TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (11) TMI 547
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1558, 1608, 1696, 1701, 1718, 880 to 883, 1900, 1908, 1990, 2136, 2188, 2303, 2312, 2319, 2533, 2538, 2549, 2573, 2585, 2604, 2781, 2885, 3138, 3170, 3333, 3410, 3699, 3800, 3839, 3894, 3918, 4100, 4182, 4568, 2296 to 2301, 4611, 4765, 4815, 4882, 5077, 5212, 5258, 5267, 5394, 5396, 6046, 6715, 7127, 7250, 7948, 9311, 9384, 9574, 9619, 9621, 9671, 10301, 10552, 10553, 10572, 10596, 10793, 10818, 10884, 11059, 11363, 11365, 11499, 12158, 12268, 12385, 12389, 12392, 12558, 12616, 12708, 13027, 13357, 13665, 13680, 14316, 14353, 14771, 15503, 18357, 9248 to 9250, 18565, 19634 of 2005 N.K. SODHI, C.J. AND N. KUMAR, J. For the Appellant : A. Keshava Bhat, Adv.in W.P. No. 1900 of 2005, A.G. Holla, Sr. Adv. and K. Shashikiran Shetty, Adv.in W.A. No. 2760 of 2005, A.G. Shivanna, Adv.in W.P. No. 12386 of 2005, A.S. Mahesha, Adv. in W.P. No. 9384 of 2005, A.Y.N. Gupta and J. Aravind Babu, Advs.in W.P. Nos. 26664 of 2004 and 2885 of 2005, Aamstel Law Associates in W.P. No. 1718 of 2005, Ahamed S.N. and Associates in W.P. No. 9574 of 2005, B.E. Kotian and Associates in W.P. Nos. 1532 and 3894 of 2005, B.L. Nanda Kumar and Associates in W.P. Nos. 13665 and 18357 of 2005, B.L. Sanjeev, Ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....03 of 2005, K.S. Nagaraja Rao and Associates in W.P. No. 767 of 2005, K.V. Narasimhan, Adv.in W.P. No. 51487 of 2004, L. Dayananda and Ranganathappa, Adv. in W.P. No. 10884 of 2005, Law Associates in W.P. No. 289 of 2005, Lex Nexus, Adv. in W.P. No. 51011 of 2004, M. Erappa Reddy, Adv. in W.P. No. 173 of 2005, M. Rudraiah, Adv. in W.P. No. 1418 of 2005, M. Shivaprakash, Adv.in W.P. No. 51311 of 2004, M.B. Chandra Chooda, Adv. in W.P. Nos. 36059 of 2004 and 11363 of 2005, M.D. Vyshali, Adv.in LA. No. II of 2005 in W.P. No. 51347 of 2004, M.G. Kumar,Law Firm, Adv. in W.P. Nos. 6046, 12392, 12616 and 14316 of 2005, M.R. Achar, Senior Counsel for Almt Legal Adv.in W.A. No. 2757 of 2005, M.S. Mandanna, Adv. in W.P. No. 5077 of 2005, M.S. Narayana Rao, Adv.in W.P. No. 45972 of 2004, M.S. Raghavendra Prasad, Adv. in W.P. Nos. 5394 and 5396 of 2005, M.S. Rajendra Prasad, Adv. in W.P. Nos. 50545 and 50546 of 2004, M.V. Seshachala, Adv. in W.P. Nos. 46383, 46416, 46438, 51249, 51268, 51270, 51274 and 61263 of 2004, Manjunath K.V., Adv.in W.P. No. 46065 of 2004, Mohammed Farooq, Adv. in W.P. Nos. 51397 and 51555 of 2004, Mohammed Jaffar Shah, Adv. in W.P. No. 50819 of 2004, Mohan Bhat, Adv. i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....W.P. Nos. 51214, 51216, 51219, 51221, 51225, 51227 and 51229 of 2004, Taj and Taj and M. Inayathula, Advs. in W.P. No. 13027, 1608 and 7948 of 2005, V. Chandrappa and Associates in W.P. Nos. 51058 of 2004 and 7250 of 2005, V. Krishna Murthy, Adv. in W.P. Nos. 50871 of 2004 and 2573 of 2005, V. Lakshminarayana, Adv. in W.P. No. 11365 of 2006, V.K. Narayana Swamy, Adv. in W.P. No. 50904 of 2004, V.S. Biju, Adv. in W.P. Nos. 49424 of 2004 and 3170 of 2005, Vagdevi, Associates in W.P. No. 46348 of 2004, Vidya Jahagirdar, Adv.in W.P. No. 51371 of 2004, Vishnu D. Bhat, Adv.in W.P. Nos. 3333, 3918, 10552, 10553, 10596, 11499, 12558 and 13357 of 2005, Y.R. Sadasiva Reddy and Associates in W.P. No. 1558 of 2005 and Younous Alikhan and Associates in W.P. No. 2781 of 2005 For the Respondents : K.H. Somasekharand Sumithra G.M., Advs. for Respondent-4 in W.P. No. 51391 of 2004, S. Vijayashankar, Senior Counsel and C.B. Srinivasanand Basavaraj V. Sabarad, Advs. for Respondents-2 and 3 in W.A. Nos. 2757 and 2760 of 2005, Sriyuths S. Vijayashankar, Senior Counsel and A.N. Venugopala Gowda,, Adv. for Respondent-1 in W.A. No. 2757 of 2005, P. Krishnappa,, Adv. for Respondents-1 and 2 in W.A. Nos.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hnu D. Bhat, G.D. Aswathanarayana, R. Anand Kumar by, K.H. Somashekaraswamy, G. Kumarappa, Advs., K.S. Nagaraj Rao and Associates, G.M. Jagadeesha, R.B. Sadashivappa, T. Seshagiri Rao, C.M. Nagabhushana, Advs., A. Venkatachalapathy Associates, S.M. Hegde, Vinod Prasad, Ashok Haranahalli, M.S. Narayanarao, Mohammpd Farooq, K Rajanna, Disdar Shivalli, K.M. Eswarappa, Advs., Ananthakrishnamurthy Associates, G. Janardhana, Amaresh Angadi, Advs., Jayaraj Associates, K.V. Manjunath Kesvy and Company, C Lakshminarayana Rao, H.V. Subramanya, P. Prasannakumar, R.S. Ravi, G.K. Bhat, Y.R. Sadashiva Reddy, Shyam Prasad, Associates, Afsarunnisa, K Raghavendra Rao, G.G. Shastry, A.S. Mahesha, B. Rudragouda, Sumangala S. Swamy, M. Shivaprakash, K.A. Ariga, P.T. Hebbar, S. Sudarshan Reddy, Rasheed Khan, Advs., Vagdevi, Associates, S. Dixit Associates, M.R. Krishnamurthy, T.H. Narayana, Sridhara N. Hegde, M.K. Shivaram, S.K.V. Chalapathy, P.T. Srinivasa Reddy, Sugana R. Reddy, S.M. Hegde Kadave, M.V. Seshachala, A. Gopalaiah, R. Sridhar Hiremath, K.H. Jagadeesh, P.M. Narayanaswamy, Prasannakumar, M.R. Suresh, M.P. Srikanth, P.S. Raveendra Holla, S.M. Byregowda, B. Papegowda, B.N. Suresh, K. Suman, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Counsel for K. Krishna, Adv. for Respondent-1, 2, 3 in W.P. Nos. 44506, 44932, 45750, 46065, 46383, 46416, 46438, 46459, 46519, 47422, 47550, 48334, 48772, 49436, 49468, 49565, 50076, 50904, 51249, 51270, 51274, 51350, 51394 to 51396 and 51487 of 2004 and 1990, 2533, 2781, 3800, 4568, 4765, 5077, 5258, 5394, 5396, 6046, 5212, 7250, 9384, 9619, 9621, 11363, 12616 and 14316 of 2005, S. Vijayashankar, Senior Counsel for Basavaraj V. Sabarad, Adv. f or Respondent-1, 2 to 4 in W.P. No. 45210, 45397, 45695, 46348, 46620, 46621, 46619, 47361, 47941, 48022, 48786, 49009, 49303, 49424, 49558, 49744, 49751, 51004, 51006, 51058, 51119, 51133, 51268, 51311, 51335, 51347, 51371 of 2004 and 173, 289, 552, 1338, 1532, 881 to 883, 2136, 2188, 2573, 2885, 7127, 9248, 9249, 9250, 11365 and 12385 of 2005, S. Vijayashankar, Senior Counsel for U. Abdul Khader, Adv. for Respondents-1, 2 to 4 and 5 in W.P. Nos. 44508, 49041, 50857, 50871, 50897, 51011, 51282, 51482 of 2004 and 1308, 1558, 1696, 1701, 1718, 1900, 2319, 2585, 2604, 3894, 7948, 9311, 10793, 12268, 12392, 12708 and 15503 of 2005, R.B. Sadasivappa, Adv. in W.A. No. 2624 of 2005, Basavaraj V. Sabarad, Adv. for Respondents-2 and 3 in W.P. No. 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the purpose of formation of Arkavathi Layout formulated a developmental scheme and issued a notification dated 3-2-2003 under Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short, "the BDA Act"), which was duly published in the Karnataka Gazette on the very same day. In accordance with Section 36 of the BDA Act, the Additional Land Acquisition Officer, BDA, Bangalore, its staff and workmen were authorized to exercise the powers conferred under Section 4(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the LA Act"). All persons interested in the land which was notified for acquisition were called upon to file objections within thirty days from the date of publication of the notification to the Land Acquisition Officer, BDA, Bangalore. The notification made it clear that the particulars of the scheme, the map of the area, statements specifying the lands which it proposes to acquire could be seen in the office of the LAO, BDA, during the office hours on all working days. The BDA proposed to acquire 3,339.12 acres of land situated in Yelahanka, K.R. Puram and Kasaba Hobli in Bangalore North and East Taluk situated in Bangalore Distric....