Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.97909791 OF 2017
(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NOS.59115912 of 2010)
N.A.L. LAYOUT RESIDENTS
ASSOCIATION ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY & ORS ...RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.97929793 OF 2017
(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NOS.2955329554 OF 2011)
P.M. ANUPKUMAR ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
1. The issue raised in these two appeals centres
around the Notification dated 12.04.2001, issued by
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NIDHI AHUJA
Date: 2017.09.23
13:44:37 IST
Reason:
State Government, withdrawing Survey No.50, area 6
acres, 20 guntas from the acquisition made by the
2
State Government by Notification under Section 4
dated 19.09.1977 and declaration under Section 6
dated 07.02.1978 of the of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 1894”).
2. All the appeals have been filed against the
Division Bench judgment dated 11.12.2008 dismissing
the Writ Appeal filed against the judgment dated
30.03.2007 in Writ Petition No.13404 of 2005. Writ
Petition No.13404 of 2005 was filed by the land
owners challenging the Notification dated 22.03.2005
issued by the State Government by which the State
Government had withdrawn the earlier Notification
dated 12.04.2001. The learned Single Judge had
allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the
Notification dated 22.03.2005 and restoring the
earlier Notification dated 12.04.2001 by which
Survey No.50 was withdrawn from acquisition.
3. Land acquisition proceeding for acquisition of
various plots including Survey No.50(which is the
subject matter of dispute) has a chequered history.
3
It is necessary to note the series of events and
various litigations undertaken by the parties and
their predecessors before we consider the issues
raised in these appeals.
4. The Bangalore Development Authority framed a
Scheme for formation of layout known as BTM layout
which was sanctioned by State of Karnataka. For the
above purpose the State of Karnataka decided to
acquire land to the extent of 170310 acres. A
Notification under Section 4 dated 19.09.1977 was
published on 29.09.1977. Declaration under Section 6
dated 07.02.1978 was issued, which was published on
09.03.1978, acquiring large extent of land. The
acquired land included Survey No.50, 51 and 52 of
the Tavarekere Village. Notice under Section 9 of
the Act was published on 05.06.1978. Land owners
filed W.P.Nos.2109721107 of 1983, praying for
quashing the Notification dated 19.09.1977 under
Section 4 and Notification dated 07.02.1978 under
Section 6. The Writ Petitions were dismissed by
the High Court vide its judgment and order dated
4
10.02.1984. Writ Appeal Nos.271281 of 1984,
challenging the judgment of the Single Judge were
also dismissed. The award was passed on 08.02.1984,
which was approved by the competent authority on
19.03.1984. On 23.03.1984, the possession of Survey
No.50 at Tavarekere Village was taken and handed
over to the Bangalore Development Authority by going
on to the spot and preparing a Mahazer. Compensation
for Survey No.50 was also deposited in the Civil
Court. A Notification dated 07.05.1985 under Section
16(2) of the Act was also published in the Karnataka
Gazette on 24.10.1985 notifying the taking of
possession of the land.
5. The Writ Petition No.5508 of 1984 was filed by
Munivenkatappa, one of the coland owners,
challenging Notification under Section 4 to 6. The
Writ Petition was dismissed by Karnataka High Court
vide its judgment dated 14.12.1984. The High Court
in its judgment also held that the development plan
has been completed by the Bangalore Development
Authority and the Scheme is in process of
5
implementation. N.A.L. Employees Cooperative
Housing Society Ltd. had made a request to Bangalore
Development Authority for allotment for forming a
housing colony. BDA passed a resolution dated
17.11.1982, allotting an area of 8 acres of land for
forming a housing colony. The Sale Deed dated
09.05.1985 was executed by BDA in favour of NAL
Employees Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. which
included land in Survey Nos.50, 51 and 52. In spite
of sale, in favour of N.A.L. Employees Cooperative
Housing Society Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as
'Society'), family members of the owners attempted
to interfere in the possession of the society.
Hence, the OS No.1492 of 1985 was filed for
permanent injunction. Trial Court granted a
temporary injunction, which was confirmed by the
order dated 04.01.1986. Munivenkatappa also filed OS
No.2294 of 1988, claiming that he was in possession
of the land, which was sold to society, which suit
came to be dismissed. Allotment in favour of
society was unsuccessfully challenged by
6
Munivenkatappa by filing a W.P. No.18360 of 1988
which too was dismissed.
6. The daughter of Munivenkatappa, namely, Papamma
filed a W.P. No.4042 of 1998, praying that
respondents be directed not to proceed with the
acquisition in respect of Survey No.50. It was
claimed in the Writ Petition that recommendation
dated 30.06.1981 by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer has been sent for denotifying the
acquisition of 6 acres and 20 guntas of Survey
No.50. In the said Writ Petition, it was submitted
by the respondent that possession of the land was
taken and Notification under Section 16(2) has
already been issued on 07.05.1985. The High Court,
noticing the aforesaid facts held that the
acquisition proceeding has become final and the
possession has already been taken as early as in
23.03.1984, the Writ Petition has no merit and was
dismissed on 16.03.1998.
7. Further, W.P. Nos.1477914781 of 2000 were
7
filed by one S.M.Bhimanna @ Subbanna, S/o
Munivenkatappa and two others, seeking a direction
to respondents to consider the representation of
the petitioners to drop the acquisition proceedings
in respect of land in Survey No.50. In the said
representation, it was contended on behalf of the
BDA that after issuance of final Notification in
1978, the award was passed and possession was taken
by publishing a Notification under Section 16(2),
hence, the petitioners are not entitled to any
relief. After considering the submission of the
parties, the Writ Petition was dismissed by this
Court vide its judgment and order dated 16.08.2000.
8. One K.R.Rajakumar proprietor of M/s Veeranjeya
Auto Engineering Works, claiming to be a lessee vide
Lease Deed dated 08.04.1985 from land owners of
Survey Nos.50, 51 and 52, filed an OS No.5511 of
1995 for injunction against the land owners as well
as the society, which was impleaded as defendant
No.7. In the suit, defendant No.7 pleaded that
possession of land was taken in the year 1984.
8
Acquisition has become final. The suit for
injunction was dismissed. R.F.A.No.58/99 was filed
by Shri K.R.Rajakumar against the society which too
was dismissed by Karnataka High Court vide its order
dated 07.03.2000.
9. It appears that land owners having failed to
obtain any favourable order against acquisition
proceeding from the High Court or any order from the
Civil Court approached the State Government by
filing a representation, praying for withdrawal of
acquisition in respect of Survey No.50. The State
Government issued a Notification dated 12.04.2001,
exercising its power under Section 48 of the Act,
withdrawing Survey No.50 from acquisition. The
Bangalore Development Authority which was not
informed prior to issuance of order dated
12.04.2001, immediately, brought to notice of the
State Government that possession of land has already
been taken in the year 1984, no order can be passed
under Section 48. The State Government immediately,
issued another order on 09.05.2001, cancelling the
9
Notification dated 12.04.2001.
10. Land owners challenged the order dated
09.05.2001 by filing a W.P. No.37577 of 2002, Shri
Bhimanna @ Subbanna S/o Munivenkatappa vs. State of
Karnataka. The Writ Petition was allowed by learned
Single Judge vide its judgment dated 04.11.2003 on
the ground that the State Government before taking a
decision on 09.05.2001 has not issued a notice to
the petitioner for whose benefit Notification under
Section 48(1) dated 12.04.2001 was issued. On the
above ground, the Notification dated 09.05.2001 was
set aside and Writ Petition against the said order
was allowed. Subsequent to the judgment of learned
Single Judge dated 04.11.2003, the State Government
issued notice to land owners and after taking into
consideration the material on record issued a
Notification dated 22.03.2005, withdrawing/
cancelling the Notification dated 12.04.2001.
