BWSSB Can Lay Sewers Without Land Acquisition Subject to Compensation for Actual Damages and Injurious Affection

The petitioners in two connected writ petitions challenged the actions of the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB) in laying large-diameter sewage pipelines through their private lands without prior acquisition or payment of compensation

In WP 8296/2015, the petitioner alleged the Board attempted to lay pipes in an eroded area of his property by treating it as a public drain

In WP 7754/2018, the petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Section 77 of the BWSSB Act, 1964, arguing it allows for the permanent deprivation of property without the "authority of law" required by Article 300A

The Board contended it exercised a statutory "right of user" for essential public utility projects, which does not require transfer of title or compulsory acquisition

1. Whether Sections 39, 76, and 77 of the BWSSB Act, permitting the laying of sewers in private land without acquisition, are unconstitutional under Articles 14 and 300A.

2. Whether the "right of user" under Section 77 amounts to "deprivation/acquisition" necessitating proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation (RFCTLARR) Act, 2013.

3. Whether compensation under the Act is limited to surface damage or includes "injurious affection" and diminution of property value.

Sections 39, 63, 76, 77, and 127A of the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1964

Section 77 creates a statutory "right of user" distinct from ownership

The precedent in M. Babanna v. State of Karnataka, which held that Section 77 empowers the Board to enter private land without acquisition

The Supreme Court's decision in Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles Industries Ltd. regarding the distinction between a right of user for public utilities and the acquisition of title

Article 300A of the Constitution was applied to ensure that any "right of user" remains a regulated statutory burden rather than an arbitrary appropriation

The Court reasoned that the BWSSB Act creates a "graded structure" of interference: temporary entry, statutory right of user, and full acquisition under Section 127A

It held that Section 77 is not unconstitutional because the "authority of law" exists via statute, and the "right of user" does not extinguish ownership as title remains with the landowner

The Court rejected the Board's narrow view of compensation. It analyzed the term "injurious affection" in Section 39(2) and "full compensation" in Section 77(2) to include measurable diminution in property value and impairment of development potential caused by the restriction on building over sewers under Section 76

The Court found that while acquisition under the 2013 Act is not mandatory for every pipeline [para 15.39], the lack of a formal survey and identification of affected areas in the present cases constituted a procedural failure in the implementation of the statutory power

It held that the RFCTLARR Act 2013 does not apply as title is not transferred

The Court directed the BWSSB to conduct a formal survey and demarcation of the affected lands in WP 8296/2015

It further ordered the Board to determine and pay compensation for both "actual damage" and "injurious affection" (including diminished utility and developmental potential), quantified equitably at 50% of the market value of the affected area in these specific instances; exercise must be completed within four months via a reasoned order