay and laches should not be encouraged.

d) In Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai vs. M.Meiyappan & Others [2010 AIR SCW 7130], when 12 the acquisition proceedings were challenged ten years after notifications were issued, the Apex Court held that the High Courts should not have entertained the writ petition particularly after passing of the award and that the High Court should have dismissed the writ petition at the threshold on the ground of delay and laches.

e) In Swaika Properties (P) Limited and another vs. State of Rajasthan & others [2008 (4) SCC 695], the Apex Court has followed its earlier decisions in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. The Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. & others [(1996) 11 SCC 501] by observing as follows:

"After the award under Section 11 of the Act was made by the Collector he is empowered under Section 16 to take possession of the land, if the possession was not already taken, exercising power under Section 17(4). Thereupon, the land shall vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. It is well settled law that taking possession of the land is by means of a 13 memorandum (Panchnama) prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer and signed by Panch witnesses called for the purpose. Subsequently, the collector hands over the same to the beneficiary by means of another memorandum or panchnama, as the case may be. But in this case Section 91 of the BMC Act statutorily comes into play which would indicate that the Land Acquisition Officer while making award should intimate to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of the amount of compensation determined and all other expenses. The Corporation shall pay over the same to the Land Acquisition Officer."

It was held that the writ petition had been filed after possession was taken over and the award had become final and therefore, the writ petition had to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

f) The order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition was confirmed by the Apex Court in Banda Development Authority, Banda vs. Motilal Agarwal and others [(2011) 5 SCC 394], as the filing of the writ petition was 9 years after the declaration was issued 14 under Section 6(1) of the Act and the delay of six years after passing of the award and the delayed filing of the writ petition was a reason for refusing to entertain the prayer made in the writ petition. It was held that in a challenge made to the acquisition of land for the purpose of public purpose Courts have consistently held that the delay in filing the writ petition should be viewed seriously, if the petitioner fails to offer plausible explanation for the delay.

g) Reference can also be made to another decision of the Apex Court reported in (1996) 6 SCC 445 in the case of State of Rajasthan & Others vs. D.R.Lakshmi & others, wherein it has cautioned the High Court not to entertain writ petitions where there is inordinate delay, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

h) Similarly, in the case of The Municipal Council, Ahmednagar & anr. vs. Shah Hyder Beig & others [(2002) 2 SCC 48], it has been opined thus:-

"The real test for sound exercise of discretion by the High Court in this regard is not the physical running of time as such but the test is whether by reason of delay, there is such negligence on the part of the petitioner so as to infer that he has given up his claim or where the petitioner has moved the Writ Court, the rights of the third parties have come into being which should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is reasonable explanation for the delay."

i) In fact in S.S.Balu and others vs. State of Kerala [(2009) 2 SCC 479], it has been held that delay defeats equity and that relief can be denied on the ground of delay alone even though relief is granted to other similarly situated persons who approach the courts in time.

k) In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. T.T. Murali Babu [(2014)4 SCC 16 109], on the doctrine of delay and laches and approach of the Court in that regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled as under:

"16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant - a litigant who has forgotten the basic 17 norms, namely, 'procrastination is the greatest thief of time' and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis."

l) Further, recently in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. R.K. Zalpuri and others [(2015) 15 SCC 602], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that the writ Court while deciding a writ petition has to remain alive to the nature of the claim and the unexplained delay on the part of the writ petitioner. Stale claims are not to be adjudicated unless non-interference would cause grave injustice.

15. The aforesaid decisions are squarely applicable having regard to the facts of the present cases.

16. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of Section 27 of the BDA Act is rejected as the said contention has been raised in these writ petitions belatedly.

17. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is on the basis of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act. This Court in the case of M/s.Evershine Monuments referred to above has held that Section 24 of the 2013 Act does not apply to acquisition initiated under the BDA Act. The said Section applies to only those acquisitions which were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984.

18. Petitioners have sought a declaration that the acquisition of Sy.No.172/2A is deemed to have lapsed under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act.

Section 24 of the 2013 Act is extracted for immediate reference as under:

"24. Land acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:

(a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act 19 relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or

(b) where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act:

Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for 20 acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act."

The title or preamble to Section 24 reads as "Land acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894" shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases. It is explicit, restricted in its scope and not expansive in nature. It is only where the acquisition process has been initiated under LA Act, 1894 that the acquisition would lapse, on the existence of conditions as stated in sub-section (2) of Section 24. Same is the case with regard to Clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 24.