11. Land owners filed a Writ Petition No.13404 of
2005, challenging the Notification dated 22.03.2005
10
issued by the State Government in which Writ
Petition the allottees of society, namely,
respondent Nos.3 to 21 got impleaded. The Writ
Petition, after hearing the parties was allowed by
the learned Single Judge vide its judgment and order
dated 30.03.2007. The Bangalore Development
Authority filed a Writ Appeal against judgment of
learned Single Judge, which was dismissed by
Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court vide
dated 11.12.2008 against which judgment all the
above Civil Appeals have been filed.
12. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) Nos.29553–
29554 of 2011 has been filed by the appellant, who
claimed allotment of a part of land of Survey No.50
in public auction conducted on 30.07.2003. Appellant
claimed to have paid the entire sale consideration
of Rs.24,41,775/. But the Sale Deed has yet not
been executed in favour of appellant. Appellant
claimed to have filed applications for impleadment
i.e. I.A.Nos.34 of 2010 in SLP(C) Nos.2019020191
of 2009 filed by Bangalore Development Authority in
11
which notices were issued by this Court and order of
status quo was granted. However, the said SLP(C)
Nos.2019020191 of 2009 have been withdrawn on
02.03.2011. Hence, the appellant has filed these
appeals, questioning the judgment of the Division
Bench dated 11.12.2008, affirming the judgment of
the Single Judge dated 30.03.2007, quashing the
notification dated 22.03.2005.
13. Civil Appeals filed by the P.M. Anoop Kumar
refer to similar facts and grounds, challenging the
judgments of the Karnataka High Court. Reference of
pleadings and judgments in Civil Appeal
Nos.97909791 of 2017 (arising out of SLP(C)
Nos.59115912 of 2010) shall be sufficient for
deciding all the Civil Appeals.
14. Shri B. H. Marlapalle, senior counsel appearing
for the appellant submits that the appeal filed by
appellant is fully maintainable and the appellant
has locus standi to file this appeal, this Court has
already granted permission to file SLP by its order
12
dated 15.02.2010. BDA had allotted the land to
N.A.L. Employees Cooperative Housing Society, the
predecessors in interest of appellant. For espousing
the cause of its members the appellant has ample
locus standi to challenge the judgment of High
Court, restoring the Notification dated 12.04.2001.
It is submitted that the W.P. No.13404 of 2005 filed
by Muniamma, the widow of late Bhimanna who was one
of the three sons of Munivenkatappa, was not
maintainable on the ground of doctrine of stare
decisis and doctrine of res judicata . Further, there
was delay and laches and nonjoinder of necessary
parties in the Writ Petition. The writpetitioners
never challenged the Notification dated 07.05.1985
issued under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition
Act (Karnataka amendment). Hence, it was not open
for the writpetitioners to contend that possession
of land was not taken over by the State. It is
submitted that in W.P. No.4042 of 1998 filed by the
Papamma, daughter of Munivenkatappa this Court,
while dismissing the Writ Petition has held that
13
acquisition proceedings having reached finality by
taking possession of the land in March, 1984.
Further, same finding of possession was taken in the
year, 1984 was rendered by this Court in W.P. Nos.
1477914781 of 2000.
15. The appellant was necessary party in the Writ
Petition since, land in favour of the society was
allotted by the BDA on 18.05.1985. The appellant is
registered Association of members who have been
allotted land in the above land and has sufficient
interest to be necessary party, pertaining to any
litigation of land in question.
16. Learned counsel further contends that learned
Single Judge committed an error in holding that
actual possession was not taken by the State in
March, 1984. It is submitted that possession was
taken by Special Land Acquisition Officers of the
State by going on to the spot on 23.03.1984. Learned
counsel for the appellant, referring to Mahazer
contends that it has been specifically recorded in
14
the Mahazer that owners of the land and building
were present and they refused to hand over the land
and building. Learned counsel further relied on
judgment of this Court in Balwant Narayan Bagde vs.
N. B. Bhagwat & Ors. (1976) 1 SCC 700, Balmokund
Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust, Amritsar
vs. State of Punjab, (1996) 4 SCC 212, Tamilnadu
Housing Board vs. A Wiswam (1996) 8 SCC 259,
Sitaram Bhandar Society, New Delhi vs. Lieutenant
Governor, Government of NCT, Delhi & Ors (2009) 10
SCC 501 and Hubli Dharwad Urban Development
Authority vs. Shekharagowda Chennabasannagowda
Phakirgowdar, (2016) 9 SCC 13 .
17. Learned counsel for the appellant has further
attacked the Survey Report dated 01.04.2017 filed by
the BDA, which was prepared in pursuance of the
order dated 22.02.2017 passed in this appeal. He
submits that the allegation that society has
encroached 5 guntas in Survey No.50, in excess of
what was allotted to it, is incorrect. It is
submitted that Survey Nos.50, 51 and 52 were
15
included in the registered Sale Deed dated
09.05.1985. The BDA cannot be allowed to make
submission that appellant does not have any land in
Survey No.50.
18. Shri K.V.Vishwanathan, senior counsel appearing
for respondent Nos.2(a) to 2(g), refuting the
submission of the learned counsel for the appellant
contends that the appeals filed by the appellant are
neither maintainable nor appellant has locus standi
to challenge the judgment of the High Court. It is
submitted that original allottee was N.A.L Employees
Cooperative Housing Society which is a registered
Society having a separate and distinct identity from
the appellant. In any view of the matter the
appellant cannot espouse the cause beyond 8 acres
of land which was originally allotted to Housing
Society. Referring to Survey conducted by BDA on
22.03.2017 and its report, learned counsel submits
that the appellant Association is in enjoyment of 8
acres 24 guntas as has been reported, which is
against the sanctioned allotment of 8 acres. It is
16
further submitted that BDA which was the beneficiary
of acquisition having itself withdrawn the SLP(C)
Nos.2019020191 of 2009, the appellant cannot claim
to be on better footing to challenge the impugned
judgment. The Association having themselves
wrongfully encroached upon the land no interference
of this Court is called for in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 136. Learned Single Judge
after perusing the original records has returned the
findings that physical possession was not taken by
the State which findings have been affirmed by the
Division Bench. When the physical possession was
never taken by the State, there was no impediment in
exercise of power under Section 48 of the Act, 1894.
Both learned Single Judge and Division Bench have
held that the symbolic/paper possession taken under
Section 16 of the 1894 was not in conformity with
Karnataka Amendment, where it is Deputy Commissioner
to take possession and notify the same in the
Official Gazette.
19. Learned counsel further submits that the
17
learned Single Judge has also recorded a finding
regarding discriminatory treatment to the land
owners since various Survey Nos. which were acquired
by the same acquisition Notifications were released
from acquisition under Section 48 of Act, 1894
whereas respondent land owners were not extended the
same benefit. Learned Counsel further contends that
after issuance of Notification under Section 48(1)
dated 12.04.2001, the said Notification could not
have been withdrawn by the State. It is contended
that Section 21 of General Clauses Act, 1897 was not
applicable in the present case, so as to, empower
the State to issue Notification dated 09.05.2001. It
is submitted that at the time of the conducting the
auction on 26.09.2002, 30.7.2003, 14.08.2003 and
26.08.2003, the Notification dated 12.04.2001 was in
subsistence, hence, there is no legal sanctity to
any of the acts of auction of the sites.
20. Replying the submission of the learned counsel
for the appellant in Civil Appeals filed by P.M.
Anupkumar, it is submitted that there is already an
18
order dated 22.05.2009 in W.P. No.5814 of 2008,
directing the BDA to execute the Sale Deed in favour
of Anupkumar in respect of site No.58 and in view of
the Survey No.50 being denotified, the said order
in W.P. No.5814 of 2008 cannot be implemented, by
the BDA. It is further submitted that in the Writ
Petition of Anupkumar answering respondents were not
parties, the Special Leave Petitions filed by
Anupkumar and SLP deserves to be dismissed.
