2011 (1) TMI 1322 - SC - Indian Laws

BDA Act Prevails Over Land Acquisition Act: No Conflict Between State and Central Laws

Offshore Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Versus Bangalore Development Authority & Ors.

The Court held that the BDA Act is a self-contained code and the provisions of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be applied to acquisitions ... Whether the provisions of the BDA Act, specifically or by implication, require exclusion and/or inclusion of certain provisions like Sections 6 and 11A of the Land Acquisition Act? Whether the provisions of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act will apply to the acquisition under the BDA Act and if the final declaration under Section 19(1) is not issued within one year of the publication of the notification under Section 17(1) of the BDA Act? Whether it is a case of legislation by reference or legislation by incorporation? Whether the BDA Act is a complete code in itself? Whether the BDA Act and Land Acquisition Act can co-exist and operate without conflict? Whether there being no contravention between the two laws, they can be harmoniously applied and Section 11A of the Land Whether Acquisition Act can be read into the BDA Act without disturbing its scheme? Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act to the BDA Act.2. Legislative competence and repugnancy between the BDA Act and the Land Acquisition Act.3. Whether the BDA Act is a self-contained code.4. Doctrine of legislation by reference vs. legislation by incorporation.5. Concept of fragmentation and its application to legislative competence.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act to the BDA Act:The primary issue was whether Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, which provides a timeframe for making an award and lapsing of acquisition proceedings if not complied with, should be read into the BDA Act. The Court held that the BDA Act is a self-contained code and the provisions of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be applied to acquisitions under the BDA Act. The Court emphasized that the BDA Act has its own scheme and provisions for acquisition and lapsing of schemes, which are distinct and separate from the Land Acquisition Act.2. Legislative Competence and Repugnancy Between the BDA Act and the Land Acquisition Act:The Court examined whether there was any repugnancy between the BDA Act, a State legislation, and the Land Acquisition Act, a Central legislation. It was argued that the BDA Act, being related to planned development, falls under Entries 5 and 18 of List II (State List) of Schedule VII, whereas the Land Acquisition Act falls under Entry 42 of List III (Concurrent List). The Court held that the BDA Act is primarily aimed at planned development and acquisition of land is merely incidental to this purpose. Therefore, there is no repugnancy between the two Acts as they operate in different fields.3. Whether the BDA Act is a Self-contained Code:The Court reiterated that the BDA Act is a self-contained code that provides for all aspects of planned development, including acquisition of land, within its framework. The BDA Act has its own provisions for the preparation, implementation, and lapsing of development schemes, which are distinct from the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The Court emphasized that the BDA Act does not require the incorporation of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act for its effective implementation.4. Doctrine of Legislation by Reference vs. Legislation by Incorporation:The Court discussed the principles of legislation by reference and legislation by incorporation. It concluded that the BDA Act incorporates only those provisions of the Land Acquisition Act that are necessary for acquisition and compensation, but not the provisions related to timeframes and lapsing of acquisition proceedings. The Court held that the BDA Act adopts the Land Acquisition Act by reference to the extent necessary for acquisition purposes, but not in a manner that would frustrate the object of the BDA Act.5. Concept of Fragmentation and its Application to Legislative Competence:The Court addressed the argument that the provisions of the BDA Act should be fragmented to determine legislative competence. It held that the BDA Act should be read as a whole and its true nature and character should be determined in its entirety. The Court emphasized that the BDA Act is primarily concerned with planned development and any incidental reference to the Land Acquisition Act does not affect its legislative competence. The Court rejected the concept of fragmentation as a tool for determining legislative competence and repugnancy.Conclusion:The Court concluded that the BDA Act is a self-contained code aimed at planned development and does not require the incorporation of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act. The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act related to acquisition and compensation can be read into the BDA Act, but not those related to timeframes and lapsing of acquisition proceedings. The BDA Act and the Land Acquisition Act operate in different fields and there is no repugnancy between them. The BDA Act is within the legislative competence of the State legislature and does not conflict with the Central legislation.