19. The said Section has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority vs. Sukhbir Singh and others [(2016) 16 SCC 258] (Sukbhir Singh). In said case the acquisition was under the provisions of LA Act, 1894 and not under any other Central or State enactment. Further, it has been held as under:

"11. Section 24(1) begins with a non- obstante clause and covers situations where either no award has been made under the Land Acquisition Act, in which case the more beneficial provisions of the 2013 Act relating to determination of compensation shall apply, or where an award has been made under Section 11, land acquisition proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as if the said Act had not been repealed.

12. To Section 24(1)(b) an important exception is carved out by Section 24(2). The necessary ingredients of Section 24(2) are as follows:

(a) Section 24(2) begins with a non-

obstante clause keeping sub-section (1) out of harm's way;

(b) For it to apply, land acquisition proceedings should have been initiated under the Land Acquisition Act;

(d) Physical possession of the land, if not taken, or compensation, if not paid, are fatal to 22 the land acquisition proceeding that had been initiated under the Land Acquisition Act;

(e) The fatality is pronounced by stating that the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed, and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall, in this game of snakes and ladders, start all over again."

(underlining by me)

20. Further, in the case of Government (NCT of Delhi) vs. Manav Dharam Trust and another [(2017) 6 SCC 751], (Manav Dharam Trust) referring to Sukhbir Singh, it has been observed as under:

"24. The 2013 Act has made a sea change in the approach on the acquisition of land and compensation thereof. The only lapse under the 1894 Act was under Section 11-A where what would lapse is the ... "entire proceedings for the acquisition of land" whereas under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, what gets lapsed is the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act which has culminated in passing of an award under Section 11 but where either possession was not taken or compensation was not paid within five years prior to 1-1-2014. In other words, the land acquisition proceedings 23 contemplated under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act would take in both, payment of compensation and taking of possession within the five year period prior to 1-1-2014. If either of them is not satisfied, the entire land acquisition proceedings would lapse under the deeming provision. The impact of deemed lapse under Section 24(2) is that pervasive. To quote R.F. Nariman, J. in DDA v. Sukbhir Singh: (SCC p.283, para 26) "26. ... As is well settled, a deeming fiction is enacted so that a putative state of affairs must be imagined, the mind not being allowed to boggle at the logical consequence of such putative state of affairs. ... In fact, Section 24(2) uses the expression "deemed to have lapsed"

because the Legislature was cognizant of the fact that, in cases where compensation has not been paid, and physical possession handed over to the State, vesting has taken place, after which land acquisition proceedings could be said to have been ended."

Thus, on account of the lapse, the encumbrance created in favour of the State 24 comes to an end, and resultantly, the impediment to encumber the land also comes to an end. Even, according to the appellants, the transfers were illegal and void for the reason that there was an impediment for the transfer. Once the acquisition proceedings lapse, all impediments cease to exist."

(underlining by me)

21. The aforesaid observations have been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the question whether subsequent purchasers/assignees/power of attorney holders etc. have locus standi to file a petition seeking declaration of lapse of acquisition proceedings under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of 2013 Act, which, even according to the Hon'ble Supreme Court was the only issue arising in that case. But, nevertheless, the aforesaid observations have been made in the context of land acquisition proceedings initiated under LA Act, 1894.

22. Further, in the case of Aligarh Development Authority vs. Meghsingh (AIR 2016 SC 2912), which 25 is also a case arising under the provisions of LA Act, 1894, at paragraph 6 and 7, it has been held as under;

"6. Section 24 of the 2013 Act envisages mainly two situations; i) where the land acquisition proceedings had already been initiated under the 1894 Act but no award was passed till the date the new Act came into force.

(ii) where the Award has been passed but neither the owner has been dispossessed nor has he been paid the compensation. Under the first, where the award had not been passed, the acquisition proceedings could continue; but the compensation will have to be determined under the scheme of 2013 Act. Under the second category, there is a statutory lapse of the proceedings. There is also an incidental third situation, where award under the 1894 Act had already been passed prior to coming into force of the 2013 Act, but payment is yet to be made and possession is yet to be taken. In that case, the further proceedings after the award could continue under the old Act of 1894; but if either payment or possession has not taken effect in five years prior to the 2013 Act, then proceedings will lapse.

7. In the case before us, since admittedly the award has not been passed, there arises no question of lapse. The land acquisition proceedings would continue but with the rider that the award will have to be passed and compensation determined under the provisions of 2013 Act."

23. Thus, by following the observations and interpretation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it becomes clear that Section 24 of the 2013 Act, [whether it is sub-section (1) or sub-section (2)] applies only when acquisition proceedings have been initiated under the provisions of the LA Act, 1894. Therefore, on that short ground alone, it could be held that Section 24 of the 2013 Act is not applicable to an acquisition initiated under the BDA Act.

