UMA SHANKAR & ORS. versus R. HANUMAIAH SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 3 S.C.R. 1013 · Decided: 12-05-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA, NAVIN SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 3 S.C.R. 1013 
UMA SHANKAR & ORS. 
v. 
R. HANUMAIAH SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS. & 
ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2576-2593 of 2017) 
MAY 12,2017 
[ARUN MISHRA AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4 and 48 - Land acquisition 
A 
B 
- De-acquisition of land - On facts, issuance of notification dated C 
14.10.2009 by the State Government for de-acquisition of land in 
favour of the owner-respondent - Permissibility of- Held: State 
Government committed contempt of this Court while issuing the said 
notification - It was not permissible exercise in view of the dictum 
binding on all the parties - In view of inter parties judgment of this 
Court, there was 110 scope leji to de-acquire the property under the 
D 
provisions of s. 48 - Notification was totally void, illegal and. 
conferred no right to respondent - Thus, no hearing to be given to 
respondent in the matter - Notification dated 13.11.2009 was right(v 
issued cancelling the previous notification dated 14.10.2009 as there 
could not be any de-acquisition of the land - Order passed by the 
E 
High Court is set aside since the High Court did not look into the 
binding precedent of this Court - Precedent. 
R. Hanwnaiah v. Bangalore Development Authority and 
Ors. (2002) 10 SCC 221; Muniyappa v. Bangalore 
Development Authority ILR 1992 Kant 125; Bangalore 
Development Authority and Ors. v. R. Hanumaiah and 
Ors. (2005) 12 SCC 508 : [2005) 3 Suppl. SCR 901 -
referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
(2002) 10 sec 221 
ILR 1992 Kant 125 
[2005) 3 Suppl. SCR 901 
referred to 
Para 4 
referred to 
Para 4 
referred to 
Para 5 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2576-
2593 of2017. 
1013 
F 
G 
H 
1014 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.2014 of the High Court 
B 
of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal Nos. 3051-67 of 2012 (LA-
B DA) and Writ Appeal No. 3492 of2013 
WITH 
C. A. Nos. 2594-2611 of2017. 
Sanjay Parikh, Ms. Ninni Susan Thomas, Pukhrambam Ramesh 
Kumar, Uday Manaktala, Avhinav Trehan, S. K. Kulkarni, Ms. K. 
Kulkarni, Ankur S. Kulkarni, Ad vs. for the Appellants. 
Naveen Chawla, V. Anand, T. Mahipal, Rohit Sharma, Rounak 
c Nayak, V. N. Raghupathy, Advs. for the Respondents. 
The follwoing Order of the Court was delivered: 
ORDER 
1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order 
D passed by the High Court of Karnataka at ]3angalore in Writ Appeal 
Nos. 3051-3067 of 2012 and Writ Appeal No. 3492 of 2013, dated 
10.12.2014. 
2. Shocking state of affairs is reflected in the judgment of the 
High Court ofKarnataka. The lands had been acquired by issuance of 
notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 
E "the Act") on 26.11.1959. 
3. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 
28.09.1965 and award was passed on 29.11.1966. The amount of 
compensation was paid and possession of the land was taken in the year 
1975. Some incumbents sought for relief as regards to enhancement of 
F compensation amount by filing reference under Section 18 of the Act. 
On 26.06.1969 a resolution was passed by City Improvement Trust Board 
(CITB), Bangalore to re-convey an extent of 8 acres, 21 guntas of the 
total land acquired to R. Hanumaiah. Another resolution was passed 
by CITB on 19.04.1972 modifying its earlier resolution and agreeing to 
G re-convey 6 acres 20 guntas and 42 Sq.yards in favour ofR. Hanumaiah 
with some riders. After formation of site R. Hanumaiah filed petition 
before the High Court of Karnataka seeking mandamus directing the 
Bangalore Development Authority (BDA)to re-convey 6 acres and 20 
guntas and 42 Sq. yards of land as per resolution of CITB dated 
19.04.1972. 
H 
UMA SHANKAR v. R. HANUMAlAH SINCE DECEASED 
1015 
THROUGH HIS LRS. 
4. The learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka 
A 
dismissed the Writ Petition No. 15487 of 1987 summarily at the admission 
stage. The Writ Appeal filed by R.Hanumaiah was also dismissed 
sununarily. Thereafter, R.Hanumaiah approached this Com1 by way of 
filing appeal (R.Hanumaiah Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and 
Ors.), (2002) 10 SCC 221 decided on 31.01.2001. This Court vide afore-
B 
mentioned judgment accepted the appeal and remitted the matter to the 
Division Bench of the High Court to re-consider the matter on me1its, in 
view of the contentions raised on behalfof R. Hanumaiah in a judgment 
in Muniyappa vs. Bangalore Development Authority, ILR 1992 Kant 
125 in which
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.