21. Respondent Nos.3 to 21 have supported the
submissions made by learned counsel for the
appellant. Respondent No.21 who has appeared in
person, has also adopted the submission made by
learned counsel for the appellant. Respondent No.3
to 21 have further submitted that a joint memo in
W.P. No.13404 of 2005 was filed by land owners and
respondent Nos.321 wherein, it was agreed between
the land owners and respondent Nos.321 that the
rights and title of respondent Nos.321 shall not be
affected in any manner and the land owners have
recognized the rights of respondent Nos.321, who
19
were auction purchaser of sites after investing the
huge amount. It is submitted that learned Single
Judge while disposing of the Writ Petition on
30.03.2007 has already held that right, title and
interest acquired by respondent Nos.321 could not
be affected by any of the observations made in the
Writ Petition and the Writ Petition was disposed of
in terms of the joint memo entered into between the
writpetitioner(land owners) and the respondent
Nos.321(auction purchasers). It is thus submitted
that in any view of the matter rights of the
respondent Nos.3–21 are safe and protected. It is
submitted that BDA has already executed Sale Deed in
favour of the respondent Nos.321 and BDA has also
issued a Possession Certificate in their favour.
Residential Plots sold in public auction by the BDA
in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 21 are all part of
Survey No.50 and they are clearly demarcated as per
the Allotment Plan prepared by the BDA.
22. We have considered the submissions of both the
parties and have perused the record.
20
23. From the facts, as noted above following facts
emerge:
(i) The Notification dated 19.09.1977 was
issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, proposing to acquire large chunk of land
including Survey No.50, a declaration under
Section 6 dated 07.02.1978 was issued
acquiring the land for Bangalore Development
Authority, including Survey No.50.
(ii) The State Government proceeded to take
possession of Survey No.50 on 23.03.1984 and
after taking over possession, handed over the
same to Bangalore Development Authority.
(iii) The Land owners filed several Writ
Petitions, challenging the Notification under
Section 4 & 6, which were dismissed by this
Court on 10.02.1984 and 14.12.1984.
(iv) The Society filed Suit No.1492 of 1984,
seeking permanent injunction against the owners
in which temporary injunction was confirmed and
Suit decreed.
21
(v) A Civil Suit No.2294 of 1988 was filed by
Munivenkatappa, a coowner of the land,
claiming to be in the possession, which was
subsequently dismissed.
(vi) W.P.No.4042 of 1998 was filed by daughter
of Munivenkatappa, seeking a direction to BDA
not to proceed with the acquisition proceeding
on the ground that an application before the
Government for denotifying the 6 acres 20
guntas of Survey No.50 had been made on which
favourable recommendations have been obtained
on 30.06.1981. The W.P. was dismissed on
16.03.1998.
(vii) Another W.P.Nos.1477914781 of 2000
were filed by Munivenkatappa and another
coowners praying for a direction to the State
to consider representation of land owners for
dropping the acquisition proceedings with
regard to Survey No.50. The Writ Petitions were
dismissed on 16.08.2000.
(viii) A representation was submitted by the
22
land owners in the year 2001 before the State
Government. Notification under Section 48 of
the Act dated 12.04.2001 was issued withdrawing
Survey No.50 from acquisition without giving
any notice or opportunity to the BDA for whose
benefit the land was acquired.
(ix) On the State Government having been
apprised about the correct fact by the BDA that
acquisition has already been finalized and
possession taken in the year 1984, the State
Government, immediately, withdrew the
Notification dated 12.04.2001 vide Notification
dated 09.05.2001
(x) W.P. NO.37577 of 2002 was filed by land
owners, challenging the Notification dated
09.05.2001, which was allowed on 04.11.2003 by
the High Court on the ground that before
issuing the Notification dated 09.05.2001, no
notice was given to the land owners.
(xi) The state Government after giving notice
to the land owners issued another Notification
23
on 22.03.2005 withdrawing the Notification
dated 12.04.2001. The State Government thus,
refused to withdraw the Survey No.50 from
acquisition in exercise of power under Section
48.
(xii) The Writ Petition No.13404 of 2005 was
filed by land owners, challenging the
Notification dated 22.03.2005, which was
allowed by learned Single Judge on 30.03.2007.
Writ appeal filed by BDA was dismissed on
11.12.2008.
24. The sum total of aforesaid events indicate that
acquisition of Survey No.50 was challenged by land
owners in several rounds which were repelled by the
High Court.
25. The State Government initially issued an order
on 12.04.2001, withdrawing Survey No.50 from the
acquisition which order itself was withdrawn after
notice to the land owners on 22.03.2005. The State
Government thus, refused to withdraw Survey No.50
24
from the acquisition.
26. The learned Single Judge allowed Writ Petition,
quashing the order dated 22.03.2005. Basically, two
reasons have been given by learned Single Judge for
quashing the Notification dated 22.03.2005. Firstly,
the possession of Survey No.50 was not taken by the
State Government in accordance with law and
secondly, although, the State Government has
withdrawn various survey numbers on the
representation made by owners of the land, whereas,
petitioners have been discriminated by refusing to
give similar and equal treatment.
27. Shri K.V.Vishwanathan learned counsel appearing
for land owners has challenged the maintainability
of the appeals as well as locus of appellant to file
the appeals. Hence, it is necessary to consider the
above preliminary submissions at the very outset.
The appeals have been filed with the leave granted
under Article 136 of Supreme Court of India.
Although, the appellant was not party in the writ
25
proceeding before the Karnataka High Court but this
Court in its discretion by order dated 15.02.2010
granted permission to the appellant to file S.L.P.
and this Court has granted leave on 25.07.2017. The
Constitution did not for best of reasons choose to
fetter or circumscribe the power exercisable under
Article 136 in any way. The jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 136 is discretionary and
equitable in nature. Article 136 begins with non
obstante clause “notwithstanding anything“. The
words ‘notwithstanding anything’ in Chapter IV of
Part V are words of overriding effect and clearly
indicate the intention of the framers of the
Constitution that it is a special jurisdiction and
residuary power unfettered by any statute or other
provisions of Chapter IV of Part V of the
Constitution. We thus do not find any substance in
the arguments of the learned counsel for the
respondent, questioning the maintainability of the
appeals.
28. Now, we come to the submissions raised by the
26
counsel for the respondent, questioning the locus of
appellant to file the appeal. The appellant
Association is a registered Association with
Registration No.753/200304. As noted above,
Bangalore Development Authority auctioned various
sites in the year 200203 in the acquired land. The
N.A.L. Employees Cooperative Housing Society after
allotment of 8 acres land in Survey Nos.50, 51 and
52 has formed the layout which layout was sanctioned
by the BDA on 15.06.1998. After the sites were
auctioned to various individuals, they formed the
appellant Association to espouse the cause of
residents. The appellant has been espousing cause of
its members, which has also been reflected from the
various actions taken by it in the interest of
members of the Association. In this context
reference is made to the letter dated 06.07.2009,
Annexure P.16 to the appeals filed by the
Association, where Association has written to the
Commissioner, BBMP, bringing in notice of the
Commissioner regarding the health hazard due to
27
inaction of the BBMP Officials.
29. The Association which has been espousing the
cause of its members, who are allottees of different
sites thus has sufficient locus to file this appeal.
It is further relevant to note that against the
judgment of the Division Bench, BDA has also filed
SLP(C) Nos.2019020191 of 2009. SLP(C) Nos.59115922
of 2010 were tagged with these vide order dated
15.02.2010. SLPs filed by BDA have been withdrawn on
02.03.2011. We thus find sufficient justification to
accept the locus of the appellant to file the
present appeal. We thus do not find any substance in
preliminary objections raised by the learned counsel
for the respondents.
30. Another submission raised by K.V. Vishwanathan
learned senior counsel for the respondents needs to
be considered. It is submitted by Shri K.V.
