Bangalore Development Authority & Anr. vs The State of Karnataka & Anr.

HELD: 1.1 The primary object of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 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 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 would debilitate very object of the BDA Act. By making applicable the time period of two years of 11A of LA Act mandate of BDA Act has been violated. [Para 17] [457-B-D]

1.2 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. In the aforesaid backdrop of the facts, the writ petitions came to be filed, it would not be termed to be the bona fide litigation, but was initiated having failed in attempt to get the land illegally excluded at the hands of Special Land Acquisition Collector and the State Government and after the inquiries held in the matter and the notice was issued to start the proceedings afresh. At this stage, the writ petitions were filed. In the aforesaid circumstances, 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 scheme which was framed was so much benevolent scheme that 40% of the 55% of the land reserved for the residential purpose was to be given to the landowners at their choice and they were also given the choice to obtain the compensation, if they so desire, under the provisions of the LA Act. Thus, it was such a scheme that there was no scope for any exclusion of the land in the ultimate final notification. [Paras 19, 20] [457-G-H; 458-A-E]

1.3 It is apparent from the circumstances that the matter cannot be left at the mercy of unscrupulous authority of the BDA, the State Government or in the political hands. Considering the proper development and planned development of Bangalore city, let the Government issue a final notification with respect to the land which has been notified in the initial notification and there is no question of leaving out of the land in the instant case as option has been given to land owners to claim the land or to claim the compensation under the relevant LA Act which may be applicable in the case. In the instant case, the facts indicated that it was in the interest of the public, landowners, BDA and State Government. The scheme had prior approval of State Government however at the cost of public interest yet another scheme was sought to be frustrated by powerful unforeseen hands and the issuance of final notification had been delayed. Three inquiries were ordered, two by the State Government and one by the BDA as the release of the land was being proposed in an illegal manner. Hue and cry was raised about their illegalities in the Assembly as well as in the public. Thus, for the delay, owners cannot escape the liability, they cannot take the advantage of their own wrong having acted in collusion with the authorities. Thus, in the facts of the case the time consumed would not adversely affect the ultimate development of Bangalore city. The authorities are supposed to carry out the statutory mandate and cannot be permitted to act against the public interest and planned development of Bangalore city which was envisaged as a statutory mandate under the BDA Act. The courts are not powerless to frown upon such an action and proper development cannot be deterred by continuing inaction. As the proper development of such metropolitan is of immense importance, the public purpose for which the primary notification was issued was in order to provide civic amenities like laying down roads etc. which cannot be left at the whim or mercy of the concerned authorities. They were bound to act in furtherance thereof. There was a clear embargo placed while issuing the notification not to create any charge, mortgage, assign, issue or revise any improvement and after inquiry, it was clear that the notice had been issued in May, 2014, thus, no development could have been made legally. Notification dated 3rd May, 2014 was issued that re-inquiry was necessary in the matter. The development made, if any, would be at the peril of the owners and it has to give way to larger welfare schemes and the individual interest and cannot come in the way of the larger public interest. The acquisition was for the proper and planned development that was an absolute necessity for the city of Bangalore. [Paras 21, 22] [458-F-G; 459-A-H; 460-A]

1.4 The State Government as well as the BDA is directed to proceed further to issue final notification without any further delay. 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. 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. In connection to this, several questions were raised in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, as a result of which two inquiries were ordered by the State Government i.e on 24.11.2012 and 19.01.2013. However, result of the inquiry is not forthcoming. Further, it appears that the exclusion of the lands from acquisition was proposed in connivance with influential persons; political or otherwise. The BDA and the State Government have to proceed with the acquisition of these lands. It is just and proper to hold an inquiry for fixing the responsibility on the officials of the BDA and the State Government for trying to exclude these lands from acquisition. Therefore, Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.N. Keshavanarayana, former Judge of the Karnataka High Court is 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 Inquiry Officer to submit his report to this Court as expeditiously as possible. [Paras 24-26] [460-C-H; 461-B]

1.5 The State Government and the BDA are further directed to proceed with the acquisition of the aforementioned lands without excluding land from acquisition and submit a report to Supreme Court of the steps taken by them. [Para 27] [461-C] Offshore Holdings Private Limited v. Bangalore Development Authority and Others (2011) 3 SCC 139 : [2011] 1 SCR 453 – followed.

Munithimmaiah v. State of Karnataka (2002) 4 SCC

326 : [2002] 2 SCR 825 ; Bondu Ramaswamy v.

Bangalore Development Authority & Ors. (2010) 7 SCC

129 : [2010] 6 SCR 29 ; H.N. Shivanna and Ors. v. The State of Karnataka, Department of Industries and Commerce, Bangalore, and Anr. (2013) 4 KCCR 2793 (DB) – referred to.