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the BDA Act for the scheme by its order dated 21-2-2004. Thereafter, the Government issued the declaration under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act on 23-2-2004 which was also published in the Karnataka Gazette on the same day. The substance of the notification was also published in the daily newspaper on 12-5-2004. Notices under Sections 8 and 9 of the LA Act were issued during May 2004 to the interested parties. Enquiry was conducted and awards in respect of 1,618.38 acres of notified land have been passed. The BDA took up the developmental work relating to the scheme by entrusting the same to 22 contractors. The developmental works had been taken up under the supervision and guidance of the engineers of the BDA, the lands were levelled, drainages were formed and other layout works were carried out. 14,103 sites of different dimensions have been formed. BDA has spent crores of rupees in the formation of the layout. BDA also notified its proposal to form layout and invited applications for allotment and received 2,29,000 applications for allotment. The BDA processed the applications in accordance with the Rules. They intended to allot of about 28,000 sites immediately after its devel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. Whether BDA submitted the modified scheme after considering the objections under Section 18(1) of the BDA Act with reasons and whether the Government has considered the same as required under Section 18(3) and whether the final notification issued was legal and valid? 4. Whether the notification under Section 17(1) of the BDA Act is bad in law for not issued by the State Government as provided under Section 4(1) of the LA Act? 5. Whether equal protection of laws under Article 14 of the Constitution are applicable to the landowners by applying the provisions of LA Act in the light of Section 36 of the BDA Act and Section 177 of the KMC Act to acquire lands for improvements? 6. Whether the acquisition of lands in question is for "public purpose" by exercising the eminent domain? 7. Whether the acquisition of lands in question will take away the right guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution and consequently deprive the livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution and hence bad in, law? 8. Whether the Commissioner of BDA can authorise his subordinates to enter upon the lands in question to survey, measure etc.? ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in Bangalore Metropolitan Area. On point Nos. 2 and 3 the learned Single Judge held after referring to the original file, the Karnataka Government (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1977 and the discrepancy in the number of acreage sought to be acquired, coupled with the fact that layout plan was not forwarded to the Government before according sanction that the scheme in question had not been properly framed by the BDA and that there was no application of mind by the Government before according sanction and, therefore, the scheme was not legal and valid. On point No. 4, it was held that BDA is not constituted by elected members and it is subordinate to the Government and therefore cannot exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire the lands for public purpose. Further, it was held that the BDA Act has not received the Presidential assent and therefore, under Article 254(2) of the Constitution, the LA Act prevails over the BDA Act and the Government ought to have issued preliminary notification under Section 4 of the LA Act and the notification issued under Section 17 of the BDA Act is one without authority and as such it is bad in law. On point No. 5, it was held that LA Act im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ). It is against this order that the writ appeals have been filed. 6. We have heard the learned Counsels appearing for all the parties, looked into the BDA and Government files, which contain the scheme, plans, maps, orders and other papers; and also perused the various decisions relied on by them and having gone through the written submissions filed by some of them the following points arise for consideration in these appeals: (1) Whether in view of the Seventy-third and Seventy-fourth Amendments to the Constitution, incorporating Parts IX and LX.-A and the consequential amendments carried out by the State Legislature in the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, in particular Section 2(c) defining Bangalore Metropolitan Area; and Section 15 dealing with preparation of a development plan, have become inoperative and void; and whether they stand impliedly repealed? (2) Whether the provisions of Sections 4, 5-A and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, override the provisions of Sections 17 and 18 of the BDA Act and whether....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the KMC Act prevail over the BDA Act is unsustainable. 8. The learned Senior Counsel Sri Dushyant Dave appearing for some of the respondents contended that after the Seventy-fourth Amendment to the Constitution introducing Part DX-A, no authority, other than a municipality can prepare plans for economic development of an area which falls within its jurisdiction in respect of matters listed in the Twelfth Schedule to the Constitution. It was argued that Article 243-W of the Constitution which falls in Part IX-A requires a Municipality to prepare plans for economic development of an area lying within its jurisdiction and in order to comply with these provisions, Section 503-B was introduced under the KMC Act and therefore the development scheme could only be prepared by the Municipal Corporation or the Metropolitan Planning Committee and not by the BDA. It was further contended that the provisions of the BDA Act and in particular Section 15 thereof which enable the BDA to frame a development scheme is contrary to Part IX-A of the Constitution and has become unconstitutional. According to the learned Senior Counsel, these provisions when originally enacted, were valid but after th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The three lists demarcate the area over which the appropriate Legislatures could legislate. There is a distinction between Parliament making a law in exercise of its legislative power contained in Articles 245 and 246 and the law made in exercise of the constituent power under Article 368. Parliament in exercise of its constituent power amended the Constitution and inserted Parts IX and IX-A and Eleventh and Twelfth Schedules, thereto. 11. Entry 5 of List II in the Seventh Schedule enables a State Legislature to make laws pertaining to local Government, that is to say, the constitution and powers of Municipal Corporations, improvement trusts, district boards, mining settlement authorities and other local authorities for the purpose of local self-Government or village administration. Local Government includes a local self-Government and other authorities such as improvement trust and mining settlement authorities. The Karnataka Legislature has enacted the KM Act and KMC Act which pertain to Municipal Corporations, within the meaning of Entry 5 of List II. The Karnataka Legislature has also passed laws such as Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (for short 'KTCP Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essions, insufficient representations of weaker sections like Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and women, inadequate devolution of powers and lack of financial resources. It is to remedy this malady Parts IX and IX-A was added to the Constitution. 