24. The LA Act, 1894, though a pre-constitution legislation and since repealed, could be traced to Entry-

42, List-III (Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, whereas the BDA Act has been enacted by the State Legislature on the strength of Entry-5, List-II 27 (State List) of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.

The said entries are extracted for immediate reference as under:

"Seventh Schedule, List III-Concurrent List, Entry 42 - Acquisition and requisitioning of property."

"Seventh Schedule, List II- State List, Entry-5 - Local government, that is to say, the constitution and powers of municipal corporations, improvement trusts, district boards, mining settlement authorities and other local authorities for the purpose of local self- government or village administration."

Thus, both the Acts have been enacted under two different Entries of two distinct Lists of the Seventh Schedule. Moreover, the object and purpose of the two Acts are distinct.

25. The object and purpose of the LA Act, 1894, is for acquisition of the land for public purposes and for companies. The expression public purpose is defined in Section 3(f) of the said Act. It is an inclusive definition 28 and not an exhaustive one. Section 3(f) is substituted by the Karnataka Amendment with effect from 24.08.1961.

On the other hand, the object of the BDA Act, which has substituted City Improvement Trust Board Act, is to provide for the establishment of a Development Authority for the development of the city of Bangalore, now Bengaluru, and areas adjacent thereto and matters connected therewith. Whereas, the provisions of LA Act, 1894, is to acquire land for public purposes, determination of compensation and matters connected therewith and is a general enactment, the object and purpose of the BDA Act is for planned development of Bangalore Metropolitan Area and acquisition of land under Sections 17 and 19 of the BDA Act by issuance of Preliminary and Final Notifications is incidental which is for the purpose of development schemes, as enunciated in Chapter III of the BDA Act, for Bangalore Metropolitan Area. For that purpose, the BDA has authority to acquire land by agreement with the land owners as per Section 35 of the said Act or the State Government could transfer 29 land to the BDA belonging to it or to Corporation or a local authority as per Section 37 or, BDA could directly acquire land from land owners under Chapters III and IV of the said BDA Act.

26. The object and purpose of the BDA Act has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy and others vs. Bangalore Development Authority and others [(2010) 7 SCC 129] (Bondu Ramaswamy), which was a case concerning challenge to acquisition made by BDA for the purpose of formation of Arkavathi Layout, at Paragraph No.47, by holding that, the purpose and object of the BDA is to act as a development authority for the development of the city of Bangalore and areas adjacent thereto. The Preamble of the BDA Act describes it as "an Act to provide for the establishment of a Development Authority for the development of the city of Bangalore and areas adjacent thereto and for matters connected therewith". The development contemplated by the BDA Act is "carrying 30 out of building, engineering or other operations in or over or under land or the making of any material change in any building or land and includes redevelopment" (vide Section 2(j) of BDA Act). Therefore, the purpose of BDA Act is to make lay outs, construct buildings or carry out other operations in regard to land."

27. Further, in Offshore Holdings Private Limited vs. Bangalore Development Authority [(2011) 3 SCC 139] (Offshore Holdings), the scheme under the BDA Act, 1976, has been alluded to in detail.

28. Adverting to Section 27 of BDA Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that it places an obligation upon the Authority (BDA), to complete the scheme within a period of five years and if the scheme is not substantially carried out within that period, it shall lapse and the provisions of Section 36 shall become inoperative, i.e. this is a provision which provides for serious consequences in the event the requisite steps are not taken within the specified time.

29. Observing that some land may have to be acquired for the purpose of completing the scheme; such land has to be identified in the scheme itself as per Section 16 of the BDA Act. Chapter IV of the BDA Act deals with "acquisition of land". Adverting to Sections 35 and 36 of the BDA Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that these provisions postulate acquisition of land by two modes. Firstly, by entering into an agreement with the owner of the land; and secondly, otherwise than by agreement which shall be regulated by the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, in so far as they are applicable. Where the lands are acquired by agreement, there would be hardly any dispute either on fact or in law.

Controversies, primarily, would arise in the cases of compulsory acquisition under the provisions of the Act.

The intention of the Legislature, thus, is clear to take recourse to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act to a limited extent and subject to the supremacy of the provisions of the State Act.

30. Comparing BDA Act with Maharashtra Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that a very important aspect which, unlike the MRTP Act, (Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act), is specified in the BDA Act is that, once the land is acquired and it vests in the State Government in terms of Section 16 of the LA Act, 1894 then the Government, upon (a) payment of the cost of acquisition and (b) the Authority, agreeing to pay any further cost, which may be incurred on account of acquisition, shall transfer the land to the BDA whereupon, it shall vest in the BDA. The Government is further vested with the power to transfer land to the BDA belonging to it or to the Corporation as per Section 37 of the BDA Act.

