2002 (3) TMI 919 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the acquisition proceedings under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976.
2. Applicability of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the BDA Act.
3. Alleged inordinate delay in passing the award.

Summary:

1. Legality of the Acquisition Proceedings:
The appellant challenged the acquisition proceedings pertaining to Survey No. 81/6 in Agrahara Dasarahalli village, Bangalore, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the entire acquisition process and the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 22-2-1995. The Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petition, referencing an earlier Division Bench judgment in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (ILR 1997 Kant 1419).

2. Applicability of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
The appellant argued that the award passed beyond the stipulated period under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was illegal, and the acquisition proceedings should be considered lapsed. The Supreme Court, however, upheld the High Court's decision, which excluded the applicability of Sections 6 and 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act to the BDA Act. The Court affirmed that the BDA Act is a special and self-contained code, and the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended in 1984, do not apply to acquisitions under the BDA Act.

3. Alleged Inordinate Delay in Passing the Award:
The appellant also contended that there was an inordinate delay in passing the award. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument, noting that the appellant himself contributed to the delay through litigation and prohibitory orders, which impeded the expeditious implementation of the scheme.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Karnataka High Court's decision and holding that the provisions of Sections 6 and 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, do not apply to the BDA Act. The Court found no merit in the appellant's claims regarding the legality of the acquisition proceedings and the alleged delay in passing the award. The appeal was dismissed with no costs.