Vishwanathan that after issuance of Notification
dated 12.04.2001 under Section 48 of the Act, 1894,
the State Government had no jurisdiction to withdraw
28
such Notification. He contends that Section 21 of
the General Clauses Act, 1897 is not applicable. He
submits that under Section 48 land vested already in
the land owners, hence, recourse under Section 21 of
the General Clauses Act to withdraw the Notification
under Section 48 cannot be taken. Section 21 of
General Clauses Act, 1897 provides as follows:
“21. Power to issue, to include power
to add to, amend, vary or rescind
notifications, orders, rules or
byelaws.Where, by any [Central
Act] or Regulations a power to
[issue notifications,] orders, rules
or byelaws is conferred, then that
power includes a power, exercisable
in the like manner and subject to
the like sanction and conditions (if
any), to add to, amend, vary or
rescind any [notifications,] orders,
rules or byelaws so [issued].”
31. According to Section 21 power to issue
Notification conferred by any Central Act includes
the power, exercisable in the like manner and
subject to like sanctions and conditions, if any, to
add to, amend, vary or rescind any Notification so
issued. Although, Section 48 does not refer to the
issuance of any Notification, however, this Court
29
has laid down in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. versus State
of Gujarat and Others, (1998) 4 SCC 387 that
withdrawal from acquisition has to be notified.
Following was stated in Para 30 & 31:
“30. It was submitted by Mr. Salve
that Section 48 of the Act did not
contemplate issue of any notification
and withdrawal from the acquisition
could be by order simpliciter. He
said that Sections 4 and 6 talked of
notifications being issued under
those provisions but there was no
such mandate in Section 48. It was
thus contended that when the statute
did not require to issue any
notification for withdrawal from the
acquisition, reference to Section 21
of the General Clauses Act was not
correct. Section 21 of the General
Clauses Act is as under:
“21. Power to issue, to
include power to add to,
amend, vary or rescind,
notifications, orders, rules
or byelaws.—Where by any
Central Act, or Regulation,
a power to issue
notifications, orders,
rules, or byelaws is
conferred, then that power
includes a power,
exercisable in the like
manner and subject to the
like sanction and conditions
(if any) to add to, amend,
vary or rescind any
notifications, orders, rules
30
or byelaws so issued.”
Mr Salve said that Section 21
expressly referred to the powers
being given to issue notifications
etc. under an Act or Regulation and
under this that power included power
to withdraw or rescind any
notification in a similar fashion.
It was therefore submitted that when
Section 48 did not empower the State
Government to issue any notification
and it could not be read into that
provision that withdrawal had to be
issued by a notification. His
argument, therefore, appeared to be
that on correct interpretation of
Section 21 of the General Clauses
Act before reaching the stage of
Section 48, the State Government
could withdraw notifications under
Sections 4 and 6 of the Act by
issuing notifications withdrawing or
rescinding earlier notifications and
that would be the end to the
acquisition proceedings. We do not
think that Mr Salve is quite right
in his submissions. When Sections 4
and 6 notifications are issued, much
has been done towards the
acquisition process and that process
cannot be reversed merely by
rescinding those notifications.
Rather it is Section 48 under which,
after withdrawal from acquisition is
made, compensation due for any
damage suffered by the owner during
the course of acquisition
proceedings is determined and given
to him. It is, therefore, implicit
that withdrawal from acquisition has
31
to be notified.”
“31. ...Principles of law are,
therefore, well settled. A
notification in the Official Gazette
is required to be issued if the
State Government decides to withdraw
from the acquisition under Section
48 of the Act of any land of which
possession has not been taken. An
owner need not be given any notice
of the intention of the State
Government to withdraw from the
acquisition and the State Government
is at liberty to do so. Rights of
the owner are well protected by
subsection (2) of Section 48 of the
Act and if he suffered any damage in
consequence of the acquisition
proceedings, he is to be compensated
and subsection (3) of Section 48
provides as to how such compensation
is to be determined.....”
32. Applicability of Section 21 cannot be denied to
any Central Act as defined in Section 3(7) of
General Clauses Act, 1897. Section 3(7) is as
follows:
”3. In this Act, and in all
Central Acts and Regulations made
after the commencement of this
Act, unless there is anything
repugnant in the subject or
context,
32
| *** *** ***<br>“(7). “Central Act” shall mean an<br>Act of Parliament, and shall<br>include<br>(a) an Act of the Dominion<br>Legislature or of the Indian<br>Legislature passed before the<br>commencement of the<br>Constitution, and<br>(b) an Act made before such<br>commencement by the Governor<br>General in Council or the<br>Governor General, acting in a<br>legislature capacity;<br>*** *** *** ” | *** *** *** | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| “(7). “Central Act” shall mean an<br>Act of Parliament, and shall<br>include | ||||
| (a) an Act of the Dominion<br>Legislature or of the Indian<br>Legislature passed before the<br>commencement of the<br>Constitution, and | ||||
| (b) an Act made before such<br>commencement by the Governor<br>General in Council or the<br>Governor General, acting in a<br>legislature capacity; | ||||
| *** *** *** ” | ||||
| 33. The Land Acquisition Act, 1984 clearly falls<br>within the definition of Central Act. The<br>applicability of Section 21 of the General Clauses<br>Act was considered by this Court in State of Madhya<br>Pradesh and Others versus Vishnu Prasad Sharma and<br>Others, AIR 1966 SC 1593, where it is held that in<br>a case where under Section 9 Notification has not<br>been issued the Government can cancel the<br>Notification under Section 4 and Section 6 by virtue |
33
of Section 21 General Clauses Act. It is useful to
extract following observations made in paragraph
20 :
“20. Then reliance is placed on
Section 48 which provides for
withdrawal from acquisition. The
argument is that Section 48 is the
only provision in the Act which
deals with withdrawal from
acquisition and that is the only way
in which the Government can withdraw
from the acquisition and unless
action is taken under Section 48(1)
the notification under Section 4(1)
would remain (presumably for ever).
It is urged that the only way in
which the notification under Section
4(1) can come to an end is by
withdrawal under Section 48(1). We
are not impressed by this argument.
In the first place, under Section 21
of the General Clauses Act, (10 of
1897), the power to issue a
notification includes the power to
rescind it. Therefore it is always
open to government to rescind a
notification under Section 4 or
under Section 6, and withdrawal
under Section 48(1) is not the only
way in which a notification under
Section 4 or Section 6 can be
brought to an end. Section 48(1)
confers a special power on the
government of withdrawal from
acquisition without canceling the
notifications under Sections 4 and
6, provided it has not taken
possession of the land covered by
34
the notification under Section 6. In
such circumstances the Government
has to give compensation under
Section 48(2)......”
34. The applicability of Section 21 in exercise of
particular power granted by Central Act can be
negated only when the statute in question itself
expressly or implicitly indicates so. As noted
above, this Court in Larsen & Toubro has rejected
the submission of learned counsel that Notification
under Section 4 and 6 with aid of Section 21 of
General Clauses Act can be cancelled at any time.
This Court held that when Notifications under
Section 4 and 6 are issued and much has been done
towards the acquisition process and that process
cannot be reversed merely by rescinding this
Notification.
35. However, when the State has exercised its power
under Section 48(1) by withdrawing from acquisition
there is nothing in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
to indicate that such Notification cannot be amended
varied or rescinded by issuing a notification in
35
like manner. In the event, it is accepted that
after issuance of Notification under Section 48,
there is no power to amend, vary or rescind any such
Notifications, it may cause undue hardship. Take an
example of simple mistake whereby Notification under
Section 48 has been issued where acquisition has
been completed in all respects and acquired land had
already been utilized. We are thus of the opinion
that there may be several circumstances where
Notifications under Section 48 may be required to be
amended, modified or rescinded. As observed above,
there is nothing in the Act, which indicates that
after exercising power under Section 48, the State
Government exhaust its jurisdiction to vary, amend,
modify or rescind the notification. Thus, the
applicability of Section 21 of General Clauses Act
in exercise of power under Section 48 of Act 1894 by
a Notification cannot be denied.
36. The discussion of the learned Single Judge, in
its judgment mainly centred around to the claim of
taking possession by the State Government on
36
23.03.1984. What is the procedure of taking
possession of the land under the provisions of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 has to be first looked into.