31. By contrast, the scheme of the LA Act, 1894, which is since repealed by 2013 Act was an expropriatory legislation to provide for acquisition of land for public purposes and for companies. Section 4 of the said Act dealt with publication of Preliminary Notification while 33 Section 5-A provided for hearing objections with regard to the proposed acquisitions. Section 6 dealt with the issuance of a declaration and Final Notification that the land was required for a public purpose. The said declaration was conclusive evidence that the land was needed for a public purpose or for a Company, as the case may be. After making such a declaration, the appropriate government could acquire the land in accordance with the Act. In fact, Part II of the LA Act, 1894, dealt with acquisition which contemplated procedure for the passing of an award; notifying persons interested and taking possession of the land. Part II of the said Act, dealt with the provisions dealing with enhancement of compensation by the reference Court by the land owner seeking a reference for a higher compensation. Part IV dealt with apportionment of compensation, while Part V of the said Act concerned with payment. Acquisition of land for companies was dealt with in Part VII of the said Act and a special procedure was prescribed. Part VIII pertained to miscellaneous 34 provisions. Thus, the whole object and scheme of LA Act, 1894, was to acquire land for a public purpose or for the benefit of companies, whereas the object and scheme of the BDA Act is to have planned development of Bangalore Metropolitan Area and in that regard acquisition of land under the BDA Act read with the provisions of the LA Act, 1894 is only incidental to and not the primary object of BDA Act.

32. More specifically, the controversy as to, whether, Sections 6 and 11-A of the LA Act, 1894, were applicable to provisions of the BDA Act or not were considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Munithimmaiah vs. State of Karnataka and others [(2002) 4 SCC 326]; Offshore Holdings Private Limited, and Bondu Ramaswamy.

Recently, in Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, Mysore and another vs. Anasuya Bai (D) by LRs. and others (AIR 2017 SC 904) (Anasuya Bai), the question under consideration before the Hon'ble 35 Supreme Court was, as to, whether relief under Section 24 of the 2013 Act could be granted to landowners when acquisition was made under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, (KIAD Act).

33. The relevant portions of the order in M/s.Evershine Monuments may be extracted as under:

"33. Next, it is necessary to discuss Smt. K.M. Chikkathayamma and others vs. The State of Karnataka and others [ILR 2016 KAR 1603], which is a recent judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court and which is the sheet-anchor of learned counsel for the petitioners.

a) The points for determination in the aforesaid case are culled out for immediate reference as under:

"a) Whether the petitions in WP 38868-70 and WP Nos.38871-74/2015 are maintainable in view of the acquisition proceedings initiated under the KUDA Act having been quashed and the same being the subject matter of an appeal before a Division bench of this Court.

b) Whether the provisions of the LA Act, 1894 or the LA Act, 2013, should be applied to acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the KUDA Act and the BDA Act, if the proceedings are not completed as on the date of coming into force of the LA Act, 2013.

c) What order should follow in each of these petitions."

Learned Single judge has culled out the ingredients of the said sub-section which is extracted later.

b) It is necessary to delineate on this case in detail as heavy reliance has been placed on the said decision by learned counsel for the petitioners. The primary contention canvassed in the aforesaid case was, as to, whether 2013 Act would be applicable to acquisitions initiated under the provisions of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (KUDA Act) and BDA Act. If the answer to the same was in the affirmative, then the acquisition proceeding in the aforesaid case which concerned BDA Act also was deemed to have lapsed.

c) In that case, the contention of learned Senior Counsel and learned Counsel for the petitioners was, where a statute is cited by a reference (the cited statute) (LA Act, 1894) into an another statute (the referring statute) (BDA Act/KUDA Act) any repeal or amendment of the cited statute is automatically carried over or reflected in the referring statute. This was in contrast, to a case of legislation by incorporation wherein the repeal or amendment of the incorporated statute does not automatically affect the incorporating statute. It was further contended in the said case that in Offshore Holdings Private Limited, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held, Section 36 of the BDA Act (a provision in pari materia with Section 36 of KUDA Act) to be a case of legislation by incorporation. But, the repeal of LA Act, 1894 and substitution of 2013 Act created an exception and when the exception applied, the effect would be one of legislation by reference. It was contended that, if LA Act, 1894, was to be applied to acquisitions made under the KUDA Act post 01.01.2014, the quantum of compensation to the land owners in relation to acquisitions under the KUDA Act would be lesser than the compensation vis-à-vis acquisition made under 38 2013 Act, even though the purpose of the acquisition is same (urban or town planning and allotment of house sites). Similarly, the additional benefits in relation to rehabilitation and resettlement of affected families would also not be available to the land owners even though the purpose of the acquisition remains the same. It was emphasized in that case that the provisions of 2013 Act are more beneficial to the land owners and affected families in land acquisition proceedings. The discriminatory effect as regards compensation and other benefits would occur because there is a complete change in the legislative approach in relation to land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement under 2013 Act which is more beneficial to the land owners. It was further contended in the said case that the land owners would thus be entitled to different rates of compensation and other resettlement and rehabilitation benefits, depending upon which Act the acquisition is made, whether under the BDA Act or KUDA Act or the central land acquisition enactments resulting in a discriminatory effect being in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