15. The development plan referred to in the said Chapters is not for carrying out building, engineering or other operations in or over or under land or the making of any material change in any building or land. It is a plan for economic development and social justice for the whole area comprised in the Panchayat or the Municipality. It is a plan for all round economic and social developments of the people of the area, who have been denied a say in the institution of self-Government, by giving them the power and authority to enable them to perform effectively as vibrant democratic units of self-Government. The stress was on holding elections regularly, conferring power to levy taxes and duties, implementation of developmental schemes, as may be required to enable them to function as institutions of self-Government. In the committee constituted, they want to ensure 2/3rd of the members are elected representatives. In other words tho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... said so. They would not have said all laws relating to Municipalities which are inconsistent with Part IX-A cease to exist after the expiry of one year from the date of the Seventy-fourth Amendment. If they have expressly declared that it is only the laws relating to Municipalities which are inconsistent with Part IX-A cease to operate, by applying the doctrine of implied repeal it is not proper for the Court to hold other laws which do not fall within the category of laws relating to Municipalities even if they are inconsistent with Part IX-A of the Constitution, are repealed by implication. In fact, it is not a case of implied repeal. It would be a case of Municipal law contrary to the provisions of Constitution to the extent of repugnancy being void. Therefore, there was no intention to override the power of the State Legislature in making laws conferred under Articles 245 and 246 and also in respect of Entry 5 of List II of the Seventh Schedule, more so in respect of matters covered under the heading improvement trust and mining settlement authorities. Therefore the State Legislature was not denuded of the power to make laws in respect of Entry 5 and the laws made continued to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aling a law or making it inoperative. In either case it is a power of the Legislature and should lie where it belongs. Any other view will be hazardous and may well be said to be an encroachment on the legislative field. But the Judge of the change should be the Legislature and Courts are not expected to undertake that duty unless that becomes unavoidable and the circumstances are so apparent as to lead to one and only one conclusion. 20. It is competent for the State Legislature even after the introduction of Parts IX and IX-A to pass laws in respect of entries in List II in respect of matters which do not pertain to Panchayat or a Municipality. It is only in respect of laws either already passed or to be passed in future they must take care to see that the provisions of such law relating to Municipalities or Panchayats are in conformity with Parts IX and IX-A of the Constitution. The entries in the Eleventh and Twelfth Schedules only denotes the area over which the State Legislature can pass laws in respect of matters connected with Municipalities. In this context the opening words of both Articles 243-G and 243-W assumes importance. The said law making power is "subject to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....29 of the BDA Act it was contended by Sri M.G. Kumar, the learned Counsel appearing for some of the writ petitioners that, the nature of functions which the BDA performs under those provisions are the functions of the Municipal Corporation and, therefore, the BDA is also a Municipality and as such the provisions of the BDA Act inconsistent with Part IX-A of the Constitution cease to be in operation as the same was not brought in conformity with Part IX-A within one year from the date of the Constitution (Seventy-fourth Amendment) Act. Section 28 of the BDA Act deals with land which is vested in the Corporation but required by the BDA for formation of street to be vested temporarily in the BDA. Section 28-A deals with duty to maintain streets till the streets formed by the BDA are vested in the Corporation and the drainage sanitary arrangement and water supply which is formed by the BDA. During the period of maintenance under Section 28-B of the BDA is empowered to levy tax on land and buildings. Only for the purpose of levy and collection of education cess, health cess, library cess, beggary cess under Section 28-C of the BDA shall be deemed to be a local authority. However, Sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hereof, constitute the amounts so collected as the fund of the authority, from and out of which the liabilities of the Municipality are met and the salaries of its employees paid, imposed on its duties, to carry out various welfare activities in the interest of the public, confers on it powers for implementing their duties satisfactorily and also empowers them to make bye-laws for regulating its various functions. Both these authorities fall within the definition of Municipality under Part IX-A of the Constitution and these two laws are laws relating to Municipalities. In fact by Act 35 of 1994 and Act 36 of 1994, the KM Act and the KMC Act, have been amended to bring them in conformity with the provisions contained in Part IX-A of the Constitution. 25. The word "development" in the BDA Act is defined as development with its grammatical variations means the carrying out of building, engineering, or other operations in or over or under land or the making of any material change in any building or land and includes redevelopment. Therefore, the meaning of the word "development" as given in the BDA Act is very narrow. In this context we have to understand the word "development" used....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the developed areas within the city of Bangalore, which has already vested with the Municipality or the city of Corporation. Therefore, this development scheme is only in respect of a portion of the land which is yet to be acquired and developed and the words "complete plans" referred to in Section 18(1)(b) refers to the plan of this development scheme. This complete plan does not refer to the whole of the city of Bangalore or the Bangalore Metropolitan Area. It also does not refer to any other aspect of development other than development of land as defined under Section 2(j) of the BDA Act. 27. The plans for economic development and social justice is an all-round development plan, for the whole area covered under the Panchayat and Municipalities. It is not a plan for development of land, which is not yet developed. Similarly draft development plan for the Metropolitan Area as a whole, is again not a plan for development of land, which is yet to be acquired and developed. In preparing such plans, the committee shall have regard to the plans prepared by the Municipalities, Panchayats and Local Authorities like BDA. The plan prepared by Panchayats and Municipalities are for econo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s that the Metropolitan Planning Committee shall, in preparing the draft development plan have regard to the plans prepared by the local authorities in the Metropolitan Area which includes the BDA and after preparing such draft developmental plan shall forward the development plan to the State Government. 