37. The State is empowered to take possession under
Section 16 of the Act. There is State amendment in
Section 16, in so far as, the State of Karnataka is
concerned by Act No.17 of 1961 w.e.f. 24.08.1961 by
which Section 16 has been renumbered as sub Section
(1) and after sub Section (1), sub Section (2) has
been added. Thus, Section 16 as applicable in State
of Karnataka is as follows:
“ Section 16. Power to take
possession:
(1)When the Deputy Commissioner has
made award under Section 11, he may
take possession of the land which
shall thereupon vest absolutely in
the Government free from all
encumbrances.
(2)The fact of such taking
possession may be notified by the
Deputy Commissioner in the official
Gazette, and such Notification shall
be evidenced of such fact.”
38. In the present case, the award was passed on
37
08.02.1984 by Land Acquisition Officer, which was
approved by the competent authority on 19.03.1984.
The award was prepared, after issue of notice unless
Section 9 and after considering the objections filed
by the land owners, in reference to Notification
dated 19.09.1977 and 17.2.1978. After the award was
passed, possession was claimed to be taken on
23.03.1984 by the State Government, which was also
handed over to the BDA on the same date.
39. Notification dated 07.5.1985 was published in
the Gazette on 24.10.1985, as contemplated by
Section 16(2). The possession was taken by the
authorities by going on the spot and preparing a
Mahazer.
40. Learned Single Judge, has quoted the entire
Mahazer dated 23.03.1984 in his judgment and order
which is to the following effect:
“Office of the Spl. Land
Acquisition Officer, Bangalore
Development Authority. In the
presence of the Revenue Inspector.
Mahazar written by gathering on
38
Sy. No. 50, Tavarekere Village, Begur
Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.
Read the Order of the Spl. Land
Acquisition Officer dated 19.8.1984
in LAC No. 266/7879 passed for the
purpose of making over possession to
the Bangalore Development Authority
in respect of Sy. No. 50 of
Tavarekere Village to an extent of 6
acres 20 guntas which has been
acquired for the purpose of formation
of Byrasandra Tavrekere Madivala
Layout and in respect of which
compensation is already awarded.
Today, BDA Officers of the
Engineering Department have
accompanied the Revenue Inspector and
with assistance of Revenue Surveyor
they have inspected the land. The
Surveyor has measured the land and
shown the boundaries to the Officers
of the Engineering Department.
Presently, the following buildings,
malkies are existing on the land and
people are residing in the buildings.
Some merchants have also started
shops therein and doing business.
Malkies:
1) Allahabad Guava : 30
2) Pannarale Trees : 8
3) Jackfruit Trees : 8
4) Tamrind Trees : 16
5) Coconut Trees : 18
6) Mango Trees : 63
7) Custard Apple Trees: 15
8) Nerale Trees : 7
9) Hippe Trees : 1
10) Chigare Trees : 1
11) Sweet Tamarind : 6
39
12) Chelli Trees : 3
Stone Walled Wells : 2
Unauthorised Constructions
1) Touring Talkies : 1
2) Mosaic Tiles Factory : 1
3) Car Garage : 1
4) Lorry Garage : 1
5) RCC Buildings :3(about47 height)
6) Stone boundary Wall:
The above buildings are currently in
use and amongst them, wood shop,
kerosene godown, etc are present.
Orders are passed in OS. No. 849/84,
850/84, 851/84, 852/84, on 20.03.1984
restraining Bangalore Development
Authority from demolishing the
buildings. That apart stay has been
granted by the Hon. High Court of
Karnataka in W.P. No. 5010/84 on
15.03.1984. The land owners were
present at the land and the owners of
the buildings and land owners have
refused to hand over possession of
both land and buildings.
Therefore, without any other
recourse the possession of the land
is taken under Section 16 of the Land
Acquisition Act and handed over to
the Engineering Department.
Therefore, from now on, the said Sy.
No. 50 has been handed over to the
possession of the Bangalore
Development Authority as evidenced by
this Mahazer.
Read over and certified
to be correct”
Taken possession Sd/Narayan Reddy
40
Sd/ sd/Daval Khan
(HG Hanumaiah sd /Kanayaka Naidu
Assistant Executive sd/ Kaleemulla
Engineerl, 2, South
Sub, Dn. BDA,
Bangalore – 90 Before Me
Sd/R.I. Spl. LAO, BDA”
41. The Land Acquisition Act does not provide any
manner or procedure of taking possession of the
acquired land. The question as to how the possession
of acquired land is to be taken under the Land
Acquisition Act came for consideration before this
Court in large number of cases.
42. The Three Judge Bench in Balwant Narayan Bhagde
versus M.D.Bhagwat And Others, (1976) 1 SCC 700, had
occasion to consider the said issue. Justice
Untwalia's view at Para 25 in the above case, is as
follows:
"25. When a public notice is
published at a convenient place or
near the land to be taken stating
that the Government intends to take
possession of the land, then
ordinarily and generally there
should be no question of resisting
or impeding the taking of
possession. Delivery or giving of
possession by the owner or the
41
occupant of the land is not
required. The Collector can enforce
the surrender of the land to himself
under section 47 of the Act if
impeded in taking possession. On
publication of the notice under
section 9(1) claims to compensation
for all interests in the land has to
be made ; be it the interest of the
owner or of a person entitled to the
occupation of the land. On the
taking of possession of the land
under section 16 or 17(1) it vests
absolutely in the Government free
from all encumbrances. It is,
therefore, clear that taking of
possession within the meaning of
section 16 or 17(1) means taking of
possession on the spot. It is
neither a possession on paper nor a
"symbolical" possession as generally
understood in Civil Law. But the
question is what is the mode of
taking possession ? The Act is
silent on the point. Unless
possession is taken by the written
agreement of the party concerned the
mode of taking possession obviously
would be for the authority to go
upon the land and to do some act
which would indicate that the
authority has taken possession of
the land. It may be in the form of a
declaration by beat of drum or
otherwise or by hanging a written
declaration on the spot that the
authority has taken possession of
the land. The presence of the owner
or the occupant of the land to
effectuate the taking, of possession
is not necessary. No further notice
beyond that under section 9(1) of
42
the act is required. When possession
has been taken, the owner or the
occupant of the land is
dispossessed. Once possession has
been taken the land vests in the
Government. ”
43. Bhagwati, J. by giving a concurring opinion on
his behalf and on behalf of Justice A. C. Gupta had
laid down the following in para 27:
“27....We think it is enough to
state that when the Government
proceeds to take possession of the
land acquired by it under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, it must take
actual possession of the land, since
all interests in the land are sought
to be acquired by it. There can be
no question of taking 'symbolical'
possession in the sense understood
by judicial decisions under the Code
of Civil Procedure. Nor would
possession merely on paper be
enough. What the Act contemplates as
a necessary condition of vesting of
the land in the Government is the
taking of actual possession of the
land. How such possession may be
taken would depend on the nature of
the land. Such possession would have
to be taken as the nature of the
land admits of. There can be no hard
and fast rule laying down what act
would be sufficient to constitute
taking of possession of land. We
should not, therefore, be taken as
laying down an absolute and
inviolable rule that merely going on
43
the spot and making a declaration by
beat of drum or otherwise would be
sufficient to constitute taking of
possession of land in every case.
But here, in our opinion, since the
land was lying fallow and there was
no crop on it at the material time,
the act of the Tehsildar in going on
the spot and inspecting the land for
the purpose of determining what part
was waste and arable and should,
therefore, be taken possession of
and determining its extent, was
sufficient to constitute taking of
possession. It appears that the
appellant was not present when this
was done by the Tehsildar, but the
presence of the owner or the
occupant of the land is not
necessary to effectuate the taking
of possession. It is also not
strictly necessary as a matter of
legal requirement that notice should
be given to the owner or the
occupant of the land that possession
would be taken at a particular time,
though it may be desirable where
possible to give such notice before
possession is taken by the
authorities, as that would eliminate
the possibility of any fraudulent or
collusive transaction of taking of
mere paper possession, without the
occupant or the owner ever coming
to know of it.”