d) Per contra, the State through learned Advocate General submitted in the said case that 39 the intention of Section 24 in 2013 Act is different and distinct in that the said section has specific reference to acquisition proceedings initiated under LA Act, 1894. That the object and purpose of Section 24 is not only to save acquisition initiated under LA Act, 1894, but also to declare lapse of acquisition under sub-section (2) of Section 24 and to also give the benefit of the 2013 Act under certain circumstances. It was further contended that Section 27 of KUDA Act as well as BDA Act provide for lapse of scheme of development and consequent in operation of Section 36 of the Act. That BDA Act being a complete code by itself, lapse of acquisition has to be considered under that Act only. It was further contended that Section 24 is more in the nature of a transitory provision and an exception and operates as a link between LA Act, 1894 and 2013 Act.

e) While considering point No.2 extracted above, learned Single Judge in the said case held with regard to interpretation of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act as under:-

"Section 24(2) of the LA Act, 2013 provides for lapse of acquisition proceedings commenced under the LA 40 Act, 1894, on the satisfaction of certain conditions, which are as follows:

a. The award of compensation should have been passed five years or more prior to the commencement of the LA Act, 2013. In that, it should have been passed prior to 01.01.2009;

AND b. Physical possession of the land has not been taken;

OR c. Compensation has not been paid.

The Apex Court has interpreted the requirement of possession being taken under Section 24(2) of the LA Act, 2013, to mean that actual physical possession has to be taken and mere symbolic possession would not suffice."

(emphasis by me) Although learned Single Judge has noticed that sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act applies to acquisition proceedings commenced under the LA Act, 1894, nevertheless has also held that the "answer to the second point for consideration is that it is the LA Act, 2013 that shall be applied to 41 acquisition proceedings under the BDA Act and KUDA Act, that have remained without being completed in all respects as on 1.1.2014, and proceedings that have been initiated thereafter".

f) Thus, learned Single Judge after referring to Section 24 of 2013 Act, held that it was applicable even to acquisitions made under the provisions of the BDA Act as well as KUDA Act. Learned Single Judge however noted that sub-section (2) of Section 24 is a substantive provision of law which saves acquisition as well as affords the prospect of land sought to be acquired reverting to the land owner under certain conditions.

34. The said decision was rendered on 10.03.2016. It is stated at the Bar that the said decision has been appealed against by the BDA and a Division Bench of this Court has stayed the order passed in the said case.

x x x

37. In my humble opinion, the judgment in Chikkathayamma's case as well as similar judgments in other cases, in the context of KUDA, 1987 and BDA Act have been rendered without making an analysis of Section 24 of the 42 2013 Act, with regard to its applicability to acquisitions initiated under those Acts as opposed to acquisitions initiated under LA Act, 1894. Further, judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in that regard have not been considered and followed and without bearing in mind the distinction in the object and scheme of the LA Act, 1894 and the BDA Act, as well as the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that regard. Learned Single Judge by his order has granted relief under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of 2013 Act. While a reference has been made to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy, Munithimmaiah, and Offshore Holdings Pvt. Ltd., the said reference is not in depth, as a detailed consideration of the aforesaid judgments, which have been rendered on a detailed comparison of LA Act, 1894 with BDA Act, would have thrown light on the object and scope of Section 24 of 2013 Act.

38. Reliance placed on the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions referred to above in detail would clearly indicate that the object and scheme of the LA Act, 1894 and the BDA Act, being distinct and meant for different purposes, 43 it cannot be construed that acquisition initiated under the provisions of the BDA Act, is an acquisition initiated under the provisions of the LA Act, 1894. More significantly, the judgment in Chikkathayamma's case does not take into consideration the dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukhbir Singh and the subsequent decision in the case of Manav Dharam Trust, which are directly on the issue of applicability of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act to only acquisitions initiated under LA Act, 1894.

39. With respect, the judgment in the case of Chikkathayamma and other judgments which are similar in nature cannot be considered to be binding precedent as they are contrary to the dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above as well as the provision of Section 24 of the 2013 Act and hence cannot be applied to the present cases which deal with acquisition under BDA Act. There are also additional reasons for holding so.