31. The Legislature was conscious of the fact that in the Bangalore Metropolitan Area, a development authority is constituted which undertakes developmental works and, therefore, in addition to the words Municipalities and Panchayats in Metropolitan Area found in Article 243-ZE(3)(a) they have used the words local authority in Section 503-B(7)(a)(i) of the KMC Act. They amended the KMC Act and KM Act, to bring it in conformity with Part IX-A of the Constitution. Similarly, having applied their mind they did not find it necessary either to repeal or amend the BDA Act but they chose to retain the said legislation by making appropriate provision in Section 503-B of the KMC Act. They have taken care to see that there is no inconsistency between the amended provisions and the existing law. In fact under Section 45 of the Karnataka Act No. 35 of 1994 which was passed to amend the KMC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the two statutes, but by the mere existence of the two pieces of legislation. Before coming to the conclusion that there is a repeal by implication, the Court must be satisfied that the two enactments are so inconsistent, or repugnant that they cannot stand together and the repeal of the express first enactment must flow from necessary implication of the language of the later enactment. The important thing to be considered with reference to this provision is whether the legislation is in respect of the same matter. If the later legislation deals not with the matters which formed the subject-matter of the earlier legislation, but with other and distinct matters, though of a cognate and allied character, then Article 254(2) will have no application. It has no application to a case where the same Legislature enacts two enactments within its competence and they are repugnant to each other, even though obedience to each of them is not possible, or possible without disobeying the other. Then which enactment overrides the other, has to be considered in the light of the principles of statutory interpretation applicable to laws made by the same Legislature. 35. One such principle of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich portion of the existing law is inconsistent, the application of the doctrine of implied repeal has no application to such cases. When the superior Legislature expressly provides for repeal, the area which is not covered under the said provision cannot be said to be repealed by the application of doctrine of implied repeal. 38. So construed, the aforesaid analysis shows, the absence of basic inconsistency and presence of intelligent method, in achieving the object of economic development and social justice. Therefore, the legislative intent is manifest and clear. When the Legislature has applied its mind to the existing laws and the effect of amendment in pursuance of the constitutional amendment to the law relating to municipalities in force in the State, it cannot be said by virtue of these amendments the existing laws are impliedly overruled. 39. From the foregoing discussions it is clear BDA is not a Municipality. BDA Act is not a law relating to Panchayats or Municipalities. The President's assent is not required. It is a special legislation. Though Section 73 of the said Act has an overriding effect, it cannot override the provisions of the Constitution, but it c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... ILR 1997 KAR 1419, after considering the said argument held that the provisions of the BDA Act is in pith and substance for improvement of the Bangalore Metropolitan Area and acquisition of land is only part of such activity and not the main activity. Acquisition of land is part of the power and not incidental thereto. Such power is conferred on the BDA as part of the improvement itself. For purpose of improvement of the City of Bangalore, if necessarily land has to be acquired the said contention has no substance. Two sets of provisions under Sections 4, &A and 6 of the LA Act are comparable with the provisions of Sections 17 and 18 of the BDA Act. Thus in substance there are provisions under the BDA Act to indicate the proposals for acquisition considering the objections thereto, sanctioning the proposal for acquisition and if such acts do not take place within a period of five years the proceedings would lapse. Further it has been held, under the BDA Act oral hearing is not at all contemplated. The requirement of the provisions of the Act would fee satisfied, if opportunity for filing objections had been given. The judgment in Khoday Distilleries case has been affirmed by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uisition of land for its developmental activities are concerned in substance and effect will constitute a special law providing for acquisition for the said purpose of the BDA and, therefore, it cannot be considered to be part of the LA Act. Thus a scheme formulated, sanctioned and set for its implementation under BDA Act, cannot be stultified or rendered ineffective and unenforceable by a provision in the Central Act, particularly of the nature of Section 4 or 5-A which has no application to the actions taken under the BDA Act. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in this regard is liable to be set aside. 42. Point No. 3. Public Purpose and Right to livelihood.-The learned Single judge has held that there is no public purpose involved in the proposed acquisition and the landowners are deprived of the fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Though the learned Judge has set out in detail the reasons for coming to the aforesaid conclusion, it is unnecessary for us to go into the aforesaid reasoning as the law on the point is well-settled by the pronouncement of the Supreme Court and the learned Single Judge has recorded the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1975] 2 SCR 1007, dealing with Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, held that the object of the Improvement Act, being improvement of the towns covers a specific, though a wide field as may be evidenced by the elaborate provisions for preparation and implementation of the schemes by the Trust under the said Act. Although acquisition under the Acquisition Act is also generally for public purpose, the charter of the requisition under the Improvement Act is different and the difference has a definite and intimate nexus with the principal object of the Act, namely, improvement of towns which is the dominant purpose. Another Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor, Delhi [1975] 1 SCR 802, held that the acquisition for planned development of Delhi is a public purpose. When an authority constituted under the Act, has initiated the action for acquisition of a large area of land comprising several plots for planned development, such acquisition would be for a public purpose. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the point, the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that there is no public purpose i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f land for providing housing accommodation cannot be struck down by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Basantibai Mohanlal Khetan and Ors. [1986] 1 SCR 707 has held that, Article 21 essentially deals with personal liberty. It has little to do with the right to own property as such. Here we are not concerned with a case where the deprivation of property would lead to deprivation of life or liberty or livelihood. On the other hand, land is being acquired to improve the living conditions of a large number of people. To rely upon Article 21 of the Constitution for striking down the provisions of the Act amounts to a clear misapplication of the great doctrine enshrined in Article 21. We have no hesitation in rejecting the argument. Land ceiling laws, laws providing for acquisition of land for providing housing accommodation, laws imposing ceiling on urban property etc., cannot be struck down by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution. 