OFFSHORE HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. versus BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS .

Citation: [2011] 1 S.C.R. 453 · Decided: 18-01-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.H. KAPADIA · Disposal: Reference answered
Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 1 S.C.R. 453 
OFFSHORE HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. 
A 
v. 
.._.,, 
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS . 
(Civil Appeal No. 711 of 2011) 
JANUARY 18, 2011 
B 
[S.H. KAPADIA, CJI, DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, 
K.S. PANICKER RADHAKRISHNAN, SWATANTER 
KUMAR AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] 
Bangalore Development Authority Act, ~976: 
c 
ss. 19(1), 27 and 36-App/icabi/ity of provisions of s.11~ 
-A of Land Acquisition Act, to BDA Act - HELD: Object of the 
-
BOA Act being planned development, acquisition is merely 
incidental - Acquisition stands on a completely distinct D 
footing from the scheme formulated which is subject matter 
\ 
of execution under provision of BDA Act - A conjoint reading 
~ .. 
of ss. 27 and 36 of BDA Act makes it clear that where a 
scheme lapses, the acquisition may not - Where upon 
completion of acquisition proceedings, the land has vested 
E 
in the State Government in terms of s. 16 of the L.A. Act, the 
acquisition would not lapse as a result of lapsing of the 
scheme u/s 27 of BDA Act - Neither of the Acts contain any 
provision in terms of which property vested in the State can 
~ 
be.reverted to the owner - This being the scheme of the 
acquisition within the framework of the BOA Act, rlw relevant · F 
provisions of LA Act, it will not be permissible to bring the 
· concept of 'lapsing of acquisition' as stated in provisions of 
s. 11-A of L.A. Act into C~apter IV of BDA Act - Language of 
s.36 of BDA Act clearly mandates legislation by incorporation 
G 
and as per the scheme of the two Acts effective and complete 
.... 
' implementation of State law without any conflict is possible -
1 The provisions of ss. 6 and 11-A of L.A. Act which provide for 
time frame for compliance and consequences of default 
: thereof are not applicable to BOA Act - BDA Act is a self-
453 
H 
454 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 1 S.C.R. 
1\\\~ 
• 
~--
A tontained code - Interpretation of Statutes - Legislation by 
I 
incorporation - Constitution of India, 1950 - Arlicle 246 and 
254 - Seventh Schedule - List II - Entries 5 and B - List ff/ -
" 
Entry 42. 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Arlicle 246, Seventh Schedule, List ff/, Entry 42, List II, 
Entries 5 and B - Acquisition of land under Bangalore 
Development Authority Act, 1976 - HELD: BDA Act provides 
for formulation and implementation of schemes relating to 
-,-
c development - Acquisition of land is neither its purpose nor 
its subject, but is merely an incidental consequence of 
principal purpose of development of land -
The State 
Legislature is competent to enact such a law and it is referable 
to power and field contained in Arlicle 246(2) rlw Entries 5 and 
g 
1 B of List II of Seventh Schedule - Entry 42 of list ff/ relates 
to 'acquisition and requisitioning of property' - D&velopment 
i 
is not· a subject that finds a place either in the Concurrent List 
y • 
or in the Union List - It cannot be said that Entry 42 of List I/I 
denudes the State Legislature of the power to the extent that 
' 
E in an enactment within its legislative competence, it cannot 
incidentally refer/enact in regard to the subject matter falling 
in Concurrent List. 
. Article 246, Seventh Schedule, Lists I, fl and Ill -
F Legislative power of the Centre and the States - HELD: It is 
the essence of a ·Federal Constitution that there should be 
distribution of legislative powers between the Centre and the 
Provinces - Entries in the legislative Lists are not the source 
of power for the legislative constituents, but they merely 
G 
demarcate the fields of legislation - The power to legislate 
flows, amongst others, from Arlicle 246 - Land Acquisition Act 
relates to Entry 42 of List ff/ while BOA Act is relatable to 
....._ 
Entries 5 and 18 of List II - Doctrine of separation of powers. 
Arlicle 254 - Rule of repugnancy - HELD: Repugnancy 
H would arise only when the provisions of Provincial law and 
• • 
OFFSHORE HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. v. BANGALORE 
455 
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
those of Central legislation both are in respect of the matter A 
enumerated in concurrent list, and they are repugnant to each 
other - To examine the repugnancy the doctrine of pith and 
substance is to be applied - Doctrine of pith and substance, 
overlapping and incidental encroachments, are in fact species 
of the same law - Repugnancy would arise in the cases where 
B 
both the pieces of legislation deal with the same matter but 
not where they deal with separate and distinct matters, though 
of a cognate and a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.