40. Revisiting the words of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, what is significant to note is the fact that the said Section expressly refers to land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 44 LA Act, 1894. The said Section does not incorporate the words "or proceedings initiated under any other enactment". Therefore, the expression "land acquisition proceedings initiated under the LA Act, 1894"

are significant and must be given its natural and plain meaning and the said expression cannot be given an expansive interpretation by adding words to the provision, in the absence of the provision itself giving rise to any such implication. In this regard, the rules of interpretation of a statute would become relevant and reliance could be placed on guiding principles of interpretation of statute. One such principle is that the Court is not entitled to read words into a provision of an Act or Rule for, the meaning is to be found within the four corners of the provision of an act or rule, as in the instant case. Therefore, while it is not permissible to add words or to fill in a gap or lacuna, on the other hand, effort should be made to give meaning to each and every word used by the legislature. Thus, the golden rule of construction is that the words of a provision of a statute, or rule must be first understood in the natural, ordinary or popular sense. Phrases and sentences must be construed according to 45 their grammatical meaning, unless that leads to some absurdity or unless there is something in the context, or in the object of the statute to suggest the contrary. In other words, the golden rule is that the words of a statute prima facie be given an ordinary meaning. Natural and ordinary meaning of words should not be departed from "unless it can be shown that the legal context in which the words are used requires a different meaning". Such a meaning cannot be departed from by the judges "in light of their own views as to policy" unless it is shown to adopt a purposive interpretation of the statute, which does not arise in the instant case.

41. In this context, Harbhajan Singh vs. Press Council of India reported in AIR 2002 SC 1351 could be relied upon wherein, Cross on "Statutory Interpretation" (Third Edition, 1995) has been relied upon as follows:-

"Thus, an 'ordinary meaning' or 'grammatical meaning' does not imply that the Judge attributes a meaning to the words of a statute independently of their context or of the purpose of the statute, but rather that he adopts a meaning 46 which is appropriate in relation to the immediately obvious and unresearched context and purpose in and for which they are used."

42. The aforesaid principles being squarely applicable to Section 24 of the 2013 Act, the same must be interpreted having regard to the intention of the Parliament. In this regard, one cannot lose sight of the fact that 2013 Act repeals only LA Act, 1894, and not any other Central or State enactment dealing with acquisition. Therefore, what are sought to be saved under Section 24 of the 2013 Act, are those acquisitions initiated only under LA Act, 1894 and not any acquisition initiated under any other Central or State enactment. Therefore, the words "acquisition proceedings initiated under any other enactment" cannot be added or supplemented by the Court after the expression "in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894" under both sub- sections 1 and 2 of Section 24 of 2013 Act. Further, the short title of Section 24 of 2013 Act reads as "Land acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases." This is another indication that 47 Section 24 applies only to those acquisition "initiated" under the provisions of LA Act, 1894.

43. Further, Section 24 creates a new right in favour of land owners in as much as they are entitled to relief under certain circumstances as stipulated in Section 24 of the Act. One such relief is under sub-section(2) of Section 24 of the Act, dealing with lapse of acquisition by a fiction. It is a deeming provision, provided the stipulations therein are complied with or the conditions mentioned therein exist. One overbearing condition is that the acquisition must have been initiated under the provisions of LA Act, 1894. Thus, if acquisition is initiated under any other Central or State enactment, Section 24 does not apply.

44. The reasons as to why Parliament has incorporated Section 24 in the 2013 Act are evident and not far to see. The said section creates a new right in favour of land owners whose lands have been acquired under the provisions of LA Act, 1894, which has been repealed and substituted by 2013 Act. The 2013 Act is not a substitution for other Central enactments pertaining to acquisition of land or 48 for that matter any other State enactment. Therefore, Section 24 uses the expression that the acquisition must have been initiated under the provisions of LA Act, 1894. But while creating a new right in favour of land owners under Section 24, Parliament at the same time has intended two further aspects: first, saving acquisition under LA Act, 1894 and second, not encroaching upon other Central or State enactments. As far as State enactments dealing with acquisitions are concerned, Parliament intentionally has not touched upon any State enactment. The reason being that several State enactments have been made drawing sustenance from Entry 5, List II or State List of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, whereas LA Act, 1894 as well as 2013 Act could be traced to Entry 42 List III (Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule. Moreover, as has been explained above, the object and scope of the BDA Act made under Entry 5 List II (State List) are distinct from LA Act, 1894 substituted by 2013 Act.