46. The Supreme Court in the case of New Reviera Co-operative Housing Society v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (1996) 1 SCC 731, dealing with the question of acquisition of land ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... date of notification under Section 23(1-A) and from the date of possession till compensation is deposited. It would thus be clear that the plea of deprivation of right to livelihood under Article 21 is unsustainable. 48. Therefore, it is clear though right to livelihood or right to shelter is undoubtedly a fundamental right a person may be rendered shelterless but it may be to serve a larger public purpose. If that contention is given credence to no land can be acquired for any public purpose since in all such cases the owner/interested persons would be deprived of his property. So long as the exercise of the power is for public purpose, the individual's right of a owner must yield place to the larger public purpose. Therefore, it would not amount to deprivation of right to livelihood or shelter. Thais, the plea of deprivation of right to livelihood or shelter under Article 21 is unsustainable. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge ignoring the aforesaid law declared by the Supreme Court is liable to be quashed. 49. Point No. 4. Power of BDA to appoint LAO.--Sri Gangi Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for some of the respondents contended that under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eme was not kept at the office of the BDA for inspection by the owners of the land and in fact no plan had been prepared at all on the date of the preliminary notification for it to be exhibited. The boundaries of the land which is sought to be acquired out of the total extent was not mentioned either in the notification; in the scheme or in the plan; the objections filed by the owners of land has not been considered in the manner it requires to be considered. While BDA upheld the objections of 580 owners of the land, similar objections raised by other owners have been wrongly overruled; Neither the BDA nor the Government had noticed that about 530 acres belonged to the Government itself and, therefore, there was no question of acquiring the said lands; Two items of lands which are notified in the final notification were not notified in the preliminary notification at all. If one were to calculate the total extent of land to be notified it comes to 4,020 acres. In the last page of the preliminary notification it is mentioned that the total extent of land 3,339 acres whereas after the issue of final notification, a corrigendum was issued showing that the total extent of land notifie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or mistakes without placing the subject before the authority the said mistake was rectified. Similarly, in the resolution passed on 10-10-2002 the Hebbal-Nagavara Villages had not been included and they were included in the scheme pending ratification by the authority as it is only through two villages one could have access to the layout to be formed. In the preliminary notification issued the total area mentioned was 3,339 acres 12 guntas, whereas the total extent of land sought to be acquired was 3,839.12 acres. A corrigendum was issued to rectify the said mistake. In fact on an actual calculation made the respondents contend the total area which is notified comes to 4,024.19.5 acres which also includes about 550 acres of Government land. However, the statement filed by the BDA shows that the total extent of land notified is about 3,839 acres out of which an extent of 1,089.12 acres is given up and only final notification is issued in respect of 2,750 acres. In terms of the resolution of the authority, a draft preliminary notification under Section 17(1) and (3) of the BDA Act was prepared and it is at that stage it was named as "Arkavathi" layout. Before issue of the preliminary....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... such modifications therein and furnished a description with full particulars of the scheme including the modifications inserted therein and also submitted complete plans and estimates of cost of executing the scheme, a statement specifying the land proposed to be acquired and other details as aforesaid. Thus, the authority on their part has complied with the requirements of Sections 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the BDA Act. 53. The records produced by the Government discloses on receipt of the scheme from the BDA a detailed note was prepared giving full particulars of the scheme. The total extent of land proposed for acquisition, total extent of land actually sought to be acquired with reference to the resolution of the authority, total cost of implementation of the scheme, total amount sought to be recovered, saving, total extent of land required, the boundaries within which the layout would be situated, total number of sites to be allotted, civic amenities and commercial sites to be formed in the said layout. Full particulars of the measurement of sites and the number of sites to be formed are also set out. It also discloses the particulars such as extent of land utilized for residen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....omprised in the scheme. When the BDA passed a resolution to form a layout they have proposed to acquire about 3,000 acres of land spread over in 16 villages. It is after the said resolution the machinery is set in motion to identify lands in those villages and thereafter to prepare the scheme. While identifying the 3,000 acres of land for the scheme, if it was found that the lands mentioned in any particular village are not suitable/or not available, that village was left out and to make up the deficiencies if lands are identified in two other villages, which do not find a place in the resolution of the authority, it cannot be said that the authorities have acted in excess of the powers conferred on them. The BDA while passing the resolution should broadly give them guidelines and authority to achieve the object. These are practical problems which the authorities will face while identifying the lands. In fact resolution dated 22-5-1984, confers such power on the Commissioner. Other contentions canvassed are contrary to the record and there is no substance. It is true there is some discrepancy in the total extent of land notified for acquisition as noted in the records of the BDA an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accorded in haste. 58. Undue haste also is a matter which by itself would not have been a ground for exercise of the power of judicial review unless it is held to be mala fide. What is necessary in such matters is not the time taken for decision, but the manner in which the decision had been taken. The Court, it is trite, is not concerned with the merit of the decision, but the decision making process. The question as to whether any undue haste had been shown in taking an administrative decision is essentially a question of fact. What was only necessary to be seen was, as to whether there had been fair-play in action. A decision which has been taken after due deliberations and upon due application of mind cannot be held to be suffering from malice in law on the ground that there had been undue haste on the part of the Chief Minister or the Government, especially when there is no allegation of mala fides. 59. It is contended that while according sanction under Section 18(3) of the BDA Act, the Government has not applied its mind and admittedly there is no Cabinet approval of the scheme as required under Rules as such the acquisition is liable to be quashed. 