LexBONDU RAMASWAMY versus BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010) 6 S.C.R. 29
BONDU RAMASWAMY
v.
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4097 of 2010 etc.}
MAY 5, 2010
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI., R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND
D.K. JAIN, JJ.]
Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976:
A
B
Whether the Act repugnant to Land Acquisition Act -
C
Held: The Act is not repugnant to Land Acquisition Act -
Repugnancy under Article 254 arises only when two laws
relate to subjects in List Ill - Article 254(1) will have no
application if the State law in pith and substance relates to a
matter in List II and incidentally touches upon some item in
D
List Ill - If the law covered by Entry in List If contains a
provision directly and substantially relating to the matter
enumerated in List Ill, the repugnant provision of List II might
be void unless it could co-exist and operate without
repugnancy to the provisions of the existing law - Bangalore E
Development Authority Act in pith and substance falls under
Entry 5 of List II and is not r.eferable to Entry 42 of List Ill -
The main object of the Act is development of the city and
acquisition for such development is incidental to the main
object - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 254; Seventh F
Schedule List II Entry 5 and List Ill Entry 42 -Land Acquisition
4.ct, 1894 - ss. 4 to 6 - Doctrine of pith and substance.
Enforcement of the Act- Validity of, in absence of assent
of President - Held: Article 31 (3) pf the Constitution did not G
render the Act invalid in absence of assent of the President
- Though the Act did not receive the assent of the President,
but once Article 31 (3) was omitted from the Constitution, need
for such assent disappeared -Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 31 (3).
29
H
30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 6 S.C.R.
A
ss. 15 to 19 - Acquisition of land - By Development
Authority - For planned development of city - Preliminary
notification proposing to acquire land - The objections of land-
holders considered - State Government granting sanction for
acquisition after noting that certain land was excluded from
B
the proposed extent of land - Final declaration issued - Writ
petitions challenging the acquisition - Entire acquisition
quashed by Single Judge of High Court - Writ appeals -
Division Bench of High Court upheld the acquisition -
However, finding that there was discrimination in acquisition
c of certain lands and in deletion of similar lands, gave liberty
to /and-owners to seek withdrawal of their lands from
acquisition - On appeal, held: Acquisition was in compliance
with the provisions of the Act - But there was arbitrariness and
discrimination in the matter of inclusions and exclusions of
0
the lands - Decision of Division Be{/f;h of High Court is
affirmed - However, the liberty granted to /and-owners would
lead to further litigations and complications - Therefore, it
would be equitable to uphold the directions issued by High
Court, subject to the condition that /he Development Authority
provides an option to land-losers to secure some additional
E benefits as an incentive to accept the acquisition - Direction
issued to provide preferential allotment of some plots at
prevailing market price in addition to compensation to the
/and"/osers - Such directions not in conflict with Allotment
Rules - Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of
F
Sites) Rules, 1984.
ss. 19(1) and 36 - Land acquisition - Final declaration
uls. 19(1) - Published beyond one year from the date of
publication of preliminary notification uls. 17(1) and (3) of the
G Act- Whether valid on account of delay in view of amendment
of s. 6 of Land Acquisition Act, providing a time limit for issue
of final declaration - Held: The final declaration does not
suffer from any infirmity - In view of limited application of Land
Acquisition Act in terms of s. 36, provisions of ss. 4 to 6 of
H Land Acquisition Act would not apply in respect of scheme
BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE
31
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
for acquisition u/s. 15 to 19 of the Act- Thus, amendment to A
s. 6 also not applicable - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 6.
s. 15 rlw s. 2(c) - Power of Development Authority to draw
up schemes for development of metropolitan area - Whether
became inoperative on coming into force of Parts IX and IXA
of the Constitution - Held: Provisions of the Act would not 8
become inoperative on Parts IX and IXA coming into force -
Parts IX and IXA are applicable to the municipaExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.