9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 919X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 Kant 1419) For appreciating the points raised as well as the grievance sought to be made out, it would be necessary to advert to certain salient factual details pertaining to the matter. The appellant claims to be the owner in possession of the land comprised in Survey No. 81/6, Agrahara Dasarahalli village, Yeswanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. Permission was said to have been obtained by the appellant on 2-8-1969 from the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, sanctioning conversion of one acre 16 guntas in the said survey number into non-agricultural use, leaving the remaining 20 guntas as kharab land. The permission was subject to certain conditions, which, among other things, included compliance with the formalities prescribed by and obligations to the City Improvement Trust Board or need to secure the approval for the layout and building plans from the said Board and obtaining of necessary licences etc. from the competent authority before the commencement of any construction work on the said land. The appellant also claims to have substantially commenced construction. While the matter stood thus, a preliminary notification was said to have been published in the Official ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n and the pendency of those proceedings. Finally, as noticed earlier, the award came to be made under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 22-12-1995. Since the appellant seems to have mainly challenged the proceedings placing reliance on Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act inserted into the main Act by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 and the very question similar to the one raised, was dealt with elaborately and held against the stand of the petitioner in the decision reported in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. case (ILR 1997 Kant 1419) the writ petition of the appellant came to be dismissed necessitating this appeal. The main and substantial question raised by Shri D. R. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellant, before us is that the High Court erred in following the earlier decision in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. case (ILR 1997 Kant 1419) and that having regard to the provisions contained in Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the award passed beyond the stipulated period of limitation is illegal and that after the expiry of the stipulated period under Section 11-A, the acquisition proceedings stood lapsed and, therefore, the claim of the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision reported in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board v. H. Narayanaiah ((1976) 4 SCC 9 AIR 1976 SC 2403) observed as follows 6. It is true that it can be more plausibly argued, with regard to the provisions of the Mysore Act of 1903, that the market value for acquisitions under this Act should be determined with reference to the Acquisition Act as it stood in 1903. After carefully considering this point of view, we think that such a departure from the generally accepted procedure which regulates acquisition and compensation for it under similar Acts in the State of Mysore as well as under the Land Acquisition Act today has to be justified by something more explicit, express and substantial than the mere date of enactment of the Mysore Act. If Section 23(1) of the Acquisition Act lays down, as we think it does, the only procedure for award of compensation, it has to be followed as it exists at the time of acquisition proceedings. No one has a vested right in a particular procedure. It is a fair interpretation of Section 23 of the Mysore Act of 1903 to hold that it means that, whatever may be the procedure there, with regard to matters regulating compensa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e final notification is not issued within the period mentioned therein and if any award is not made within the time prescribed under Section 11-A of the Act, the acquisition proceedings would lapse. In the case of schemes covered by the BDA Act, the authority has to execute the schemes within a period of 5 years and if the authority fails to execute the scheme substantially, the scheme shall lapse and the provisions of Section 36 shall become inoperative. Thus, in substance there are provisions under the BDA Act to indicate the proposals for acquisition, considering the objections thereto, sanctioning the proposal for acquisition on consideration of such objections and if such acts do not take place within a period of 5 years the proceedings would lapse. The Supreme Court in several decisions where questions of delay in the implementation of the proposals made under the LA Act for purpose of completion of the acquisition proceedings occurred, has taken the view that if the same is unreasonable, the acquisition proceedings could be quashed, prior to the introduction of Sections 6 and 11-A of the LA Act prescribing limitation on the powers and the time within which such action should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tation within which the final notification can be made and award could be passed are excluded from the application to acquisition made under the BDA Act by necessary implication. The rest of the provisions other than those relating to the issue of preliminary notification, final notification or period within which the award should be passed and lapsing of proceedings under the BDA Act, of the LA Act would certainly be applicable . Thus, a decision as to the inapplicability of the provisions of Sections 6 and 11-A where the period of limitation is prescribed respectively for the issue of final notification and for passing the award, in relation to the proceedings for acquisition under the BDA Act came to be rendered on a mere construction of the relevant provisions in the light of the very principles laid down by this Court in the earlier decisions, noticed supra, even without reference to the general question as to whether the reference in the BDA Act to the provisions of the LA Act amounts to legislation by reference or incorporation. We are in entire agreement with the reasoning and also affirm the ultimate conclusions arrived at by the High Court in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subsequent Act. Scanning through the nature of legislation, enacted as the Karnataka Act, 1972, it has been held that the said Act of 1972 clearly comes within the exceptions stated in M. V. Narasimhan case ((1975) 2 SCC 377 1975 SCC (Cri) 589) for the following reasons Firstly there being no detailed machinery whatsoever in the Karnataka Act, 1972, that Act cannot be treated as a self-contained or complete code. Secondly, the Karnataka Act, 1972 and the Central Act, 1894 (as amended by the Karnataka Act, 1961) are supplemental to each other for unless the Central Act supplements the Karnataka Act, the latter cannot function. Thirdly, these Acts are in pari materia because the Karnataka Act, 1972 unlike the Calcutta Act, 1911 and the U.P. Act, 1965 - does not deal with any other subject but deals with the same subject of land acquisition which otherwise would have fallen within the ambit of the Central Act, 1894. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the amendments made in 1984 to the Central Act, 1894 including Section 11-A have to be read into the Karnataka Act, 1972, so far as enquiry, award, reference to court, apportionment of amount and the payment of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mely, whether the land is acquired for or by an improvement trust or municipal corporation or the Government, because as far as the owner is concerned, it does not matter to him whether the land is acquired by one authority or the other for one or other of its purposes. So far as the BDA Act is concerned, it is not an Act for mere acquisition of land but an Act to provide for the establishment of a development authority to facilitate and ensure planned growth and development of the city of Bangalore and areas adjacent thereto and acquisition of lands, if any, therefor is merely incidental thereto. In pith and substance the Act is one which will squarely fall under, and be traceable to the powers of the State Legislature under Entry 5 of List II of the Seventh Schedule and not a law for acquisition of land like the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 traceable to Entry 42 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, the field in respect of which is already occupied by the Central enactment of 1894, as amended from time to time. If at all, the BDA Act, so far as acquisition of land for its developmental activities is concerned, in substance and effect will constitute a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
