LexMUNITHIMMAIAH versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MUN!THIMMAIAH
A
...
V.
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
MARCH 22, 2002
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.]
B
Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976: Section 19.
Land Acquisition-Improvement scheme framed under Act-Challenge
by Land owner-Ground-Scheme vitiated because of limitation prescribed c
under Sections 6 and I I-A of Land Acquisition Act-Rejection of writ by High
Court-High Court held Sections 6 and I 1-A were not applicable to scheme
framed under B.D.A. Act-Appeal before Supreme Court-Held, High Court
right in holding that provisions of Ss. 6 and II-A cannot be imported any
~-
consideration for purposes of B.D.A. Act.
D
Land Acquisition Act, I 894
Section-6andI1-A as amended by 1984 Amendment-Held inapplicable
to a scheme framed under Bangalore-Development Authority Act, 1976.
Land belonging to appellant was acquired for a public purpose under E
the provision of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. He filed a
writ petition in the High Court seeking directions for quashing the acquisition
proceedings as well as the A ward. The challenge was made in view of the time
J
limitation contained in Ss. 6 and 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as
amended by the Land Acquisition {Amendment) Act, 1984. The High Court F
dismissed the petition of the appellant-landowner holding that the case was
covered against the appellant by an earlier judgment of Division Bench
reported in Khoday Distilleries Ltd v. State ofKarnataka, ILR {1997) Kar 1419.
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of appellant that the
High Court erred in following the decision in Khoday Distilleries Ltd case and G
that having regard to the provisions contained in S. 11-A of the Land
....
Acquisition Act, 1894, the Award passed beyond the stipulated period of
limitation was illegal and that after the expiry of the stipulated period under
•
S. ll-A, the acquisition proceedings stood lapsed and, therefore, the claim of
the appellant ought to have been sustained.
825
H
826
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2002] 2 S.C.R.
A
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. A scheme formulated, sanctioned and set for implementation
under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, cannot be stultified
or rendered ineffective and unenforceable by a provision in the Central Act,
particularly of the nature ofSs.6 and 11-A, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
B which cannot also on its own force have any application to actions taken under
the B.D.A. Act Consequently, there is no infirmity whatsoever in the reasoning
of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in *Khoday Distilleries
I
Ltd case to exclude the applicability of Ss. 6 and 11-As amended and inserted
c
by the Central Amendment Act of 1984 to proceedings under the B.D.A. Act
[837-D-E)
2. The B.D.A. Act and Central Act cannot be said to be either
supplemental to each other, or pari materia legislations. That apart, the B.D.A.
Act could not be said to be either wholly unworkable and ineffectual if the
subsequent amendments to the Central Act are not also imported into
D consideration. On an overall consideration of the entire situation also it could
not either possibly or reasonably be stated that the subsequent amen~ments
to the Central Act get attracted or applied either due to any express provision
or by necessary intendment or implication tO acquisitions under the B.D.A.
Act. When the B.D.A. Act, expressly provides by specifically enacting the
E circumstances under which and the period of time on the expiry of which alone
the proceedings initiated thereunder shall lapse due to any default, the
different circumstances and period of limitation envisaged under the Central
Act, 1894, as amended by the amending Act of 1984 for completing the
proceedings on pain of letting them lapse forever, cannot be imported into
consideration for purpose of B.D.A. Act without doing violence to the language
F or destroying and defeating the very intendment of the State Legislature
expressed by the enactment of its own special provisions in a special law falling
under a topic of legislation exclusively earmarked for the State Legislature.
[836-H; 837-A-D)
3. The B.D.A. Act, is not for mere acquisition of land. It is an Act to
G provide for the establishment of a Development Authority to facilitate and
ensure a planned growth and development of the city of Bangalore and areas
adjacent thereto and acquisition of lands, if any, therefExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.