Read Time: 14 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has objected to the approach of the Karnataka High Court's division bench in relying on an affidavit of the Bangalore Development Authority and closing a matter related to land acquisition for a layout on the same day, without giving an opportunity to the affected party to meet the averments, saying it was in violation of the principles of natural justice.

The bench of Justices B R Gavai and K Vinod Chandran set aside the order of September 27, 2019, which allowed the BDA to acquire the land belonging to the appellant, D M Jagadish.

The apex court disapproved of the approach of the high court division bench, finding that a well-reasoned order of the high court's single judge bench had been reversed based on the affidavit of the authority without giving an opportunity to the appellant to meet the averments made therein.

"We find that on this short ground alone, the appeal deserves to be allowed and, therefore, is allowed. The impugned judgment and order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Division Bench of the High Court to consider it afresh in accordance with law," the bench ordered.

As per the facts of the matter, the preliminary notification of February 3, 2003, in respect of 380 acres 4 guntas of land came to be issued. In the final notification of February 23, 2004, out of the said 380 acres 4 guntas, the acquisition in respect of 154 acres 26 guntas came to be dropped.

The effect being the area admeasuring 225 acres 18 guntas came to be covered under the final notification for acquisition. A subsequent revised notification was issued on June 18, 2014. By the said notification, a further area of 66 acres 3 guntas came to be excluded from the acquisition.

The father of the appellant approached the high court by way of a writ petition of 2004, challenging the acquisition. The said writ petitions were allowed, thereby quashing the acquisition. This was challenged in appeals by the respondents. The writ appeal came to be disposed of on November 25, 2005. By the said judgment, the division bench, while upholding the acquisition, issued several directions to the BDA.

The division bench had permitted such owners of the land, whose lands were situated within the green belt where structures were existing; where they were totally built up; where there were buildings constructed by charitable, educational and/or religious institutions; nursery lands; who had set-up factories and the lands adjoining the ones which were excluded from acquisition, to make an application to the BDA. Such petitioners who wanted to avail the benefit were required to make such applications within 30 days.

The BDA was thereafter required to give notice to those persons, hear them, and pass appropriate orders. Till the completion of such an exercise, the possession of the landowners was not to be disturbed, and the existing construction was not to be demolished.

After the directions, the appellant made an application before the BDA within the prescribed period, urging that the land abutting his land had been excluded from the acquisition and as such, the appellant was also entitled to the benefit of exclusion of his land from the acquisition. It was also contended that there were structures existing on the land in question prior to the preliminary notification being issued.

The BDA, however, rejected it on June 17, 2006. This was again challenged by a writ petition. On the second occasion also, the petition was allowed with directions to the Land Acquisition Officer to conduct a spot inspection and consider the claim of the appellant for exclusion of land.

The Land Acquisition Officer, though conducted the inspection, did not pass any orders. As such, on the third occasion, the appellant filed a writ petition in 2015. The single judge partly allowed the writ petition by its judgment and order of October 3, 2017.

The single judge came to a specific finding that the land adjoining the appellant’s land was excluded from the acquisition and as such, the appellant was also entitled to the benefit of exclusion. It was also found that there were structures existing on the land prior to the preliminary notification issued in 2003.

The BDA sought to content before the single judge that the constructions were carried on by the appellant on the land in question after the preliminary notification was issued.

The single judge specifically rejected the said contention. It found that the appellant was entitled to the reliefs claimed. The single judge also observed that this was the third round of litigation at the instance of the appellant and, therefore thought it appropriate not to remand the matter.

However, the single judge took notice of the fact that out of the land belonging to the appellant, 15 sites were already allotted to third parties. The single judge, therefore, directed that the benefit of the quashing of acquisition would not be applicable in the case of the 15 sites that were already allotted to third parties.

The BDA challenged this by way of a writ appeal, which came to be allowed by the impugned order.

The apex court noted that though the division bench of the high court found that from the inspection report of September 20, 2003, there existed one RCC roof building and four AC sheet rooms, the approximate age of the building was recent. It further found that as per the subsequent inspection report of March 28, 2006, conducted pursuant to the order of the division bench of the high court of November 25, 2005, it was noticed that there were further additional constructions.

The division bench had found that it appeared that the constructions were either made after the preliminary notification was issued or just before the issuance of preliminary notification, having gotten wind of the possible land acquisition proceedings.

"Insofar as the contention of the appellant herein that the adjoining lands were already excluded from acquisition, the Division Bench relied on an affidavit of September 12, 2019 sworn by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, BDA to come to a finding that the land on the western side of the land of the appellants already stood acquired," the bench said.

The top court pointed out that though the said affidavit was filed on September 12, 2019, the division bench, without giving any opportunity to the appellant to respond to the said affidavit, closed the matter for hearing on the very same day, though the judgment was subsequently pronounced on September 27, 2019.

The court thus quashed the division bench order by remanding it back for fresh consideration.

"Needless to state that if the High Court finds that any further spot inspection is necessary, it may direct so. The parties are directed to maintain status quo as on the date of the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, until the decision of the Writ Appeal on remand," the bench said.

Case Title: D M Jagadish Vs Bangalore Development Authority & Ors