Writ Appeal No. 1329 of 2006 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - WA NO. 1329 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1330 OF 2006, WA NO. 1789 OF 2006 & WA NO. 1811 OF 2006 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T WRIT APPEAL NO.1329 OF 2006 (LA-BDA) C/W WRIT APPEAL NO.1330 OF 2006 (LA-BDA) WRIT APPEAL NO.1789 OF 2006 (LA-BDA) WRIT APPEAL NO.1811 OF 2006 (LA-BDA) IN WA NO.1329 OF 2006 BETWEEN: 1. HULLURAIAH AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, S/O LATE KEMPAGUDDAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY LRs H. CHANDRANNA, S/O LATE HULLURAIAH, AGED 53 YEARS, R/O 79, 22ND CROSS ROAD, GOVINDARAJ NAGAR, VIJAYNAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 040. 2. SMT. B.J.SHARDA, W/O RAJANNA AGE 47 YEARS, NO.54, F – II, SAPTAGIRI ENCLAVE, - 2 - WA NO. 1329 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1330 OF 2006, WA NO. 1789 OF 2006 & WA NO. 1811 OF 2006 2ND MAIN ROAD, PRASHANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 079. (BY SRI. D.L.N. RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL AND SRI. C.M. NAGABUSHANA AND P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, SRI. VENKATESH P. DALWAI, ADVOCATES) AND: …APPELLANTS 1. 2. 3. 4. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, K.P. WEST EXTN., BANGALORE – 560 020. REPT., BY ITS COMMISSIONER. THE SPECIAL ADDITIONAL, LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, K.P. WEST EXTN., BANGALORE – 560 020. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) BANGALORE DISTRICT, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1 & R-4, SRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL AND SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADV. FOR R-2 & R-3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.06.2006, PASSED IN W.P.NO.1984/2004 - 3 - WA NO. 1329 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1330 OF 2006, WA NO. 1789 OF 2006 & WA NO. 1811 OF 2006 (LA-BDA) BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT AND THEREBY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION, AS PRAYED FOR. IN WA NO.1330 OF 2006 BETWEEN: SMT. MUNIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, RESIDING AT MALLATHAHALLY, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU – 560 056. (BY SRI. D.L.N. RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF SRI. C.M. NAGABUSHANA & P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATES) …APPELLANT AND: 1. 2. 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN, DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560 001. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, K.P.WEST EXTN., BANGALORE – 560 020, REPTD., BY ITS COMMISSIONER; THE SPECIAL ADDITIONAL, LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, K.P. WEST EXTN., BANGALORE – 560 020; (BY SRI HARISH A.S., AGA FOR R-1, SRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL AND SRI B.VACHAN, ADV. FOR R-2 & R-3) …RESPONDENTS - 4 - WA NO. 1329 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1330 OF 2006, WA NO. 1789 OF 2006 & WA NO. 1811 OF 2006 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.06.2006, PASSED IN W.P.NO.1985/2004 (LA-BDA) BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT AND THEREBY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION, AS PRAYED FOR. IN WA NO.1789 OF 2006 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. K.RADHAMMA, W/O SRI. H. RAMACHANDRAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY L.Rs., 1a. H.RAMACHANDRAIAH H/O. DECEASED K.RADHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, 1b. R. RAJU, S/O. LATE K.RADHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 1c. R. RAGHUNATH, S/O. LATE K.RADHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 1d. SMT. R. ROOPA, D/O. LATE K.RADHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 1e. R. JAYAPRAKASH, S/O. LATE K. RADHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.184/82, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 2ND PHASE, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 010. (BY SRI. D.L.N. RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. LAXMIKANTH, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANTS - 5 - WA NO. 1329 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1330 OF 2006, WA NO. 1789 OF 2006 & WA NO. 1811 OF 2006 AND: 1. 2. 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDINGS, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDH, BENGALURU-560 001. THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 020. M/S. KARNATAKA RURAL INFRAUSTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED, REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, GATE NO.14, CHINNASWAMY STADIUM, RAJBHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISH A.S., AGA FOR R-1, SRI G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI K. KRISHNA, ADV. FOR R-2, SRI GURURAJ JOSHI, ADV. FOR R-3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.06.2006, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.3566/2004. IN WA NO.1811 OF 2006 BETWEEN: 1. NARASAHANUMAIAH, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.Rs. SRI HANUMANARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS - 6 - WA NO. 1329 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1330 OF 2006, WA NO. 1789 OF 2006 & WA NO. 1811 OF 2006 2. SRI. KEMPAIAH, S/O BASAHANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT MUDDANAPALYA, GIDADAKONENAHALLI, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE – 560 091. (BY SRI. UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. B. ROOPESH - ADVOCATE) …APPELLANTS AND: 1. