N. A. L. LAYOUT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION versus BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 13 S.C.R. 1053 · Decided: 09-08-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 13 S.C.R. 1053 
N. A. L. LAYOUT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION 
v. 
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 9790-9791 of2017) 
AUGUST 09, 2017 
(A.K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4, 6, 16 and 48 - Land (including 
A 
B 
c 
the suit land, survey no.50) acquired by the State - The State took 
over the possession of the suit land and handed over the same to 
Bangalore Development Authority - Acquisition of suit land was 
challenged by the land owners in several rounds of litigations which 
were dismissed by the High Court - Thereafter, land owners made 
representation before the State Government, which passed 
notification dated 12. 04.2001 withdrawing the suit land (survey 
no.50) ji-om acquisition - However, the State Government withdrew 
D 
the said notification dated 12.04.2001 vide notification dated 
2 2. 03. 2005 -
Writ petition challenging notification dated 
22.03.2005, allowed by the single judge - Writ appeal dismissed -
Propriety of- Held: Single Judge committed error by quashing order 
dated 22.03.2005 - Division Bench also committed error in 
confirming the judgment of the single judge - Jn earlier judgments 
of High Court between the parties regarding the acquisition in 
question, a finding was returned that acquisition proceedings had 
become final and possession was taken Ji-om the land owners in the 
year 1984 - High court in writ petition arising out of a notification 
by the State dated 22.03.2005 could not have ignored or discarded 
the said finding in earlier proceeding regarding delivery of 
possession - Single judge committed error in proceeding to re-
examine the same issue and gave a contrary finding that possession 
was not taken - Further, land owners had earlier filed two writ 
petitions, seeking direction to the State to de-notify the suit land, 
which were dismissed - Thereafter, the entire exercise by land owners 
of approaching the State Government to withdraw from acquisition 
of suit land was uncalled for and was not permissible in view of the 
dismissal of writ petitions - Res-judicata. 
1053 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1054 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 13 S.C.R. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Single Judge in judgment dated 30.03.2007 
(W.P. No.13404 of 2005) has referred to earlier judgment dated 
16.03.1998 (W.P. No.4042of1998) of High Court in which a finding 
was returned that possession of land has been taken in the year 
1984 and land has absolutely vested in the State. The Single 
Judge could not have returned a contrary finding that possession 
has not been taken from the petitioners. The dismissal of the 
earlier writ petitions (W.P. No.4042 of 1998 and W.P. Nos.14779-
14781 of 2000 where land owners were seeking a direction to 
withdraw survey no.SO from acquisition on the ground that they 
are still in possession) and finding to the effect that acquisition 
proceedings have become final and possession of the land was 
taken back in the year 1984 shall operate as res-judicata in 
subsequent writ petition filed by the land owners. Thus, the 
opinion of the High Court is unsustainable. [Paras 54, 55 and 611 
[1082-A-B; 1083-G-H] 
2. The observation of the Single Judge that observation in 
earlier judgment dated 16.03.1998 (W.P. No.4042 of 1998) was 
made by Judge without reference to any of the record but only 
based on the contention of the parties is incorrect and unfounded. 
The finding recorded by the High Court was on the basis of 
submissions of the parties based on the pleadings and materials 
which were placed on the record as well as on the notification 
dated 07.05.1985 issued under Section 16(2) evidencing taking 
of possession of land on 23.03.1984. Notification dated 07.05.1985 
published in official Gazette on 24.10.1985 under Section 16(2) 
of the Act 1894(as amended in Karnataka) was an evidence rightly 
relied by High Court for coming to the conclusion that possession 
was taken as notified in the notification. The Judgment of High 
Court dated 16.03.1998 was fully in accordance with the 
provisions of Section 16(2) of Act 1894, which provision has not 
G 
even adverted to either by Single Judge or the Division Bench 
in the impugned judgment. The findings recorded in the judgment 
dated 16.03.1998 could not have been discarded in such slipshod 
manner by Single Judge. [Para 57] [1082-G-H; 1083-A-BJ 
H 
3. High Court lost sight of the fact that Notification dated 
12.04.2001(issued to wit

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