BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & Ors.

3.4. The notification dated 1.3.1988 would show that the clear intention of the State Government was to declare the entire area declared under the notification dated 1.11.1965 and the notification dated 13.3.1984, C together as the Bangalore Metropolitan· Area. The notification dated 1.3.1988 clearly states that the entire area situated within the boundaries indicated in Schedule II to the notification dated 13.3.1984 was the area for the purpose of Section 2(c) of BOA Act. There is no dispute D /that the boundaries indicated in Schedule II to the notification dated 13.3.1984 would include not only the villages enumerated in I Schedule to the notification dated 13.3.1984 but also the area that was declared as planning area under the notification dated 1.11.1965. This is E because the areas declared JJnder notification dated 1.11.1965 are the core area (Bangalore City) and the area surrounding the core area that is 218 villages forming the first concentric circle; and the area declared under the notification dated 13.3.1984 (32-5 villages) surrounding the F area declared under the notification dated 1.11.1965 forms the second concentric circle. Therefore, the boundaries of the lands declared under the notification dated 13.3.1984, would also include the lands which are declared under the notification dated 1.11.1965 and G therefore, the 16 villages which are the subject matter of the impugned acquisition, are part of the Bangalore Metropolitan Area. [Para 34] [104-G-H; 105-A-C]

3.5. It cannot be said that the note at the end of II Schedule to the notification dated 13.3.1984 excluded the H 42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R. A Bangalore city planning area declared under the notification dated 1.11.1965. As the planning area that was being declared under the notification dated 13.3.1984, was in addition to the area that was declared under the notification dated 1.11.1965, it was made clear in the note B at the end of the notification dated 13.3.1984 that the area declared under the notification dated 1.11.1965 is to be excluded. The purpose of the note was not to exclude the area declared under the notification dated 1.11.1965 from the local planning area. The intention was to specify what c was being added, to the local planning area declared under the notification dated 1.11.1965. But in the notification dated 1.3.1988, what is declared as the Bangalore Metropolitan Area is the area that is within the boundaries indicated in schedule II to the notification 0 dated 13.3.1984, which is the area notified on 1.11.1965 as also the area notified on 13.3.1984. The note in the notification dated 13.3.1984 was only a note for the purposes of the notification dated 13.3.1984 and did not form part of the notification dated 1.3.1988. There is therefore no doubt that the in.tention of the State E Government was to include the entire area within the boundaries described in Schedule II, that is the area declared under two notifications dated 1.11.1965 and 13.3.1984, as the Bangalore Metropolitan Area. [Para 35] [105-D-H; 106-A-B] F G

3.6. It is true that the wording of the notification is clumsy and ambiguous. When there is vagueness and ambiguity, an interpretation that would avoid absurd results should be adopted. The interpretation put forth by the appellants, if accepted would mean the outer centric circle of Bangalore which consists of only the peripheral villages would be the Bangalore Metropolitan Area and neither the Bangalore city nor the 218 villages immediately adjoining and surrounding the Bangalore H city would form part of Bangalore Metropolitan Area. This BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 43 is absurd and will be in direct violation of Section 2(c) of A BOA Act which states that Bangalore City and the areas surrounding it where City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 was in force, will form part of Bangalore Metropolitan Area. [Para 37] [106-0-H] 8

3.7. The doctrine of casus omissus is a general rule that the court may not by construction insert words or phrases in a statute or supply a casus omissus by giving force and effect to the language of the statute when applied to a subject about which nothing whatever is said, and which, to all appearances, was not in the mind C of the legislature at the time of the enactment of law. But the position will be different where the language is ambiguous and an intelligible interpretation would require addition of words particularly when the intention of the State Government is clear and evident and it is reiterated D by the State Government and the BOA. When the object or policy of a statute can be ascertained, imprecision in its language should not be readily allowed in the way of adopting a reasonable construction which avoids absurdities and incongruities and carries out the object E or policy. A court cannot supply a real casus omissus, nor can it interpret a statute to create a casus omissus when there is really none. [Para 39] [107-G-H; 108-A-O] Dr. Baliram Waman Hiray v. Justice 8. Lentin and Ors. F