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDINGS, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDH, BENGALURU - 560 001. THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 020. 3. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISISION OFFICER, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISH A.S., AGA FOR R-1 AND 3, SRI G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI K. KRISHNA, ADV. FOR R-2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.06.2006, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.6622/2004 AND OTHER CONNECTED WRIT PETITIONS. - 7 - WA NO. 1329 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1330 OF 2006, WA NO. 1789 OF 2006 & WA NO. 1811 OF 2006 THESE WRIT APPEALS, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 28.02.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, K. SOMASHEKAR J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR) All these appeals originate from a common order dated 06.06.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court challenging the land acquisition proceedings carried out by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) for the formation of Further Extension of Sir M. Visveswaraya Layout in Bangalore. As the lands of appellants in all these appeals have been acquired by the BDA for the common cause for formation of ‘Further Extension of Sir M. Visveswaraya Layout’, all these appeals are taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common judgment. - 8 - WA NO. 1329 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1330 OF 2006, WA NO. 1789 OF 2006 & WA NO. 1811 OF 2006 2. Heard the learned
Legal Reasoning
counsel Shri C.M. Nagabhushana representing the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 1329/2006 (arising out of W.P. No. 1984/2004). Further, we have heard Shri Harisha A.S., learned AGA representing Respondent Nos.1 and 4 and the learned counsel Shri K. Krishna representing Respondent Nos.2 and 3 / BDA. The disputed land in respect of this appeal pertains to Survey No. 67, with an extent of 3.11 acres. 3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Shri D.L.N. Rao who represents the learned counsel Shri C.M. Nagabhushana and Shri P.V. Chandrashekar who are on record for the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 1330/2006 (arising out of W.P. No. 1985/2004). We have also heard the learned AGA Shri Harisha A.S. representing R1, and the learned counsel Shri B. Vachan for R2 and R3. The land in dispute in respect of the present appeal is Survey No. 42, measuring 2 acres. - 9 - WA NO. 1329 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1330 OF 2006, WA NO. 1789 OF 2006 & WA NO. 1811 OF 2006 4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Shri D.L.N Rao representing the learned counsel Shri Lakshmikanth and Shri B. Roopesh for appellants in Writ Appeal No. 1789/2006 (arising out of W.P. No. 3566/2004). We have also heard the learned AGA Shri Harisha A.S. for R1, the learned counsel Shri K. Krishna for R2, and the learned counsel Shri Gururaj Joshi for R3. The disputed land in respect of the present appeal pertains to Survey No. 79, with an extent of 21 guntas. 5. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Shri Udaya Holla representing the learned counsel Shri B. Roopesh for appellant in Writ Appeal No.1811/2006 (arising out of W.P. No. 6622/2004). Further, we have heard the learned AGA Shri Harish A.S., for R1 and R3, and the learned counsel Shri K. Krishna for R2. The land in dispute in respect of this appeal is Survey No. 30/03, measuring an extent of 1.22 acres. 6. The facts of the cases in a nutshell, are as under: - 10 - WA NO. 1329 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1330 OF 2006, WA NO. 1789 OF 2006 & WA NO. 1811 OF 2006 On January 17, 2003, the BDA resolved to develop a residential layout encompassing lands situated in Herohalli, Gidadakonenahalli, and Mallathahalli villages of Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. Pursuant to this decision, a preliminary notification under Section 17(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, was issued on April 8, 2003, and published in the Karnataka Gazette on April 9, 2003. The notification proposed the acquisition of 773 acres and 18 guntas of land, including approximately 159 acres and 11 guntas belonging to the State Government. After receiving objections from affected landowners, the BDA considered the representations and, through a resolution passed on June 28, 2003, decided to drop 263 acres and 18 guntas from acquisition due to factors such as existing buildings, recognized nurseries, and Government schemes. The final notification under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act was subsequently issued on September 9, 2003, and Gazetted - 11 - WA NO. 1329 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1330 OF 2006, WA NO. 1789 OF 2006 & WA NO. 1811 OF 2006 on September 10, 2003, confirming the acquisition of 510 acres. 