BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus M/S VIJAYA LEASING LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 3 S.C.R. 140 · Decided: 01-04-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN, F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013) 3 S.C.R. 140 
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
v. 
M/S VIJAYA LEASING LTD. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7141 of 2005) 
APRIL 1, 2013 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED 
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.48(1) - Acquisition de-
e notified by de-notification dated 05.10.1999 - Single Judge 
of High Court set aside the de-notification - Order overturned 
by Division Bench -
On appeal, held: While exercising 
extraordinary jurisdiction u!Article 226 of the Constitution, the 
Single Judge came across incongruities in the proceedings 
D of the Hon'ble Minister which resulted in the issuance of de-
notification dated 05.10.1999 - Order of the Single Judge in 
setting aside such a patent illegality cannot be held to be 
beyond the powers vested in the Constitutional Court - The 
Division Bench failed to take note of the gross illegality 
E committed by the Hon'ble Minister while directing the issuance 
of the de-notification dated 05. 10. 1999 inspite of the fact that 
possession had already been handed over to the State as 
early as on 09. 12. 83 and that the decree of the Civil Court 
did not in any way create any fetters on the authorities 
F concerned to take steps for possession by resorting to 
appropriate legal means - The Civil Court decree to that effect 
was dated 15.12.1981 and the possession was taken by taking 
necessary steps under the provisions of the Land Acquisition 
Act under the Mahazar dated 09. 12. 83 which was never 
challenged by any party much less the first respondent - The 
G Division Bench completely omitted to take note of the relevant 
facts while interfering with the order of the Single Judge -
Order of the Single Judge restored - Constitution of India, 
1950 - Article 226 - Power of the writ court to correct errors 
apparent on the face of the record. 
H 
140 
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. VIJAYA 141 
!-EASING LTD. & ORS. 
Dwarakanath v. Income Tax Officer 1965 (2) SCJ 296; 
A 
Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd & Ors. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes 
Mazdoor Sabha & Ors. 1980 (2) SCC 593: 1980 (2) SCR 146 
and Meera Sahni v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Others 2008 
(9) SCC 177: 2008 (10) SCR 1012 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
1965 (2) SCJ 296 
referred to 
1980 (2) SCR 146 
referred to 
Para 14 
Para 14, 15 
B 
2008 (10) SCR 1012 
referred to 
Para 17 
C 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal 'No. 
7141 of 2005. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 29.03.2005 of the High 
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No. 4947 of 
D 
2002(LA-RES). 
WITH 
C.A. No. 7142 of 2005 
Altaf Ahmed, P.V. Shetty, S.K. Kulkarni, M. Gireesh 
Kumar, Ankur S. Kulkarni, V.N. Raghupathy, C.B. Gururaj, 
Sanjay R. Hegde, Aman Vachher, Ashutosh Dubey, T.S. Shanti, 
Abhishek Chauhan, Harsh Sharma, P.N. Puri, Vijay Kumar 
Paradesi for the appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
E 
F 
1. These two appeals arise out of the common judgment 
G 
of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court at Bangalore 
dated 29.3.2005 in Writ Appeal No.4947 of 2002. Though the 
issue lies in a narrow compass as to the power of writ court 
under Article 226 of the Constitution to correct certain errors 
which is quite apparent on the face of the record though not 
H 
142 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 3 S.C.R. 
A specifically challenged by a party, in order to appreciate the 
order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.8.2002 which 
sought to remedy the manifest injustice by setting aside a 
notification passed under Section 48 (1) of the Land Acquisition 
Act dated 27.6.2000 without any specific challenge to the said 
B Notification. 
2. By the impugned judgment the Division Bench set aside 
the order of the learned Single Judge on the sole ground that 
there was no specific challenge to the Notification dated 
C 27.6.2000. To appreciate the points raised, it is necessary to 
refer to the basic facts in a brief account. 
3. There was a preli~inary Notification dated 21.9.1967 
under the provisions of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 
(Mysore Act V of 1945) which is analogous to Section 4 of the 
D Land Acquisition Act. By the said notification, there was a 
proposal to acquire survey No.57 of Thippasandra Village, K.R. 
Puram Hobli by the Government for the formation of a layout 
called HAL, second stage layout by the appellant herein. The 
final notification was issued on 15. 7 .1971 under the same Act 
E purported to be one under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition 
Act.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.