60. In exercise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... gross block of such Corporation, requests Cabinet approval. The scheme proposed by the BDA is a self-financing scheme, the Cabinet approval tinder those rules was not necessary. On the contrary all cases relating to acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act for any Department of Government shall be dealt within the Revenue Department; but all administrative decisions connected with the acquisition shall be taken in the Administrative Department concerned in the Secretariat, under orders of the Minister-in-charge. If at all a self-financing scheme falls under Item 36 of First Schedule, in which event Cabinet approval may be necessary, which is not the case pleaded or considered by the learned Single Judge. Even if such Cabinet approval is required under the Rules, the question is whether these Business Rules are mandatory or directory and how far compliance of the relevant rules on which reliance has been placed could be regarded as mandatory. 62. The question as to whether the provisions of Article 166 itself are mandatory or directory in character and the further question as to whether the rules framed thereunder can be regarded as mandatory or directory have come up ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se officials discharge the functions allotted to them, they are doing so as limbs of the Government and not as persons to whom the power of the Government had been delegated. 63. In the case of Arun Kumar Bhattacharjee v. State of West Bengal (1969) ILLJ 45 Cal, the law with regard to Rules of Business has been enunciated by the Calcutta High Court thus: The Rules of business have been made for the convenience of public business. The opening words of Clause (3) of Article 166 make it clear that the Rules of Business are framed by the Governor for more convenient transaction of business of the Government of the State. These rules have not been framed and indeed were not intended, to create or confer a right upon a public servant to come and apply for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution for violation of these rules. 64. A Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Chandrakant Sakharam Karkhanis and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. AIR 1977 Bom 193, after noticing the aforesaid judgments held that, the aforesaid decisions make the position quite clear that the provisions of Article 166 of the Constitution themselves are directory in nature and further that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Bishamber Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1982] 1 SCR 1137, held that, the word "law" in the context of Article 300-A must mean an act of the Parliament or of a State Legislature, a rule, or a statutory order having the force of law, that is positive or state made law. The executive order passed under Article 162 of the Constitution of India would not fall within the phrase "law". Therefore, any rules framed by virtue of the power conferred under Articles 162 and 166 cannot be regarded as law. 68. Therefore, it is well-settled that the provisions of Article 166 itself are directory in nature and not mandatory. Rules framed by the Governor under Clause (3) of Article 166 must be only regarded as rules having been framed for more convenient transaction of business of the Government and are directory in character and not mandatory. Non-compliance thereof would be a mere procedural defect. If there is any violation of the aforesaid rules it would not confer any right upon any citizen to approach the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution complaining of non-compliance of the said rules and contend that the action of the Government is vitiated. The Cabinet is r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of Karnataka by notification dated 13-3-1984 under Sub-section (1) of Section 4-A of the KTCP Act, declared with effect from 15th March, 1984, the area comprising peripheral villages around Bangalore as indicated in Schedule I to be a Local Planning Area for the Environs of Bangalore and the limitation of the said Planning Area was indicated in Schedule II. Schedule I consists of 325 villages and Schedule II sets out the running boundary of the proposed local planning for the environs of Bangalore. 71. The Government of Karnataka by a notification dated 6-4-1984 exercising powers conferred by Sub-section (3) of Section 4-A of the KTCP Act, 1961 amalgamated the Local Planning Area of Bangalore declared in the notification dated 1st November, 1965 referred to supra and the local planning area declared for the environs of Bangalore in notification dated 13th March, 1984 referred to supra. After amalgamation, the amalgamated local planning area was called by the name Bangalore City Planning Area with effect from 1st April, 1984. It is made clear that the names of the villages and towns included in the amalgamated local planning area are as indicated in Schedule I and the limitatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tan Area. Therefore, the said contention is without any substance. 74. Insofar as the contention that the note appended to Schedule II in the notification dated 13-3-1984 excludes the villages mentioned in the notification dated 1st November, 1965 is concerned, it also has no substance. The said note clarifies the position that, when it says excludes the villages mentioned in the notification dated 1st November, 1965, it only means the name of those villages are not mentioned over again in Schedule II as the said running boundary includes those villages. 75. It is true that the notification issued under Section 2(c) could have been more specific, clear and could have avoided any possible doubt. But merely because the language employed is not clear, the legal effect flowing from such expression would in no way be affected. A proper reading of the notification issued under Section 2(c) of the BDA Act and the wordings of the notification issued on 13th March, 1984 makes it clear that 218 villages which includes 16 villages which are the subject-matter of the notification dated 1st November, 1965 did form part of the Bangalore Metropolitan Area. Therefore, there is no substance i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....228 acres awards have been passed; compensation paid, possession taken; layout is formed, 14,103 sites carved out. 2,29,000 applications received for allotment of sites. Under these circumstances to quash acquisition proceedings of this magnitude on the aforesaid grounds would be wholly unjustified and would be against public interest. 79. Point No. 6. Disparaging Remarks.--Sri S.M. Krishna, the former Chief Minister, who had accorded the sanction to the scheme, being aggrieved by the disparaging remarks made against him in the judgment under challenge has preferred a separate Writ Appeal No. 2712 of 2005 seeking quashing of the said disparaging remarks. Sri B.V. Acharya, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for him contends, firstly, that the aforesaid remarks are liable to be expunged on the short ground of violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, the former Chief Minister was not a party to the proceedings at all and he was not heard before passing the said remarks. Secondly, he contended in none of the writ petitions filed challenging the acquisition proceedings, there is a whisper of mala fides alleged by any of the petitioners against the former Chief Minis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ending himself? (b) Whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks? and (c) Whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct? It has also been recognised that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve. 82. In Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar and Anr. 1986 CriLJ 911, after reiterating the aforesaid proposition held that, the higher the forum and greater the powers, the greater the need for restraint and the more mellowed the reproach should be. In S.K. Viswambaran v. E. Koyakunju and Ors. 1987 CriLJ 1175, the Supreme Court held, it is indeed regrettable that the High Court should have lightly passed adverse remarks of a serious nature affecting the character and professional competence and integrity of the appellant in purported desire to render justice to respondents 2 and 3. In the case of Dr. Dilip Kumar Deka and Anr. v. State of Assam and Anr.: (1986) ILLJ 430 SC, it was held that, we are surprised to find that inspite of the above catena of decisions of this Court, the learned Judge did not, befor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....its completion. