S.A. JALALUDDIN versus BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 410 · Decided: 27-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU, D.M. DHARMADHIKARI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
S.A. JALALUDDIN 
v. 
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 27, 2003 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
Urban Development: 
The City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945; Section 18(J)(a)(b) and 
C (c)-Notification prescribing certain period of limitation for issuance of 
declaration under the Central Land Acquisition Act-Challenged as barred by 
limitation under the provisions of Karnataka Act-Held: it is impermissible to 
read into the provision of the Improvement Act, the provision of the Land 
Acquisition Act, so as to override or nulli.fY such provision of acquisition 
D under the Improvement Act-Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Land Acquisition 
(Karnataka Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967. 
Appellant had challenged the Notifications issued by the respondent 
under Section 18(1)(a) of the City of Banglore Improvement Act (Act) and 
consequently the acquisition proceedings. The Notification prescribed 
E limited period of two years for issuance of a declaration under Section 6 
of the Acquisition Act which was allegedly barred by limitation under the 
provisions of the Land Acquisition (Karnataka Amendment and 
Validation) Act (Karnataka Act). High Court rejected the challenge. Hence 
the present appeal. 
F 
It was contended for the appellant that since declaration under the 
provision of the Act was to be considered as declaration under the Land 
Acquisition Act, the amendments in the Land Acquisition Act imposing 
limitation on the exercise of power of acquisition would enure to the benefit 
of land owner; and that irrespective of acquisition proceedings under any 
G of the Act, the safeguards available under the Central Land Acquisition 
Act should also be made available to the land owner irrespective of the 
purpose of the special law enacted for acquisition of land. 
H 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. I. The declaration published under Section 18(1)(c) of the 
410 
.... 
I ;.\ 
S.A. JALALUDDIN v. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
411 
City of Bangalore Improvement Act has a validity period of seven years A 
for being persued for further action under Section 27 of the Act. Section 
27 also stipulates that the Land Acquisition Act and the provisions noticed 
thereunder are attracted to proceedings under the Act "so far as they are 
applicable", and consequently in respect of the matters wherein the City 
of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 has its own period of limitation or 
restrictions .on the exercise of powers under the Act or specific provisions B 
it is impermissible to read into the provisions of the Improvement Act, 
the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, so as to override or nullify 
the provisions of the Improvement Act. (414-F-HI 
The State of Karnataka and Ors., (20021 4 SCC 326; Nagpur C 
Improvement Trust v. Vasantrao and Ors. etc. etc., (2002) 7 SCC 657 and 
The Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board v. H. 
Narayanaiah etc. etc., (197711 SCR 178, referred to. 
1.2. This Court has in some of the similar cases specifically declined 
to read into the limitations on the exercise of powers importing such D 
limitations under the Central Act, into the special enactments the position 
was made clear in unmistakable terms that so far as the r'tyment of 
compensation is concerned, there could be no different yardstick based 
on the purpose of acquisition or the provisions of law under which it is 
acquired. The ratio of the decision in *Nagpur Improvement Trust & Anr. 
v. Vithal Rao and Ors. was not extended beyond its purpose, to apply the E 
principle or the proposition of law sought to be raised to import a 
limitation on the very exercise of power of acquisition for and under the 
special and specific laws which has to be adjudged with particular 
reference, in the instant case, to only the City of Bangalore Improvement 
Act, 1945. (415-C-EI 
F 
*Nagpur Improvement Trust and Anr. v. Vithal Rao and Ors., (1973) I 
sec 500, distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10910 of 
1996. 
CJ 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.9.95 of the Kamataka High 
Court in R.F.A. No. 232 of 1984. 
S. Ravindra Bhat for the Appellant. 
Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, S.K. Kulkarni, M. Girish H 
412 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003] 2 S.C.R. 
A Kumar and Ankur S. Kulkarni for Ms. Sangeeta Kumar for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
The above appeal has been filed against the judgment of a Division 
Bench of 

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