BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 9 S.C.R. 441 · Decided: 03-08-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
441
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.
v.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7661-7663 of 2018)
AUGUST 03, 2018
[ARUN MISHRA  AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 – In 2008
Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) published a scheme and
preliminary notification u/s.17 of the BDA Act acquiring lands for
providing civic amenities like roads etc. – Writ petitions filed in
2014 on the ground that the State Government and the BDA did not
take any steps to issue final notification or to develop the land for
5 years – Single Bench allowed the writ petitions and quashed the
notification with respect to the lands of the appellants – Writ appeals,
dismissed – On appeal, held: Primary object of the BDA Act is to
carry out planned development – State Act has provided its own
scheme – Time constraints of the land acquisition are not applicable
to the BDA Act – Making applicable the time frame of s.11A of  the
LA Act would debilitate very object of the BDA Act – Further, in the
present case there were a large number of irregularities – 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 to withdraw acquisition in respect
of 251 acres of the land – Land Acquisition Officer considered
another 498 acres of land to be excluded from being acquired,
against which hue and cry was raised in the Assembly as well as in
the public – Three inquiries were ordered, two by the State
Government and one by the BDA – Owners cannot escape the
liability  for the delay, they cannot take the advantage of their own
wrong having acted in collusion with the authorities – Time consumed
would not adversely affect the ultimate development of Bangalore
city – Impugned orders passed by the Single Judge and Division
Bench are  quashed and set aside – Scheme and notification u/s. 17
are upheld – State Government as well as the BDA to proceed further
to issue final notification without any further delay – Further, for
  [2018] 9 S.C.R. 441
 441
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
442
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
fixing the responsibility on the officials of the BDA and the State
Government trying to exclude the lands from acquisition, former
Judge of the Karnataka High Court appointed as the Inquiry Officer
and requested to submit his report to Supreme Court as expeditiously
as possible – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.11A.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The primary object of the Bangalore
Development Authority Act, 1976 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 11A of
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 would debilitate very object of the
BDA Act. By making applicable the time period of two years of
11A of LA Act mandate of BDA Act has been violated.
[Para 17] [457-B-D]
1.2  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.
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 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 and a public notice was issued on 3rd May, 2014
that the BDA will consider the entire matter afresh.  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 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
A
B
C
D

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.