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Chief Minister who passed the order on 20-2-2004 approving the scheme pending ratification by the Cabinet. The learned Single Judge has taken exception to this approval. It is in that context he has made the following remarks which is sought to be expunged. They are: What was the urgency for the then Chief Minister to approve the scheme by himself pending ratification by the Cabinet, which is not permissible in law. No urgency or compelling circumstances or the need for such urgent action, are stated to accord approval by himself. No reasons are stated as to what will happen if the matter is placed before the Cabinet. It appears that the Chief Minister was very much eager to go ahead with the project giving go-bye to all canons of law, well-established mandatory procedure which require strict adherence and taking the law into his own hands. The said action of the Chief Minister was in anticipation of the Cabinet Approval. That means, he has taken for granted that the Cabinet will simply ratify his action as an empty formality and Cabinet is not required to apply mind to the facts of the case, consideration of obj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....areer of a Chief Minister who is a respected public figure. The said remarks do not confirm with the settled practice of Courts to observe sobriety, moderation and reserve. They are not judicious in nature. Judicial restraint is a virtue. Intemperate language used, tend to show an absence of judicial poise and balance. Judges while expressing their opinions should be guided by considerations of justice, fair-play and restraint. Judicial restraint in such matters only lends more dignity to the high office the learned Judge holds and imparts greater respect for the judiciary. We are sorry to note, that the learned Single Judge did not remind himself of the above precautions which time and again have been exhorted. Before castigating remarks are made against any person, particularly when such remarks could ensure serious consequences on the future career of the person concerned, he should have been given an opportunity of being heard in the matter in respect of the proposed remarks or strictures. Such an opportunity is the basic requirement, for, otherwise the offending remarks would be in violation of the principles of natural justice. Condemnation of the Chief Minister without givin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of any mala fides or ulterior motives alleged against the former Chief Minister by the petitioners, nor any such fact is evidenced from the material on record, the inference which the learned Single Judge has drawn cannot be sustained. It is to be remembered Chief Minister is holding a constitutional post and the act of according sanction to a scheme of the magnitude of providing residential sites to more than twenty thousand citizens, the majority of whom belong to weaker sections of the society and economically backward and the Chief Minister has nothing to gain personally, the remarks made against him are wholly unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case, which could have been avoided, if only the learned Single Judge had reminded himself of the law declared by the Supreme Court on this point as referred to supra. 88. In fact subsequent events fortify this conclusion of ours. When the scheme was placed before the Cabinet for approval on 30-8-2004, a new Government had been installed, in fact coalition Government. Political opponents who bitterly criticized the Chief Minister had become part of the Government. Those differences did not come in the way for accordin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contrary to the Government Order. The High Power Committee consists of all Secretaries of all the Departments including the BDA. The BDA being a part of the High Power Committee, when once approval for the project has been given, they could not have proceeded to acquire the very same land. The petitioners filed their objections to the preliminary notification. However, overruling the said objections final notification came to be issued by the Government to acquire the said land. Therefore, the petitioners preferred this writ petition. Apart from other grounds such as want of jurisdiction of the BDA to acquire the land, discrimination, they also contend that the acquisition is bad being barred by the principles of promissory estoppels. Though the learned Single Judge accepted the challenge to the acquisition on all other grounds, he negatived the challenge on the ground of promissory estoppels which point is considered at paragraph 76 as point No. 12. The learned Judge rejecting the said contention held that there is no 'promise' held out by the Government that the lands in question will not be acquired for public purpose. Public purpose is paramount consideration and in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case of the petitioners is, the aforesaid agreement was entered into because of the said representation by the Government. The owners have executed Power of Attorney in their favour. Thereafter disputes arose between the petitioners and the landowners, which matter was referred to the arbitration and the validity of the agreement has been upheld by the Arbitrator. The landowners have challenged the same before the Civil Court and the same is pending. In the meanwhile, the Assistant Commissioner initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act under Section 79-B and has held that the petitioners cannot hold agricultural lands. Aggrieved by the same they have preferred an appeal and the same is also pending. In the meanwhile these notifications have been issued acquiring the very same lands. These petitioners have filed statement of objections pointing out the aforesaid facts and pleaded promissory estoppels. When their objections are overruled they were constrained to file the writ petition. Sri M.R. Achar, the learned Senior Counsel, submits that though the learned Single Judge held, it is not necessary to go into the contention regarding promissory estoppels, s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to act unfettered by it, that the Court would refuse to enforce the promise against the Government. Secondly, no representation can be enforced which is prohibited by law in the sense that the person or authority making the representation or promise must have the power to carry out the promise. If the power is there, then subject to the preconditions and limitations noted earlier, it must be exercised. Thus, if the statute does not contain a provision enabling the Government to grant exemption, it would not be possible to enforce the representation against the Government, because the Government cannot be compelled to act contrary to the statute. But if the statute confers power on the Government to grant the exemption, the Government can legitimately be held bound by its promisee to exempt the promise from payment of sales tax. 93. In