44. In Balmokand Khatri Educational And Industrial
Trust, Amritsar versus State Of Punjab and Others,
, this Court had laid down that
(1996) 4 SCC 212
44
normal mode of taking possession is drafting the
Panchnama in presence of Panches and taking
possession and giving delivery to the Officials.
Para 4 of the judgment is as follows:
“4.....It is now wellsettled legal
position that it is difficult to
take physical possession of the land
under compulsory acquisition. The
normal mode of taking possession is
drafting the panchnama in the
presence of panchas and taking
possession and giving delivery to
the beneficiaries is the accepted
mode of taking possession of the
land. Subsequent thereto, the
retention of possession would
tantamount only to illegal or
unlawful possession.”
45. In Banda Development Authority, Banda versus
Moti Lal Agarwal and Others, (2011) 5 SCC 394, this
Court has considered the question of taking up
possession of acquired land after noticing all
earlier judgments of this Court. This Court culled
out the principles in Para 37 of the judgment, which
is quoted as below:
“37. The principles which can be
culled out from the abovenoted
judgments are:
45
I) No hardandfast rule can
be laid down as to what act
would constitute taking of
possession of the acquired
land.
ii) If the acquired land is
vacant, the act of the State
authority concerned to go to
the spot and prepare a
panchnama will ordinarily be
treated as sufficient to
constitute taking of
possession.
iii) If crop is standing on
the acquired land or
building/structure exists,
mere going on the spot by
the authority concerned
will, by itself, be not
sufficient for taking
possession. Ordinarily, in
such cases, the authority
concerned will have to give
notice to the occupier of
the building/structure or
the person who has
cultivated the land and take
possession in the presence
of independent witnesses and
get their signatures on the
panchnama. Of course,
refusal of the owner of the
land or building/structure
may not lead to an inference
that the possession of the
acquired land has not been
taken.
iv) If the acquisition is of
46
a large tract of the land,
it may not be possible for
the acquiring/designated
authority to take physical
possession of each and every
parcel of the land and it
will be sufficient that
symbolic possession is taken
by preparing appropriate
document in the presence of
independent witnesses and
getting their signatures on
such document.
v) If beneficiary of the
acquisition is an
agency/instrumentality of
the State and 80% of the
total compensation is
deposited in terms of
Section 17(3A) and
substantial portion of the
acquired land has been
utilised in furtherance of
the particular public
purpose, then the court may
reasonably presume that
possession of the acquired
land has been taken.”
46. In the present case Notification under Section
16(2) dated 07.05.1985 was published in the
Karnataka Gazette of 24.10.1985. Publication in the
Gazette is evidence of the fact that possession has
been taken as is statutorily provided by Section 16
47
(2). This Court has occasion to consider Section
16(2) (as amended in Karnataka in P.K. Kalburqi
versus State of Karnataka and Others, (2005) 12 SCC
489 . This Court considered the relevance of
Notification under Section 16(2) and held that such
Notification could be evidence of fact that
possession was taken, though not conclusive and in
absence of such notification, the Court can consider
the other fact on record which has a bearing on this
question. Following is stated in Para 9:
“ 9. A plain reading of the said
section would indicate that the
power conferred on the Deputy
Commissioner is enabling in nature,
and if such a notification is issued
it shall be evidence of the fact
that possession was taken, though
not conclusive. Such a notification
would be a piece of evidence which
may establish that possession of the
lands was in fact taken. It is not
as if in the absence of such a
notification the Court cannot
consider the other evidence on
record which has a bearing on this
question. We are, therefore,
satisfied that the High Court was
right in coming to the conclusion
that possession of the lands was
taken by the State and there was
therefore no authority in the State
48
Government to issue a notification
denotifying the lands under Section
19(7) of the Karnataka Urban
Development Authorities Act, 1987.”
47. The present is a case where on the land various
trees were standing, which has been noted in the
Mahazer. Certain other constructions, as referred to
in the Mahazer as unauthorised construction were
also noticed. The Mahazer further noticed that land
owners and owners of the building were also present
at the land and land owners and owners of building
refused to hand over the possession of land and
building. The Mahazer was signed by Revenue
Inspector, Special LAO, Engineer of BDA as well as
four other persons.
48. Present is a case where land was acquired for a
public authority and Bangalore Development Authority
has prepared the BMT Scheme layout which was
sanctioned. Society was allotted the land on
18.05.1985 and the society also got its allotment
sanctioned.
49
49. It is useful to notice as to what was recorded
by High Court on 14.12.1984 while dismissing the
Writ Petition filed by land owners being W.P.
No.5508 of 1984. While dismissing the above Writ
Petition, High Court has held the following, in the
aforesaid judgment:
“....Though he has taken a
specific contention that the land in
question was not covered by the
development scheme prepared by the
BDA, the records produced by the
learned counsel for BDA show that the
land bearing S. Nos. 50, 51 and 52
form part and parcel of the BDA
Scheme. This scheme covers a very
large extent of land and the lands of
a number of persons had been acquired
under the said scheme and the
acquisition proceedings regarding
these lands have become final. The
development plan has been completed
by the BDA and the scheme is in the
process of implementation.
In the circumstances and for the
reasons stated by this court in the
order in the aforesaid writ
petitions, this petition fails and
accordingly it is rejected at the
stage of preliminary hearing....”
50. One of the main submissions, which has been
pressed by counsel for the appellant is that in
50
different Writ Petitions filed by the land owners
themselves, this Court has accepted the contention
of the BDA that possession of the land was already
taken on 23.03.1984 and the land has vested in the
BDA.
51. It is contended that there being findings
recorded in judgment of this Court in earlier
litigation between the parties, learned Single
Judge in the judgment dated 30.03.2007 could not
have recorded different findings regarding the
possession. The possession having taken over by the
State Government, which was handed over to BDA the
land vested in the State Government free from all
encumbrances and power under Section 48 could not
have been invoked. For appreciating the aforesaid
submission, it is necessary to look into the
judgment of the High Court where it is claimed that
with regard to possession, finding has already been
returned that possession had been taken by the
State in the year 1984.
51
52. In above context following judgments of the
High Court need to to be specifically noted:
(a) The W.P. No.18360 of 1988 was filed by Shri
S.M.Bhimanna @ Subbanna and two others,
challenging the order passed by the Minister
for Urban Development, dismissing the Writ
Petition by which, allotment in favour of
society was sought to be cancelled. This Court
after noticing the earlier judgment of High
Court in W.P.No.5508 of 1984 dated 14.12.1984
made the following observations:
“The order made in W.P. No. 5508/83
has become final as far as the
legality of the acquisition
proceedings is concerned.
Accordingly the land in question
became vested in the Bangalore
Development Authority. It is for the
Bangalore Development Authority to
allot the land in accordance with
the provisions framed under the
Bangalore Development Authority
Act..... ”
(underlined by us)
(b) The Writ Petition No.4042 of 1998 Smt.
Papamma versus The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, was filed seeking a direction to the
52
respondents not to proceed with the
acquisition in respect to Survey No.50.
Following was stated in Para 8:
“8. I do not find any merit in this
petition. This petition is liable to
be rejected on every one of the
grounds urged by the learned counsel
for the Respondents. As noticed by
me earlier, the notification under
subsection(1) of Section 17 of the
th
Act was issued on 19 September 1987
and Notification under subsection(1)
of Section 19 of the Act was issued
th
on 9 March 1978 and award was
th
passed on 8 February 1984 and a
Notification evidencing taking
th
possession of the said land on 19
th
March 1984 came to be issued on 7
May 1985 as per AnnexureR1. In this
petition, the Petitioner has not
challenged the correctness of the
said notifications. On the other
hand the prayer of the Petitioner is
for a direction to the Respondents
not to proceed with the acquisition
proceedings. The narration of facts
stated above clearly shows that the
acquisition proceedings have become
final and the possession of the land
th
was taken as back as 19 March 1984.
