9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (5) TMI 867 - SC - Indian LawsWrit Petition Challenging the acquisition of lands for formation of Arkavathi layout on the outskirts of Bangalore by the Bangalore Development Authority Bda Under The Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (BDA Act' or Act') - A corrigendum was issued showing the extent as 3889A.12G. A copy of the notification was forwarded to the Bangalore City Corporation and notices were also issued to the persons registered as the owners of the lands proposed to be acquired requiring them to show cause why such acquisition should not be made. After consideration of the representations the authority modified the scheme by deleting 1089.12 acres and submitted the modified scheme for acquisition of 2750 acres in 16 villages to the Government for its sanction. The Government sanctioned the scheme for formation of Arkavathi layout vide Government Order No. UDD 193 MNX 204 dated 21.2.2004. Thereafter a final notification dated 23.2.2004 was issued by the Government of Karnataka u/s 19(1) and published in the Gazette on the same day. The said notification stated that the Government has sanctioned the layout and the lands stated in the Schedule therein were required for the public purpose for formation of the Arkavathi layout. We have repeated the reference to the events in detail to show that there has been due compliance with the provisions of Sections 15 to 19. In fact deletion of some items of land or reducing the extent proposed to be acquired in some items of land, when issuing final declaration is made is quite common and is indeed a result of the process prescribed under any Act providing for acquisitions. The changes and modifications are infact contemplated in the process of making the scheme u/s 15 to 19 of BDA Act. HELD THAT - The complaint by appellants is that in the proposed Arkavathi layout, rich and powerful with connections and money power were able to get their lands, (even vacant lands) released, by showing some imaginary structure or by putting up some unauthorised structure overnight. While we may not comment on policy, it is obvious that deletion from proposed acquisition should be only in regard to areas which are already well developed in a planned manner. Sporadic small unauthorised constructions in unauthorised colonies/layouts, are not to be deleted as the very purpose of acquisition for planned development is to avoid such unauthorised development. If hardship is the reason for such deletion, the appropriate course is to give preference to the land/plot owners in making allotments and help them to resettle and not to continue the illegal and haphazard pockets merely on the ground that some temporary structure or a dilapidated structure existed therein. A development authority should either provide orderly development or should stay away from development. It cannot act like unscrupulous private developers//colonisers attempting development of small bits of land with only profit motive. Where arbitrary and unexplained deletions and exclusions from acquisition, of large extents of notified lands, render the acquisitions meaningless, or totally unworkable, the court will have no alternative but to quash the entire acquisition. But where many landlosers have accepted the acquisition and received the compensation, and where possession of considerable portions of acquired lands has already been taken, and development activities have been carried out by laying plots and even making provisional or actual allotments. To salvage the acquisition and to avoid hardships to BDA and its allottees and to avoid prolonged further round litigations emanating from the directions of the High Court, a more equitable way would be to uphold the decision of the division bench, but subject BDA's actions to certain corrective measures by requiring it to re-examine certain aspects and provide an option to the landlosers to secure some additional benefit, as an incentive to accept the acquisition. A direction to provide an option to the land-losers to seek allotment of developed plots in lieu of compensation or to provide for preferential allotment of some plots at the prevailing market price in addition to compensation will meet the ends of justice. Such directions will not be in conflict with the BDA (Allotment of sites) Rules, as they are intended to save the acquisitions. If the acquisitions are to be quashed in entirety by accepting the challenges to the acquisition on the ground of arbitrary deletions and exclusions, there may be no development scheme at all, thereby putting BDA to enormous loss. The directions of the High Court and this Court are warranted by the peculiar facts of the case and are not intended to be general directions applicable to regular acquisitions in accordance with law, without any irregularities. In view of the foregoing, we affirm the directions of the Division Bench subject to the following further directions and clarifications. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and authority of BDA under the BDA Act. 2. Discrepancies in the scheme and lack of proper framing. 3. Application of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 4. Public purpose and necessity of acquisition. 5. Authorization of duties under Section 4(2) of the LA Act. 6. Fairness and compliance with principles of natural justice. 7. Actions taken before issuing notification under Section 16(2) of the LA Act. 8. Effects of amendments to the BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984. 9. Hostile discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Detailed Analysis: Jurisdiction and Authority of BDA: The Supreme Court examined whether the BDA had jurisdiction to acquire lands under the BDA Act and concluded that the BDA Act is a special self-contained code for the development of the Bangalore Metropolitan Area. The Court held that the BDA Act is not inconsistent with Parts IX and IX-A of the Constitution, and the provisions of the LA Act do not override the BDA Act. Discrepancies in the Scheme: The Court noted that the scheme had several discrepancies, including the extent of land to be acquired and the lack of proper consideration by the State Government. However, the Court found that BDA had complied with the procedural requirements under Sections 15 to 19 of the BDA Act, including the issuance of preliminary notifications and consideration of objections. Application of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: The Supreme Court held that Sections 4, 5A, and 6 of the LA Act do not apply to acquisitions under the BDA Act. The BDA Act contains its own provisions for acquisition, and only those provisions of the LA Act that do not have corresponding provisions in the BDA Act are applicable. Public Purpose and Necessity of Acquisition: The Court found that the acquisition was for a public purpose and that the BDA had demonstrated the necessity of acquiring the land for the formation of the Arkavathi Layout. The scheme was found to be in compliance with the requirements of the BDA Act. Authorization of Duties: The Supreme Court upheld the authority of the Commissioner of BDA to authorize subordinates to perform duties under Section 4(2) of the LA Act, stating that the error in invoking the wrong provision does not vitiate the authorization. Fairness and Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice: The Court found that the enquiry conducted by the BDA to consider objections was fair and reasonable. The procedures followed were in compliance with the principles of natural justice. Actions Taken Before Issuing Notification: The Court held that the BDA's actions in forming sites for allotment before issuing a notification under Section 16(2) of the LA Act were bad in law. However, the acquisition was upheld subject to certain conditions. Effects of Amendments to the BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984: The Court noted that the amendment to the BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984, which removed restrictions on the allottee regarding alienation/use, reduced the BDA to a mere dealer in real estate. However, this did not affect the validity of the acquisition. Hostile Discrimination and Violation of Article 14: The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the lower courts that there was discrimination in the acquisition process. The Court directed the BDA to reconsider the objections to the acquisitions and provide an option to landowners to seek allotment of developed plots in lieu of compensation. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the acquisition of lands for the formation of the Arkavathi Layout, subject to certain conditions and corrective measures. The Court directed the BDA to reconsider the objections and provide additional benefits to the landowners to address the issues of discrimination and ensure fair and just treatment.
|