45. Further, the State enactments have their own provisions concerning lapse of acquisition such as Section 27 of BDA Act or KUDA Act and Section 24 of 2013 Act cannot 49 trammel upon those provisions of the State Acts such as BDA Act or KUDA Act. The State enactments may have referred to certain provisions of LA Act, 1894, particularly with regard to determination of compensation and such other matters. Reference to LA Act, 1894 in the State enactments for certain purposes does not imply that the acquisition is initiated under LA Act, 1894. What is of prime importance for Section 24 of 2013 Act to apply is that acquisition proceedings must have been initiated under LA Act, 1894 and not any other law. Losing sight of this aspect would create confusion in the applicability of Section 24 of 2013 Act. If the said provision is to apply to acquisitions initiated under a State enactment, such as, BDA Act or KUDA Act, then Section 27 of the said Acts which also deal with lapse of acquisition under certain circumstances will be rendered nugatory, otiose or redundant on prevailing of circumstances mentioned in Section 24 of the 2013 Act. In this regard, it is also observed that when State Acts such as, BDA Act or KUDA Act, have specific provisions in the form of Section 27 concerning lapse of acquisition, Section 24 of the Parliamentary 50 enactment i.e., 2013 Act, cannot be applied, when acquisitions are under State enactments. This is because, the State or Central Laws concerning acquisition are enacted under different entries and in different Lists of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and therefore, they operate in different fields. This is so, although, the State enactments may refer to the provisions of LA Act, 1894 for certain purposes.

46. At this stage itself, it may be observed that the issue as to whether LA Act, 1894 has been incorporated into BDA Act by the device of legislation by incorporation or legislation by reference is wholly foreign and outside the scope of controversy while considering the applicability of Section 24 to acquisition initiated under any law (whether State or Central), de hors LA Act, 1894. The arguments of learned counsel for the land owners - petitioners in Chikkathayamma's case on the aforesaid aspect was unwarranted and wholly digressive from the issue to be considered in that case namely, whether Section 24 of 2013 Act was applicable to acquisitions initiated under any law other than LA Act, 1894, such as, BDA Act, KUDA Act. The 51 dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard after comparing the scheme of LA Act, 1894 and BDA Act, are binding and authoritative and the same cannot be brushed aside or ignored by not applying the same in appropriate cases, such as the present one.

47. Thus, 2013 Act has not only repealed the LA Act, 1894, but has substituted the said Act. The 2013 Act is a totally distinct enactment and a complete code by itself. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, initiation of acquisition under State enactments such as BDA Act is not the same as initiation of acquisition under LA Act, 1894.

48. Further, it is noted that 2013 Act has, by virtue of Section 114 thereof, repealed LA Act, 1894. Section 114 reads as under:

"114. Repeal and Saving: (1) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) is hereby repealed.

(2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act the repeal under sub-section (1) shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general application of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897) with regard to the effect of repeals."

Therefore, what is saved under Section 114 of 2013 Act are only those acts and actions initiated under the provisions of the LA Act, 1894, which ought to be saved having regard to the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, reads as under:

"6. Effect of repeal.- Where this Act, or any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not.-

(a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or

(b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or

(c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or

(d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any 53 offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or

(e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid;

and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed."

However, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would apply only when a saving clause as per sub-section 2 of Section 14 is not expressly provided under 2013 Act. Section 24 of the 2013 Act, which is in the nature of a saving clause has created new rights in favour of land owners whose lands had been acquired under LA Act, 1894. Sub-section (1), lays down the conditions when the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the LA Act, 1894, would be amenable to the provisions of 2013 Act or, continued under the provisions of the LA Act, 1894, on certain conditions or circumstances prevailing. Under sub-section 54 (2) of Section 24, the Parliament has, by a deeming provision, intended that if certain conditions are satisfied, the acquisition proceedings initiated under the LA Act, 1894, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

x x x

50. Therefore, for a declaration of lapse of acquisition, the pre-conditions or conditions precedent mentioned under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act must apply. Most importantly the said conditions must prevail in an acquisition initiated under the provisions of the LA Act, 1894, and not with regard to acquisition initiated under any other enactment be it Central or State enactment. Therefore, before land owners could seek relief under sub- section (2) of Section 24 of 2013 Act, which is a right created in their favour, the basic postulate that must be borne in mind is to ascertain, in the first instance, as to under which law, acquisition has been initiated; whether under the provisions of the LA Act, 1894 or any other law. If it is under any other law, then in my view Section 24 would not be applicable to such acquisitions. The dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Munithimmaiah, Bondu Ramaswamy, Offshore Holdings Private Limited 55 clearly enunciate that an acquisition initiated under the provisions of the BDA Act being distinct from an acquisition initiated under the provisions of the LA Act, 1894, it cannot be held that acquisition process initiated under the provisions of the LA Act, 1894, would also encompass acquisition proceedings initiated under any other law such as, the BDA Act. As already noted, the two enactments being distinct having a different object and scope and acquisition of lands being only incidental to the main object and scope under the BDA Act, the acquisition proceedings initiated under the two Acts cannot be considered on par, so as to hold that land acquisition proceedings initiated under the provisions of the BDA Act is "land acquisition proceedings initiated under the provisions of the LA Act, 1894."

