Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. What order?

5. The learned Single Judge after considering the material placed before him, arguments of the parties and after looking into the files of BDA and Government, has held that in view of the amendment to the Constitution of India by the Constitution (Seventy-fourth Amendment) Act, 1992, Part IX-A and in particular and definition of Metropolitan Area defined in Article 243-P(c), Article 243-R relating to composition of municipalities and corresponding amendment carried out to the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act by inserting Section 503-B which provides for constitution of Metropolitan Planning Committee and the effect of Articles 243-ZE and 243-ZF, the BDA has no authority or jurisdiction to take up developmental scheme in Bangalore Metropolitan Area. On the other hand, the Metropolitan Planning Committee which is yet to be constituted has authority and jurisdiction to undertake developmental schemes in Bangalore Metropolitan Area. On point Nos. 2 and 3 the learned Single Judge held after referring to the original file, the Karnataka Government (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1977 and the discrepancy in the number of acreage sought to be acquired, coupled with the fact that layout plan was not forwarded to the Government before according sanction that the scheme in question had not been properly framed by the BDA and that there was no application of mind by the Government before according sanction and, therefore, the scheme was not legal and valid. On point No. 4, it was held that BDA is not constituted by elected members and it is subordinate to the Government and therefore cannot exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire the lands for public purpose. Further, it was held that the BDA Act has not received the Presidential assent and therefore, under Article 254(2) of the Constitution, the LA Act prevails over the BDA Act and the Government ought to have issued preliminary notification under Section 4 of the LA Act and the notification issued under Section 17 of the BDA Act is one without authority and as such it is bad in law. On point No. 5, it was held that LA Act imposes certain obligations upon the acquiring body and conferred certain rights upon the landowners and mandatory procedure laid down in the LA Act is not available in the BDA Act and therefore to have uniformity in the matter of acquisition and for solution to all matters, provisions of LA Act ought to have been resorted to. It was further held that to eliminate discrimination, the LA Act and Section 177 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act should have been resorted to and not the BDA Act. On point Nos. 6 and 7 the learned Judge held that the acquisition of land was not for public purpose and that it offends Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and deprives the owners of the land of their livelihood. On point No. 8, it was held that the Commissioner of the BDA, could not authorise the Additional Land Acquisition Officer to perform the duties specified in Section 4(2) of the LA Act. On point No. 9, it was held that the enquiry conducted was a farce, contrary to Section 5-A of the LA Act and not valid and legal and that the report of the Land Acquisition Officer had not been communicated to the objectors. On point No. 10, it was held that no notification under Section 16(2) of the LA Act had been issued declaring that possession of the land acquired had been taken. Awards had not been passed, compensation is not paid and possession not taken. It was also held that even before these formalities were completed the BDA had proceeded to form sites which was in contravention of LA Act and BDA Act. On point No. 11 the learned Judge found that the substitution of the words "sale deed" instead of "lease-cum-sale agreement" contained in Sub-rule (2-A) of Rule 13 of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 would defeat the very object for which the Authority had been constituted. On point No. 12, the plea of promissory estoppel raised by some of the landowners was rejected. On point No. 13, it was held that the acquisition of lands in question and non-acquisition of similar lands, amounts to discrimination and therefore the entire acquisition was quashed. On point Nos. 14 and 15 he has issued directions to take appropriate action. In view of these findings, the writ petitions were allowed by a detailed common order, W.P. No. 26601 to 26604 of 2004, dated 15-4-2005 (Sharadamma and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. 2005(4) Kar. L.J. 481). It is against this order that the writ appeals have been filed.

25. The word "development" in the BDA Act is defined as development with its grammatical variations means the carrying 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. Therefore, the meaning of the word "development" as given in the BDA Act is very narrow. In this context we have to understand the word "development" used in the preamble and in Sections 14 and 15 of the Act. So understood the scheme to be prepared under Section 15 and the plan to be submitted under Section 18 of the Act is only for the development of a portion of the land within the Bangalore Metropolitan Area. In contrast if we look into Articles 243-G and 243-W, the law to be made in respect of Panchayats and Municipalities are for the preparation of plans for economic development and social justice and implementation of schemes as may be entrusted to them, including those in relation to the matters listed in Eleventh and Twelfth Schedule, as the case may be. Whereas, Articles 243-ZD and 243- ZE, mandates consolidation of the plans prepared by the Panchayats and the Municipalities in the district and preparing a draft development plan for the district or metropolitan area as a whole. However, Section 302-A of the KM Act and Section 503-A of the KMC Act mandates preparation of development plan every year and submitting the same to the appropriate authorities. Articles 243-ZD and 243-ZE mandates that in preparing the draft development plan, the committee shall have regard to the plans prepared by Municipalities and Panchayats and matters of common interest between Panchayats and Municipalities and other factors mentioned therein. However, Clause (a) of Sub-section (7) of Section 503-B, mandates the committee to have regard to the plans prepared by the local authorities in the metropolitan area which includes the BDA. The word "development" in this context means a comprehensive economic, social and political process which aims at the constant improvement of the well-being of the entire population in the Municipality or Panchayat and in the fair distribution of the benefits therefrom and it has nothing to do with the development of a small area of undeveloped land.

28. Much of the arguments were centered on the meaning of the word "plan". It is because, the BDA Act refers to scheme, plan and complete plan. However, the Articles 243-G and 243-W refers to plans for economic development and social justice and also refers to schemes. Whereas Articles 243-ZD and 243-ZE and Section 503-B refers to draft development plan and Section 302-A of the KM Act and Section 503-A of KMC Act refers to preparation of development plan every year. The word plan or the scheme is not denned in any of these statutes.

31. The Legislature was conscious of the fact that in the Bangalore Metropolitan Area, a development authority is constituted which undertakes developmental works and, therefore, in addition to the words Municipalities and Panchayats in Metropolitan Area found in Article 243-ZE(3)(a) they have used the words local authority in Section 503-B(7)(a)(i) of the KMC Act. They amended the KMC Act and KM Act, to bring it in conformity with Part IX-A of the Constitution. Similarly, having applied their mind they did not find it necessary either to repeal or amend the BDA Act but they chose to retain the said legislation by making appropriate provision in Section 503-B of the KMC Act. They have taken care to see that there is no inconsistency between the amended provisions and the existing law. In fact under Section 45 of the Karnataka Act No. 35 of 1994 which was passed to amend the KMC Act to bring it in conformity with the Part IX-A of the Constitution, on the constitution of the Bangalore Metropolitan Planning Committee under Sub-section (1) of Section 503-B, the Bangalore Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1985 (Karnataka Act 39 of 1985) shall stand repealed. Thus, the existing law which was contrary to Part IX-A is repealed. Therefore, there is complete harmony in the wording of these provisions without giving room for any repugnancy, which also clearly demonstrates the legislative intent not to discard the provisions of the BDA Act.