Under these circumstances, I am
unable to understand as to how the
Petitioner can seek for a direction
to the Respondents not to proceed
with the acquisition proceedings
without challenging the acquisition
proceedings without challenging the
acquisition proceedings and more
53
particularly the Notifications
issued under Section 17(1) and 19(1)
of the Act. On this short ground
alone this petition is liable to be
dismissed. Further, as rightly
pointed out by Sri Hegde, the
acquisition proceedings having
reached finality by taking
th
possession of the said land on 19
March, 1984, the Petitioner cannot
be, at this stage, permitted to
challenge the acquisition
proceedings.”
(underlined by us)
53. The above two Writ Petitions were filed by Writ
Petitioners where the Special LAO as well as BDA
both were parties to the proceedings. In Writ
Petition filed by S.M.Bhimanna, the State of
Karnataka as well as Society(N.A.L.) was also
respondents.
54. The Court after considering the submissions of
the parties and material on record has returned the
finding that possession of land has been taken in
the year 1984 and land has absolutely vested in the
State.
55. The learned Single Judge in its judgment dated
54
30.03.2007 has not given due weight to the aforesaid
findings. The learned Single Judge in its judgment
dated 30.03.2007 could not have returned a contrary
finding that possession has not been taken from the
petitioners. The learned Single Judge, in its
judgment has referred to earlier judgment of the
High Court in W.P. No.4042 of 1998, Smt. Papamma
versus Special Land Acquisition Officer in which
judgment, a finding was returned by the High Court
that possession has already been taken.
56. The High Court has discarded the finding
returned in the above judgment of this Court dated
16.03.1998 by making following observations:
“33.......Copy of the judgment in
Writ Petition No.4042 of 1998 is
perused. At Paragraph8 while
discussing with regard to validity of
acquisition a reference was made to a
notification dated 07.05.1985
evidencing taking possession of the
said land on 19.03.1984. The learned
judge opines narration of facts
clearly shows that the acquisition
proceedings have become final and the
possession of the land was taken over
as on 19.03.1984. This observation
was made by Court without reference
55
to any of the records but only based
on the contentions of the parties. At
that point of time, there was neither
denotification of the land from
acquisition nor withdrawal of the
order of denotification. As a matter
of fact, petitioner did contend being
in possession and enjoyment of the
land all through.”
57. The observation of the learned Single Judge
that observation in judgment dated 16.03.1998 was
made by Learned Judge without reference to any of
the record but only based on the contention of the
parties is incorrect and unfounded. The finding
recorded by the High Court was on the basis of
submissions of the parties based on the pleadings
and materials which were placed on the record as
well as on the notification dated 07.05.1985 issued
under Section 16(2) evidencing taking of possession
of land on 23.03.1984. Notification dated 07.05.1985
published in official Gazette on 24.10.1985 under
Section 16(2) of the Act 1894(as amended in
Karnataka) was an evidence rightly relied by High
Court for coming to the conclusion that possession
was taken as notified in the notification. The
56
Judgment of High Court dated 16.03.1998 was fully in
accordance with the provisions of Section 16(2) of
Act 1894, which provision has not even adverted to
either by learned Single Judge or the Division Bench
in the impugned judgment. The findings recorded in
the judgment dated 16.03.1998 could not have been
discarded in such slipshod manner by learned Single
Judge.
58. We are thus of the view that in earlier
judgments of the High Court between the parties
regarding the acquisition in question a finding was
returned that possession was taken from the land
owners in the year 1984.
59. High Court in subsequent Writ Petition filed
by land owners, even though, arising out of a
Notification by the State, by which it had cancelled
earlier Notification withdrawing from the
acquisition, the said finding in earlier proceeding
regarding delivery of possession could not have been
ignored or discarded. Learned Single Judge
57
committed error in proceeding to reexamine the
issue with regard to which finding was recorded in
earlier proceeding that possession was already taken
by the State in the year 1984 and the land
absolutely vests in the State.
60. High Court lost sight of the fact that
Notification dated 12.04.2001 was issued after 16
years of taking of the possession. In the meantime,
BDA has proceeded with the development of the land.
Roads were constructed and society's allotment was
also passed in the year 1985 itself, layout
sanctioned in the year 1988 itself.
61. Thus, we are of the opinion that High Court
instead of relying on the earlier findings recorded
by the High Court as noted above that the possession
of land has already been taken by the State and
handed over to the BDA in the year 1984, gave a
contrary finding that possession was not taken,
which is unsustainable. The issue as to whether
possession of Survey No.50 was already taken by
58
the State and handed over to BDA in the year
1984 which was directly and substantially in
issue in the earlier writ proceedings initiated
by the land owners, especially in W.P. No.4042
of 1998 and W.P. Nos.1477914781 of 2000 where
land owners were seeking a direction to withdraw
Survey No.50 from acquisition on the ground that
they are still in possession. The dismissal of
aforesaid writ petitions and finding to the
effect that acquisition proceedings have become
final and possession of the land was taken back
in the year 1984 shall operate as resjudicata
in subsequent W.P. No.13404 of 2005 filed by the
land owner. The findings of Karnataka High Court
that possession of the land has already been
taken in the year 1984 as recorded in writ
petitions as noted above precluded the learned
Single Judge in W.P. No.13404 of 2005 to take a
contrary decision. We thus find that submission
of learned counsel for the appellant that the
59
decision on the issue of taking possession by
the State as rendered in earlier writ petitions
filed by land owners shall operate as
resjudicata in subsequent writ petition filed
by land owner being W.P. No.13404 of 2005 and
judgment of learned Single Judge as affirmed by
the Division Bench deserves to be set aside on
this ground.
62. There is one other reason due to which the
judgment of the High court cannot be sustained. The
land owners had filed W.P. No.4042 of 1998 where a
direction was sought for BDA not to proceed with the
acquisition proceeding on the ground that an
application before the Government for denotifying
Survey No.50 has been filed. The copy of the
judgment dated 16.03.1998 in the aforesaid Writ
Petition has been brought on the paperbook at page
No.96 to 105. The opening part of the judgment is as
follows:
“ This writ petition is filed under
60
articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to
direct the Respondents not to
proceed with the acquisition in
respect of Sy. No.50 of Tavarekere
Village, Bangalore South Taluk and
etc...”
63. The High Court has also in the same judgment
noticed the claim of petitioner that a communication
was issued on 30.06.1981 by Special LAO to the State
Government praying for denotification of Survey
No.50 and the prayer of the petitioner that State be
directed to denotify the land. The said facts have
been noticed in Para 2 which are to the following
effect:
“2. In this petition, the Petitioner
has sought for a direction to the
Respondents not to proceed with the
acquisition in respect of the said
land. Sri Suresh Joshi, Learned
counsel for the Petitioner made two
submissions. Firstly, he submitted
that since the Petitioner was not
served with the notice and was not
heard in the course of Section 5A
enquiry and also at the stage of
passing of the award, the
Respondents have no authority in law
to proceed with the acquisition
proceedings; and therefore the
entire acquisition proceedings are
required to be declared as illegal.
61
Secondly, he submitted since a
communication was issued to the
th
Petitioner on 30 June 1981, a copy
of which has been produced as
AnnexureC stating that the
nd
recommendations were made by the 2
Respondent to the State Government
to denotify 6 acres and 20 guntas
of land in Sy.No.50 where structures
and garden are existing, the
Respondents must be directed to
denotify the land in question from
the acquisition proceedings.
According to the learned counsel the
nd
recommendation made by the 2
Respondent as per AnnexureC is
pending consideration before the
State Government. He further
submitted that under similar
circumstances, the Government has
denotified the lands of several
others recently. In support of this
plea he relied upon the Circular
th st
dated 15 November 1978 and 1
January 1987, copies of which have
been produced as AnnexuresB and D
respectively wherein the Government
has notified that wherever the land
proposed to be acquired by the
Bangalore Development Authority
consists of garden and nursery, the
said lands should be dropped from
acquisition proceedings.”