51. As already observed, Section 24 of the 2013 Act creates a new right in the land owners. For the exercise of said right, certain conditions have to exist, the most significant of them being, the initiation of proceedings for acquisition under the provisions of the LA Act, 1894. Therefore, the said words must be given a natural interpretation and not an expansive or wide interpretation, so as to extend the right 56 under Section 24 even in respect of land owners whose lands are subjected to acquisition under any State enactment, such as the BDA Act or KUDA Act. In fact, the Parliament itself has been conscious of the fact that 2013 Act repeals and substitutes only LA Act, 1894, and not any other Central enactment or for that matter any other State enactment dealing with acquisition of lands. This is evident from Section 105 of the 2013 Act, which reads as under:

"105. Provisions of this Act not to apply in certain cases or to apply with certain modifications: (1) Subject to sub-section (3), the provisions of this Act shall not apply to the enactments relating to land acquisition specified in the Fourth Schedule.

(2) Subject to sub-section (2) of Section 106, the Central Government may, by notification, omit or add to any of the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule.

(3) The Central Government shall, by notification, within one year from the date of commencement of this Act, direct that any of the provisions of this Act relating to 57 the determination of compensation in accordance with the First Schedule and rehabilitation and resettlement specified in the Second and Third Schedules, being beneficial to the affected families, shall apply to the cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule or shall apply with such exceptions or modifications that do not reduce the compensation or dilute the provisions of this Act relating to compensation or rehabilitation and resettlement as may be specified in the notification, as the case may be.

(4) A copy of every notification proposed to be issued under sub-section (3), shall be laid in draft before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in disapproving the issue of the notification or both Houses agree in making any modification in the notification, the 58 notification shall not be issued or, as the case may be, shall be issued only in such modified form as may be agreed upon by both the Houses of Parliament."

The enactments relating to land acquisition specified in the Fourth Schedule referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 105 consists of the following thirteen Parliamentary enactments, namely:

"THE FOURTH SCHEDULE [See section 105] LIST OF ENACTMENTS REGULATING LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT

1. The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (24 of 1958).

2. The Atomic Energy Act, 1962 (33 of 1962).

3. The Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948 (14 of 1948).

4. The Indian Tramways Act, 1886 (11 of 1886).

5. The Land Acquisition (Mines) Act, 1885 (18 of 1885).

6. The Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 (33 of 1978).

7. The National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956).

8. The Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962).

9. The Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (30 of 1952).

10. The Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948 (60 of 1948).

11. The Coal Bearing Areas Acquisition and Development Act, 1957 (20 of 1957).

12. The Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003).

13. The Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989)."

52. Therefore, Parliament itself has listed the Central enactments to which 2013 Act does not apply. This is because Parliament was conscious of the fact that LA Act, 1894 was substituted by the 2013 Act, which is distinct and different from the other Central enactments enumerated in the Fourth Schedule to the 2013 Act or State enactments.

53. In the circumstances, it is concluded and held that Section 24 does not take within its scope nor does it apply to, acquisitions which 60 have been initiated under the provisions of any other enactment particularly, State enactment, such as, BDA Act. The said Section is restricted to only those acquisitions which have been initiated under the provisions of the LA Act, 1894 only. Subject to compliance of the conditions mentioned under sub-section (2) of Section 24, the land owner would be entitled to the deeming provision regarding lapse of acquisition and not otherwise.

54. In the result, Point No.(i) is answered by holding that petitioners are not entitled to relief under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, as the acquisitions in these cases were initiated under the provisions of the BDA Act and not under the LA Act, 1894. It is further held, with respect, that Chikkathayamma's and other similar decisions, having regard to the dicta of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Munithimmaiah, Bondu Ramaswamy, Offshore Holdings Private Limited, are not applicable as binding precedent in the present case. Further, most of the decisions referred to above have granted relief on the basis of factual determination as per sub-section 2 of Section 24 and without considering the question of law which arises in these cases. Further, in some 61 cases, the petitioners have themselves not pressed sub-section (2) of Section 24 of 2013 Act. Even then, relief has been granted on a determination made on facts and by holding that there has been abandonment of acquisition/lapse of acquisition.

55. Hence, these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed, as the petitioners are not entitled to relief under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act as the said section does not apply to acquisition initiated under the provisions of BDA Act."

34. In the circumstances the petitioner is not entitled to seek relief under sub-section 2 of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, as the aforesaid reasoning squarely applies to the instant case.

35. There being no other contention raised, writ petitions are dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE RV/Bsv

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court