view of the aforesaid law, it is clear the Government is not exempt from liability to carry out the representation made by it as to its future conduct. A clear and unequivocal promise knowing and intending that it would be acted upon by the promisee and such acting upon the promise by the promisee so that it would be inequitable to allow the promi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in view of the Government Order and the promise made by them. They also did not act promptly. The aforesaid facts make it clear that the petitioners have altered their position, spent huge amounts in acquiring the land and in making other preparations on the representation of the Government which is in writing and evidenced by a Government Order. Before the Court they neither pleaded nor placed any material to show the overriding public interest which compels them not to honour the promise. In law there was no prohibition to delete the said lands from acquisition. On the contrary the Government had the jurisdiction to give up the acquisition. Therefore, all the conditions requisite for application of the doctrine of promissory estoppels are established and the acquisition of the lands purchased by the petitioners and intended for them is hit by the doctrine of promissory estoppels. In view of the discussion made above, the finding of the learned Single Judge that the plea of estoppels is not available against the State is not correct. Consequently, the acquisition of lands in respect of what the first petitioner has already purchased and what is proposed by the KIADB for the firs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd 15 are concerned, they did not arise for consideration in deciding the contentious matter in the writ petitions. They are general observation. Whether the petitioners have obtained conversion orders, whether they are validly passed, whether they contravene the provision of Land Reforms Act, the said questions were outside the purview of the writ petitions. Even the directions issued to various authorities also fell outside the scope of those writ petitions. Under the circumstances, those findings and directions are hereby set aside. 98. Point No. 9. Discrimination.--The main grievance of the writ petitioners is the discrimination and arbitrariness on the part of the BDA in notifying their lands for acquisition. It is contended that the lands belonging to influential and powerful persons, which is adjoining their lands and which are similarly situated are not notified for acquisitions at all. Secondly, the lands which were notified in the preliminary notification were excluded from the final notification for extraneous considerations. If reasons given by the BDA for such exclusion is to be accepted, their lands also has to be excluded as those criteria equally applies to their....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g on the Supreme Court judgments and the fact that the lands left out were built up area, nursery lands, factories, green belt area and there was no mala fides, but without prejudice to their submission filed a memo to the following effect.-- "Memo filed by appellant, the Bangalore Development Authority 1. Without prejudice to the submission that there is no discrimination in the matter of deletion of lands in the final notification and that deletion of certain lands will not invalidate either the Preliminary or the Final Notifications, it is submitted as follows. 2. If this Hon'ble Court were to come to the conclusion that the objections of certain landowners/writ petitioners to the final notification are to be considered afresh by the Bangalore Development Authority, directions on the following lines may kindly be issued. 3. The writ petitioners who are landowners seeking dropping of the acquisition proceedings insofar as their respective lands are concerned, on the ground that: (a) their lands are situated within green belt area; (b) they are totally built up; (c) properties wherein there are buildings constructed by charitable, educational a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enquiry, the BDA shall consider their requests. If they are able to establish that their lands are similarly situated as that of the other landowners, whose land was not at all notified for acquisition, or having been notified under Section 17(1) of the BDA Act, excluded from acquisition after upholding the objection, the said lands shall be excluded from acquisition. On receipt of such a report, the scheme already sanctioned by the Government shall stand amended accordingly and the Government shall pass appropriate orders in this regard. 103. Insofar as revenue site holders are concerned, their interest is protected in terms of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court dated 20-7-2001 in W.P. Nos. 20875 to 20938 of 2001 (Anjanapura Scheme). 104. In W.P. Nos. 1353 and 1354 of 2005, the University of Agricultural Science Employees House Building Co-operative Society has challenged the acquisition of land bearing Sy. No. 9/1 measuring 0.27, 10/2 measuring 1.16 and 10/3 measuring 1.02 of land. Their case is the said lands were acquired by the Government for their society under the LA Act, 1894 and they have paid the entire cost of acquisition. Their objections in this regard ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ths to enable BDA to verify the same; (iii) BDA will treat them as applicants entitled to priority in allotment and allot each of them a site measuring 30' x 40' in Arkavathi Layout or in any other nearby layouts in Bangalore at the prevailing allotment prices subject to petitioners satisfying the twin requirements for allotment under the BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984, that they must be the residents of Bangalore (ten year domicile) and should not be owning any residential property in Bangalore; (iv) If there are no rival claimants for compensation in regard to the plots claimed by petitioners and if the ownership of the petitioners in regard to their respective sites which have been acquired is not disputed, BDA shall calculate the compensation payable to the petitioners and give credit to the same by adjusting the same towards the allotment price for the site to be allotted and call upon the petitioners to pay the balance. Petitioners shall be given six months time for making payment. (To enable petitioners to know the amount of compensation which they will be entitled and to ascertain how much balance they should pay); (v) If there are r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se lands, are notified for acquisition, notified and whose objections were upheld and no final notification is issued. In the event the BDA comes to the conclusion that the lands of those persons are similarly placed, then to exclude those lands from acquisition; (ii) Petitioners who are interested in availing this benefit shall make appropriate application within 30 days from the date of this order and thereafter the BDA shall give notice to those persons, hear them and pass appropriate orders expeditiously; (iii) Till the aforesaid exercise is undertaken by the BDA and the applications filed by the petitioners either for allotment of site or for denotifying or exemption sought for are considered their possession shall not be disturbed and the existing construction shall not be demolished. After consideration of the applications, in the light of the aforesaid directions, if the lands are not excluded then the BDA is at liberty to proceed with the acquisition. (E) The BDA is directed to exclude the land bearing Sy. No. 9/1 measuring 0.27,10/2 measuring 1.16 and 10/3 measuring 1.02 of land which are the subject-matter of W.P. Nos. 1353 and 1354 of....