64. The High Court has dismissed the above Writ
Petition in which following was observed:
"....the narration of facts stated
above, clearly shows that the
acquisition proceedings have become
62
final and the possession of the land
was taken as back as 19.03.1984.
Under these circumstances, I am
unable to understand as to how the
petitioners can seek for a direction
to the respondents, not to proceed
with the acquisition
proceedings...."
(underlined by us)
The Writ Petition seeking direction to the
State Government to withdraw from acquistion with
regard to Survey No.50 was thus dismissed.
65. Similarly, another Writ Petition
Nos.1477914781 of 2000, S.M. Bhimanna versus
Bangalore Development Authority was also filed where
following reliefs were claimed:
"(a) a direction to respondents to
consider their representations and
drop the acquisition proceedings in
respect of land measuring 6 acres 20
guntas in Sy. No. 50 of Tavarkere
Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore,
South Taluk.
(b) a direction to second respondent
not to demolish the structures in
the petition schedule property
pending consideration of their
applications for regularization
63
(AnnexureE, E1 and E2 dated
30.04.1994.”
66. The aforesaid Writ Petition was contested by
BDA by pleading that possession of the land was
already taken in the year 1984 and a Notification
under Section 16(2) has been published on 24.10.1985
and the land absolutely vested in the State.
Noticing the aforesaid contention ultimately, the
Writ Petition was dismissed by Division Bench of
Karnataka High Court vide judgment dated 16.08.2000.
67. Thus, land owners have filed two Writ
Petitions, seeking a direction to the State to
denotify the land i.e. Survey No.50 i.e. By
exercising power under Section 48. Both the above
Writ Petitions were dismissed. After dismissal of
the aforesaid Writ Petitions where relief of
withdrawing from the acquisition of the Survey No.50
was refused, land owners without disclosing the
relevant facts approached the State Government in
the year 2001 by submitting a representation that
64
they are in possession and acquisition of Survey
No.50 be withdrawn.
68. When the Writ Petitions, praying for similar
relief i.e. withdrawal of Survey No.50 from
acquisition have been dismissed by the Karnataka
High Court, as noticed above, the petitioners could
not have approached the State Government praying for
same relief.
69. Both the judgments of the High Court i.e.
judgment dated 16.03.1998 in W.P. No.4042 of 1998 as
well as judgment dated 16.08.2000 in Writ Petition
Nos.1477914781 of 2000 were not brought into notice
of the State Government by the land owners and they
succeeded obtaining a Notification on 12.04.2001
which was cancelled within one month.
70. Thus, when the two Writ Petitions as noted
above, filed by land owners for same relief have
been dismissed by the Karnataka High Court, we fail
to see how the petitioners could have approached the
65
State Government by representation thereafter
praying the State Government to exercise its power
under Section 48 to withdraw Survey No.50 from
acquisition. Thus, the entire excercise by the land
owners of approaching the State Government to
withdraw from acquisition of Survey No.50 was
uncalled for and was not permissible in view of the
dismissal of their Writ Petitions by Karnataka High
Court where the same relief was prayed and refused.
71. Learned Single Judge vide its judgment dated
30.03.2007 has not adverted to the aforesaid two
judgments of High Court dated 16.03.1998 and
16.08.2000 which was passed in the Writ Petition
filed by the land owners itself where same relief
for withdrawl of Survey No.50 from acquisition was
refused. The Division Bench has also not adverted to
the aforesaid aspects of the matter while dismissing
the Writ Appeal.
72. It has to be noted that in the Writ Petition
66
the land owners before learned Single Judge has also
pleaded that State has withdrawn acquisition with
regard to various Survey Nos. whereas
writpetitioner has been discriminated by refusing
to give similar and equal treatment.
73. Be as it may, when the High Court in earlier
proceedings has already held that possession was
taken up by the State Government and land vested in
the State free from any encumbrances, power under
Section 48 could not have been exercised by the
State. Hence, it is not necessary for us to dwell on
the aforesaid reasons given by the learned Single
Judge any further.
74. We are thus of the view that State Government
having withdrawn the Notification dated 12.04.2001
and having refused to withdraw Survey No.50 from
acquisition which had already become final sixteen
years ago, when the possession was taken by the
State and handed it over to BDA in the year 1984,
67
which fact was notified in the official Gazette on
24.10.1985, Learned Single Judge committed an error
in allowing the Writ Petition by quashing order of
the State Government dated 22.03.2005.
75. Division Bench also did not advert to the
relevant aspects and committed error in confirming
the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
76. This Court vide its order dated 22.02.2017 has
directed learned counsel for the BDA to inform the
Court as to how much land is allotted to the
appellantSociety by the BDA and how much land is
in actual possession. BDA in pursuance of the order
of this Court conducted a survey and submitted its
report dated 01.04.2017. In the Survey Report, it
has been mentioned that total allotment of land in
favour of N.L.A. Cooperative Society was 8 acres
and members of the appellantSociety are in
possession of more area then allotted to it. It is
not necessary for us to consider or express any
68
opinion in the above regard. In the event members of
the appellantSociety are in possession of any
excess area, it is always open for the BDA to take
such steps as permissible in law.
77. In result, Civil Appeals Nos.97909791 of 2017
arising out of SLP(C) Nos.591112 of 2010 are
allowed. Judgment of Division Bench dated 11.12.2008
as well as judgment of the learned Single Judge
dated 30.03.2007 are set aside and W.P. No.13404 of
2005 is dismissed.
78. For the above reasons, Civil Appeal
Nos.97929793 of 2017 arising out of SLP(C)
Nos.2955329554 of 2011 are also allowed.
...........................J.
( A.K. SIKRI )
...........................J.
( ASHOK BHUSHAN )
NEW DELHI
AUGUST 09,2017.
69
(REVISED)
ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.7 SECTION IV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal Nos. 9790-9791/2017
N.A.L. LAYOUT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION Appellant(s)
VERSUS
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
C.A. No. 9792-9793/2017
Date : 09-08-2017
These appeals were called on for pronouncement of
judgment today.
For Appellant(s) Mr. Rajesh Mahale, AOR
M/s. Khaitan & Co., AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Navin Prakash, AOR
Ms. N. Annapoorani, AOR
Mr. S. J. Amith, Adv.
Dr. (Mrs. ) Vipin Gupta, AOR
Ms. Anitha Shenoy, AOR
Mr. Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, AOR
Mr. S. K. Kulkarni, Adv.
Mr. M. Gireesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR
Respondent-in-person
Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan, AOR
70
Mr. Joseph Aristotle S., Adv.
Ms. Priya Aristotle, Adv.
Mr. Ashish Yadav, Adv.
Ms. Romsha Raj, Adv.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan
pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising
Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Sikri and His Lordship.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the
signed reportable judgment.
Application for impleadment stands disposed
of.
(NIDHI AHUJA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
[Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file.]
71
ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.7 SECTION IV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal Nos. 9790-9791/2017
N.A.L. LAYOUT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION Appellant(s)
VERSUS
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
C.A. No. 9792-9793/2017
Date : 09-08-2017
These appeals were called on for pronouncement of
judgment today.
For Appellant(s) Mr. Rajesh Mahale, AOR
M/s. Khaitan & Co., AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Navin Prakash, AOR
Ms. N. Annapoorani, AOR
Mr. S. J. Amith, Adv.
Dr. (Mrs. ) Vipin Gupta, AOR
Ms. Anitha Shenoy, AOR
Mr. Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, AOR
Mr. S. K. Kulkarni, Adv.
Mr. M. Gireesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR
Respondent-in-person
Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan, AOR
72
Mr. Joseph Aristotle S., Adv.
Ms. Priya Aristotle, Adv.
Mr. Ashish Yadav, Adv.
Ms. Romsha Raj, Adv.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan
pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising
Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Sikri and His Lordship.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the
signed reportable judgment.
(NIDHI AHUJA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
[Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file.]