LexBANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. versus R. HANUMAIAH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. v. R. HANUMAIAH AND ORS. OCTOBER 3, 2005 [ASHOK BHAN AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.) Mysore land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4, 18-land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 48, l 1, 16, 31-Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945, Sections A B 29, 27A-Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, Sections 38, 65, C 76(3)-Bangalore Development Authority (3rd Amendment) Act 1993, Section 9, 38C. land Acquisition-Re-conveyance of Acquired land-Whether permissible Acquisition of respondent's land for development scheme-Cf TB paying compensation and taking possession-CITE resolution to re-convey D part of land out of the total land acquired to respondent-later BDA refi1sing to re-convey in view of High Court decisions that Act and Rules did not provide for re-conveyance-High Court decreeing respondent "s petition- Sel/ing aside High Court decree, Held. under the Act and the Rules, BDA has no power to re-convey the acquired land by withdrawing the acquisition- Section 38C and 9 having prospective application only would not validate E a 1972 re-conveyance resolution of CJTB-State cannot direcl BDA to re- convey the land to owner. Promissory Estoppel-Re-conveyance of acquired land--CITB resolution of re-conveyance-Respondent acting on the resolution altered his position F to his detriment in not pressing his claim for higher compensation and giving up his right to withdraw compensation-EDA not acting upon the resolution- Respondent invoking principle of promisso1y estoppel-Held, the Government cannot be compelled to do an act prohibited by law as there can be no estoppel against the statute. A Notification for acquisition of respondents land for a development scheme was published. The amount of compensation paid and the possession of the land was taken by the authority. Respondent sought a reference for enhancement of compensation. Therefore his compensation· amount was deposited in Civil Court. Later CITB passed a resolution to re-convey 6 acres, G WI H 902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A 20 guntas and 44 square yards of land out of the total land acquired, to respondent. Respondent withdraw his reference application and gave in writing that he would not withdraw the compensation. In the layout plan approved by CITB iii 1974, the said land was shown separately being reserved for re- conveyance. In 1976, City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 was repealed and replaced by Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 thereby replacing B CITB by BOA. BOA refused to give effect to re-conveyance resolution in view of Karnataka High Court decision's that the Act and the rules did not enable BOA to re-convey the acquired land. Respondent's Writ Petition to High Court was ultimately decreed holding that , since there was change in judicial thinking, it was permissible to restore the land to the owners. Hence this C Appeal Allowing the Appeal, the Court HELD : I.I. On a conjoint reading of section 38C with Section 9 of the Amendment Act it would be seen that Section 38C gives the authority to make D allotment in certain cases. Section 9 validates the allotment made between 20.12.1973 to 08.05.1986. Section 38C only authorizes BOA to allot a site in a development scheme to a person whose land has been acquired. It does not give any power to the BOA to re-convey the land or a part of the land by withdrawing the acquisition itself. [914-F, G; 915-Al E 1.2. This apart Section 38C is prospective in its application except to F the extent of the allotment made between 20.12.1973 to 08.05.1986 which are saved by Section 9. The resolution of CITB of 1972 agreeing to re-convey a part of the land acquired is not covered by the provisions of Section 9 of the Amendment Act. [915-B-C[ 1.3. The present case falls in second part of Section 29 clause 2 of City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 which provides that the land which have been acquired by the Board or has been vested in it shall be utilized for. the purpose of improvement scheme for which the lands have been acquired. It cannot be used for any purpose other than for which it has been acquired. G Since the land was acquired for the purpose of forming sites it could only be used for that. There is no power as per this provision to re-convey the land which have been acquired under a scheme forming sites. In the Rules framed there is no provision for re-conveying the land, and therefore, power d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.