2018 (8) TMI 2149 - SC - Indian Laws

Government and the BDA had not taken any steps to issue a final notification or to develop the land for the last 5 years - BDA refused to give permission to develop the land on the ground of preliminary notification Under Section 17 of the BDA Act - right to enjoy the property has been taken away without finalizing the acquisition - HELD THAT - This Court has emphasized that the primary object of the BDA Act is to carry out planned development. The State Act has provided its own scheme. The time constraints of the land acquisition are not applicable to the BDA Act. Making applicable the time frame of Section 11A of LA Act would debilitate very object of the BDA Act. It is apparent that the decision of the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench is directly juxtaposed to the decision of Five Judge Bench of this Court in OFFSHORE HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. VERSUS BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ORS. 2011 (1) TMI 1322 - SUPREME COURT in which precisely the question involved in the instant cases had been dealt with. By indirect method by making applicable the time period of two years of 11A of LA Act mandate of BDA Act has been violated. However, it is shocking that various decisions have been taken into consideration particularly by the Single Judge, however, whereas the decision that has set the controversy at rest, has not even been noticed even by the Single Judge or by the Division Bench. It is apparent from the fact that the Single Judge has relied upon the decision in H.N. Shivanna 2012 (11) TMI 1333 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT in which it was observed by the Division Bench that scheme to be completed in 2 years otherwise it would lapse. It was precisely the question of time period which was dwelt upon and what was ultimately decided by this Court in Offshore Holdings has been blatantly violated by the Single Judge and that too in flagrant violation of the provisions and intendment of the Act. It is also apparent from the facts and circumstances of the case that there were a large number of irregularities in the course of an inquiry Under Section 18(1) of the BDA Act. Government had nothing to do with respect to the release of the land at this stage, as the stage of final notification had not reached but still the landowners in connivance with the influential persons, political or otherwise, managed the directions in respect of 251 acres of the land and Special Land Acquisition Collector also considered exclusion of 498 acres of the land against which the question was raised in the Assembly and eyebrows were raised in public domain. Two inquiries were ordered on 24.11.2012 and 19.1.2013 by the State Government and based upon that inquiry, it was ordered and a public notice was issued on 3rd May, 2014 that the BDA will consider the entire matter afresh - it was not at all open to the High Court to quash the preliminary notification issued Under Section 17, as the land owners, State Government and BDA were responsible to create a mess in the way of planned development of the Bangalore city. The State Government as well as the BDA directed to proceed further to issue final notification without any further delay in the light of the observations made in the order. The impugned orders passed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench are hereby quashed and set aside. The scheme and notification Under Section 17 of the BDA Act are hereby upheld with the aforesaid directions - the Land Acquisition Officer proposed exclusion of 251 acres of land from acquisition on being asked by the Government after the preliminary notification was issued. The Land Acquisition Officer, has considered another 498 acres of land to be excluded from being acquired. Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.N. Keshavanarayana, former Judge of the Karnataka High Court appointed as the Inquiry Officer for fixing the responsibility on the officials of the BDA and the State Government who were responsible for the aforesaid. The Commissioner, BDA is hereby directed to consult Inquiry Officer and pay his remuneration. Further, we direct BDA to provide appropriate secretarial assistance and logistical support to the Inquiry Officer for holding the inquiry. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in issuing the final notification under the Bangalore Development Authority Act.
2. Applicability of the time frame provisions of the Land Acquisition Act to the BDA Act.
3. Legality of High Court's quashing of the preliminary notification.
4. Alleged irregularities and inquiries regarding land exclusion from acquisition.
5. Directions for future proceedings and inquiries.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Issuing the Final Notification:
The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) faced criticism for not issuing a final notification for the land acquisition within a reasonable time frame. The BDA argued that the delay was due to a large number of objections and inquiries ordered by the State Government, which required thorough consideration. The High Court quashed the preliminary notification on the grounds of undue delay, deeming it unreasonable to keep the acquisition process in limbo for over five years.

2. Applicability of the Time Frame Provisions of the Land Acquisition Act to the BDA Act:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the BDA Act is a self-contained code, as established in previous judgments such as Offshore Holdings Private Limited v. Bangalore Development Authority. The Court reiterated that the time frame provisions under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act do not apply to the BDA Act. The BDA Act has its own specific time frames and consequences for non-compliance, which are distinct from those in the Land Acquisition Act. The High Court's reliance on a two-year period for completing the acquisition was incorrect and contrary to the established legal principles.

3. Legality of High Court's Quashing of the Preliminary Notification:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court's decision to quash the preliminary notification was flawed. The High Court had based its decision on the assumption that the time frame provisions of the Land Acquisition Act applied to the BDA Act, which was incorrect. The Supreme Court stressed that the preliminary notification was issued in accordance with the BDA Act, and the delay in issuing the final notification was justified given the circumstances, including the need for inquiries into alleged irregularities.

4. Alleged Irregularities and Inquiries Regarding Land Exclusion from Acquisition:
The Supreme Court noted that there were significant irregularities in the land acquisition process, including the exclusion of certain lands from acquisition based on directions from influential persons and political interference. The State Government had ordered multiple inquiries into these irregularities. The Court appointed a former judge of the Karnataka High Court as an Inquiry Officer to investigate and fix responsibility on the officials involved in these irregularities. The BDA and the State Government were directed to cooperate fully with the inquiry and provide necessary documents and support.

5. Directions for Future Proceedings and Inquiries:
The Supreme Court directed the BDA and the State Government to proceed with the acquisition of the lands as initially notified, without excluding any land from acquisition. The Court also ordered the BDA to challenge or seek review of similar High Court orders that excluded lands from acquisition. The Inquiry Officer was tasked with submitting a report on the findings of the inquiry to the Supreme Court. The BDA and the State Government were instructed to report the steps taken for the acquisition within three months.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the preliminary notification issued under the BDA Act and directed the authorities to proceed with the acquisition process without further delay. The Court also emphasized the need for accountability and transparency in the land acquisition process, appointing an Inquiry Officer to investigate and report on the irregularities involved.