7. Aggrieved by the acquisition, several landowners and stakeholders filed writ petitions before a learned Single Judge of this Court, contending that the exclusion of certain lands from acquisition was arbitrary and discriminatory. Some petitioners argued that their lands had been fully developed or converted for non-agricultural purposes, while others challenged the procedural irregularities in the acquisition process. They also contended that the acquisition violated their rights under Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India. By its judgment dated June 6, 2006, the learned Single Judge upheld the acquisition proceedings, dismissing most of the writ petitions, while allowing limited relief in respect of Survey No. 106/2 in Mallathahalli. The Court further granted petitioners the liberty to approach the BDA with proof that their lands were similarly placed to those exempted from acquisition. - 12 - WA NO. 1329 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1330 OF 2006, WA NO. 1789 OF 2006 & WA NO. 1811 OF 2006 8. The appellants in these writ appeals raise specific grievances regarding the acquisition process. In respect of W.A.No.1329/2006, the original appellant namely Hullaraiah, an agriculturist by lineage, had lost his land measuring 3 acres 32 guntas in Veerapura Village, Magadi Taluk, due to a prior acquisition for the Manchanbele Dam project. He was rehabilitated with land measuring 3 acres 11 guntas in Survey No. 67 of Harohalli Village, Bangalore North Taluk. However, the said land was subsequently included in the present acquisition by issuing a Preliminary Notification dated 08.04.2003 and a final notification dated 09.09.2003. The appellant contended that Government land cannot be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and that vast extents of land were excluded for extraneous reasons, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 9. In W.A.No.1330/2006, the appellant Smt. Muniyamma, a Scheduled Caste widow, had challenged the acquisition of land measuring 2 acres of Sy.No.42 of - 13 - WA NO. 1329 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1330 OF 2006, WA NO. 1789 OF 2006 & WA NO. 1811 OF 2006 Mallathahalli granted to her late husband as part of a Government scheme for depressed classes. The respondent / BDA had issued a preliminary notification which was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 09.04.2003 and a final notification which was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 10.09.2003. She argued that the land had been fully developed with residential constructions and that a prior acquisition attempt in 1987 had been abandoned due to the same reasons. 10. In W.A.No.1789/2006, the appellant Smt. Radhamma, a devotee of Muneshwara, had purchased land measuring 21 guntas in Survey No. 79 of Mallathahalli Village and developed it with residential structures and a temple. The respondent / BDA had issued a preliminary notification dated 23.04.2003 and a final notification which was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 10.09.2003. Despite her objections, the authorities failed to recognize her ownership in the final notification, and she alleged selective exemption of influential - 14 - WA NO. 1329 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1330 OF 2006, WA NO. 1789 OF 2006 & WA NO. 1811 OF 2006 individuals' lands, thereby violating her fundamental rights. 11. In W.A.No.1811/2006, appellants being agriculturists by lineage, had lost their land measuring 1 acre 22 guntas of Survey No. 30/03 of Gidadakonenahally village due to present acquisition by issuing a Preliminary Notification dated 08.04.2003 and a final notification dated 09.09.2003. The appellants contended that though their lands were gramathana lands and they were assured by the officials that their land would not be acquired, the same has been acquired though vast extents of land were excluded for extraneous reasons, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 12. In all these cases, the appellants assert that the acquisition process suffered from procedural irregularities, arbitrary exclusions, and failure to consider the individual circumstances of the landowners. Hence, the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 1329/2004 had preferred W.P. No. - 15 - WA NO. 1329 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1330 OF 2006, WA NO. 1789 OF 2006 & WA NO. 1811 OF 2006 1984/2004; similarly, the appellant in W.A.No.1330/2006 had preferred W.P.No.1985/2004; the appellant in W.A.No.1789/2006 had preferred W.P.No.3566/2004 and the appellants in W.A.No.1811/2006 had preferred W.P.No.6622/2004 before a learned Single Judge of this Court challenging the acquisition proceedings. The learned Single Judge had clubbed all those petitions and by its common
Decision
order dated 06.06.2006 in W.P.No.16133/2004 and batch, has proceeded to reject the petitions filed by the appellants and has upheld the acquisition proceedings. It is the said order which is under challenge in all these appeals. 13. The learned counsel for Appellants have challenged the acquisition of lands by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) for the formation of the Further Extension of Sir M. Visveswaraya Layout on multiple legal grounds, arguing that the acquisition process is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of constitutional and statutory provisions. They assert that - 16 - WA NO. 1329 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1330 OF 2006, WA NO. 1789 OF 2006 & WA NO. 1811 OF 2006 the learned Single Judge failed to properly appreciate the legal and factual aspects of their claims and, therefore, seek intervention by this Court. 14. The learned counsel for appellant in respect of W.A.No.1329/2006, contend that the State does not acquire its own land, as upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar & Another (AIR 2003 SC 942). The Court in that case held that land already vested in the State is beyond the purview of the Land Acquisition Act and that it is futile and legally impermissible to exercise eminent domain over Government-owned land. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads thus: “36. To sum up, the State is not a "person interested" as defined in Section 3(b) of the Act. It is not a party to the proceedings before the Collector in the sense, which the expression "parties to the litigation" carries. The Collector holds the proceedings and makes an award as a representative of the State Government. Land - 17 - WA NO. 1329 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1330 OF 2006, WA NO. 1789 OF 2006 & WA NO. 1811 OF 2006 or an interest in land pre-owned by the State cannot be the subject-matter of acquisition by the State. The question of deciding the ownership of the State or holding of any interest by the State Government in proceedings before the Collector cannot arise in the proceedings before the Collector [as defined in Section 3(c) of the Actl. If it was government land there was no question of initiating the proceedings for acquisition at all. The Government would not acquire the land, which already vests in it. A dispute as to the pre-existing right or interest of the State Government in the property sought to be acquired is not a dispute capable of being adjudicated upon or referred to the civil court for determination either under Section 18 or Section 30 of the Act. The reference made by the Collector to the court was wholly without jurisdiction and the civil court ought to have refused to entertain the reference and ought to have rejected the same. All the proceedings under Section 30 of the Act beginning from the reference and adjudication thereon by the civil court suffer from lack of inherent jurisdiction - 18 - WA NO. 1329 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1330 OF 2006, WA NO. 1789 OF 2006 & WA NO. 1811 OF 2006 and are therefore a nullity liable to be declared so.’’ 15. It is the further contention of appellants that the BDA’s attempt to acquire Government lands, including lands granted to individuals under Government rehabilitation schemes, is contrary to this established legal principle. They further contend that Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, provides that if the BDA requires Government land, it must request a formal transfer from the State, rather than acquiring it under eminent domain. The failure to adhere to this statutory requirement, renders the acquisition ultra vires and illegal. 16. The learned counsel for appellants further argue that the acquisition process was discriminatory, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In support of this contention, they have relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.E.M.L. Employees House Building Cooperative Society Ltd. v. State of - 19 - WA NO. 1329 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1330 OF 2006, WA NO. 1789 OF 2006 & WA NO. 1811 OF 2006 Karnataka and Others (AIR 2004 SC 5054), where the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that statutory discretion must be exercised fairly and reasonably, without arbitrary exclusions or inclusions. The relevant extract of the case law is given below: “7. It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that whatever be the recommendations of the Land Acquisition Officer in his report under Section 5A, they were merely recommendations and the State Government was not bound to accept them. The State Government had wide discretion to accept or reject the said. report under Section 5A of the Act and take independent decision to continue or discontinue the acquisition proceedings in respect of any particular land proposed to be acquired. Wide, the discretion may be; but, not wild: All exercise of statutory discretion must be based on reasonable grounds and cannot lapse into arbitrariness or caprice which is anathema to the Rule of Law envisaged in Article 14 of the Constitution. The facts placed on record do not indicate that the case of the - 20 - WA NO. 1329 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1330 OF 2006, WA NO. 1789 OF 2006 & WA NO. 1811 OF 2006 fifth Respondent was similar, if not identical, to that of the other land owners, whose lands were dropped from the acquisition proceedings. Neither the appellant, nor the State Government has been able to show us any rational distinction between the case of the fifth Respondent and the cases of the other land owners, whose lands were excluded from the acquisition. When this is so. it appears to us that the vice of hostile discrimination infects and vitiates the decision taken by the State Government to continue with the acquisition against the fifth Respondent's land. ” 17. The learned counsel for appellants further submits that similarly placed lands were arbitrarily omitted from the final acquisition notification while the lands of the appellants were retained. In WA 1789/2006, for instance, the appellant’s land in Survey No. 79 of Mallathahalli Village was acquired while adjacent lands within the same survey number were excluded from acquisition, without any justification. Hence, it is contention of the appellants - 21 - WA NO. 1329 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1330 OF 2006, WA NO. 1789 OF 2006 & WA NO. 1811 OF 2006 that hostile discrimination of this nature renders the entire acquisition process unconstitutional. 18. Additionally, the learned counsel for the Appellants have relied on a judgment in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai & Ors. (AIR 2005 SCW 4796), where the Supreme Court has held that Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act confers a valuable right akin to a fundamental right and that any acquisition must be preceded by a fair hearing with due application of mind. The relevant extract is given below: “5. The main question which fell for its consideration before the High Court was whether the objections raised by the Appellant objecting to the acquisition of land on various grounds have been considered by the Government. 6. It is not in dispute that Section 5-A of the Act confers a valuable right in favour of a person whose lands are sought to be acquired. Having regard to the provisions contained in - 22 - WA NO. 1329 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1330 OF 2006, WA NO. 1789 OF 2006 & WA NO. 1811 OF 2006 Article 300A of the Constitution of India, the State in exercise of its power of 'eminent domain' may interfere with the right of property of a person by acquiring the same but the same must be for a public purpose and reasonable compensation therefor must be paid. 7. Indisputably, the definition of public purpose is of wide amplitude and takes within its sweep the acquisition of land for a corporation owned or controlled by the State, as envisaged under Sub-clause (iv) of Clause (f) of Section 3 of the Act. But the same would not mean that the State is the sole judge therefore and no judicial review shall lie. [See Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Another (AIR 1995 SC 142) . 8. The conclusiveness contained in Section 6 of the Act indisputably is attached to a need as also the purpose and in this regard ordinarily, the jurisdiction of the court is limited but it is equally true that when an opportunity of being heard has expressly been conferred by a statute, the same must scrupulously be complied with. For the said purpose, Sections 4, 5-A and 6 of - 23 - WA NO. 1329 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1330 OF 2006, WA NO. 1789 OF 2006 & WA NO. 1811 OF 2006 the Act must be read conjointly. The court in a case, where there has been total non-compliance or substantial non-compliance of the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act, cannot fold its hands and refuse to grant a relief to the writ petitioner. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act renders a declaration to be a conclusive evidence. But when the decision making process itself is in question, the power of judicial review can be exercised by the court in the event the order impugned suffers from well- known principles, viz., illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. Moreover, when a statutory authority exercises such enormous power it must be done in a fair and reasonable manner. 9. It is trite that hearing given to a person must be an effective one and not a mere formality. Formation of opinion as regard the public purpose as also suitability thereof must be preceded by application of mind as regard consideration of relevant factors and rejection of irrelevant ones. The State in its decision making process must not commit any misdirection in law. It is also not in dispute that Section 5-A of the Act confers a valuable important right and - 24 - WA NO. 1329 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1330 OF 2006, WA NO. 1789 OF 2006 & WA NO. 1811 OF 2006 having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300A of the Constitution of India has been held to be akin to a fundamental right. 28. Although assignment of reasons is the part of principles of natural justice, necessity thereof may be taken away by a statute either expressly or by necessary implication. A declaration contained in a notification issued under Section 6 of the Act need not contain any reason but such a notification must precede the decision of the appropriate Government. When a decision is required to be taken after giving an opportunity of hearing to a person who may suffer civil or evil consequences by reason thereof, the same would mean an effective hearing. 29. The Act is an expropriatory legislation. This Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Vishnu Prasad Sharma and Ors. [1966 (3) SCR 557] observed that in such a case the provisions of the statute should be strictly construed as it deprives a person of his land without consent. [See also Khub Chand and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., 1967 (1( SCR - 25 - WA NO. 1329 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1330 OF 2006, WA NO. 1789 OF 2006 & WA NO. 1811 OF 2006 120 and Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad vs. Orient Fabrics (P) Ltd. (2004) 1 SCC 597]. There cannot, therefore, be any doubt that in a case of this nature due application of mind on the part of the statutory authority was imperative’’ 19. In the present cases, the respective learned counsel for appellants argued that their objections were summarily ignored, and no reasons were recorded for rejecting their claims. They contend that the learned Single Judge, failed to appreciate that procedural fairness is not a mere formality but a substantive right, and non- compliance with Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, vitiates the entire acquisition process. 20. The learned counsel for appellants also challenge the unjustified acquisition of developed lands, arguing that land already converted for non-agricultural use or developed with residential buildings, should not have been acquired. In this regard, they have relied on a judgment - 26 - WA NO. 1329 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1330 OF 2006, WA NO. 1789 OF 2006 & WA NO. 1811 OF 2006 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy & Ors. v. Bangalore Development Authority & Ors. (2010 7 SCC 129), where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that once land is fully developed and built upon, its acquisition should be reconsidered unless indispensable for public purpose. They argue that in the present case, many of the acquired lands were already built upon or under residential use, yet the BDA proceeded with their acquisition while similarly placed properties were excluded. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads thus: “The Supreme Court upheld the validity of land acquisition for the formation of Arkavathi Layout by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), ruling that the acquisition process complied with the statutory requirements under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, and the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court clarified that acquisition does not automatically lapse due to delays in implementation or procedural lapses, and landowners cannot claim - 27 - WA NO. 1329 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1330 OF 2006, WA NO. 1789 OF 2006 & WA NO. 1811 OF 2006 illegality merely because the land was not immediately utilized for its intended purpose. It emphasized that landowners are entitled to fair compensation and directed the BDA to ensure transparency and adequate rehabilitation for affected persons, particularly farmers. Addressing concerns of arbitrariness, the Court held that selective exclusion of land from acquisition without valid justification could violate Article 14 of the Constitution, but non- exclusion alone does not render the acquisition illegal unless proven discriminatory. Furthermore, it reaffirmed that acquisition for planned urban development constitutes a valid "public purpose," and once land is lawfully acquired for such a purpose, it cannot be challenged merely on the ground of non- utilization within a specific time frame” 21. In WA 1330/2006, the appellant, a Scheduled Caste widow, contends that her land was granted to her late husband under a Government scheme for the upliftment of oppressed classes. Despite this, the BDA proceeded with the acquisition, disregarding the fact that - 28 - WA NO. 1329 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1330 OF 2006, WA NO. 1789 OF 2006 & WA NO. 1811 OF 2006 the land was previously excluded from acquisition in 1987 due to having acquired a full-fledged developed land. It is the contention of the learned counsel that resurrecting acquisition proceedings for the same land after decades, without any change in circumstances, constitutes colorable exercise of power and is contrary to constitutional principles of fairness and justice. 22. It is the further contention of the appellants that the State cannot grant land on one hand and take it away on the other, as this would be inconsistent with the doctrine of legitimate expectation and constitutional protections under Article 21. In support of their contention, they have relied on a judgment in the case of Hari Ram v. State of Haryana (2010 AIR SCW 1726), where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that once the Government grants land under a specific scheme, it must honor its commitments and cannot subsequently acquire the same land arbitrarily. The relevant case extract is given below: - 29 - WA NO. 1329 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1330 OF 2006, WA NO. 1789 OF 2006 & WA NO. 1811 OF 2006 “7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at quite some length on various dates E The principal grievance raised by the appellants is that they have been discriminated by the State Government in not releasing their land although land of similarly situated persons in identical facts and circumstances has been released. On the other hand, Mr. Govind Goel, learned counsel for the respondents justified the action of the State Government and submitted that by an elaborate and speaking order, the State Govemment has rejected the appellants prayer of release of their land from acquisition and there is no infirmity in the said order. Mr. Govind Goel, learned counsel contended that plea regarding discrimination is fallacious as release of land of few owners after the impugned judgment cannot provide permissible basis for advancing the plea of discrimination, especially in the absence of any legal right for release. In this regard, he relied upon decisions of this Court in the case of Secretary Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur v. Daulat Mal Jain & Others', Jalandhar Improvement Trust 'v. Sampuran Singh', Union' of India and Another v. - 30 - WA NO. 1329 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1330 OF 2006, WA NO. 1789 OF 2006 & WA NO. 1811 OF 2006 International Trading Co. and Another, Ved Prakash and Others v. Ministry of Industry, Lucknowand Another', Anand Buttons Lid. v. State of Haryana and Others', and Vishal Properties (P) Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others®. He also referred to decisions of this Court in Sube Singh and Others v. State of Haryana and Others' and Jagdish Chand & Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr.3.” 23. Additionally, the learned counsel for appellants highlight that vast portions of land were dropped from acquisition for extraneous considerations, with no rational basis for these exclusions. In this regard, they rely on a judgment in the case of V. Chandrasekaran v. Administrative Officer (2012 (12) SCC 133), where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that acquisition proceedings cannot be conducted selectively to favor a particular group of landowners. They argue that the BDA’s pick-and-choose approach violates constitutional and - 31 - WA NO. 1329 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1330 OF 2006, WA NO. 1789 OF 2006 & WA NO. 1811 OF 2006 statutory safeguards. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads thus: “25. Land once vested in the Government— whether can be divested : It is a settled legal proposition, that once the land is vested in the State, free from all encumbrances, it cannot be divested and proceedings under the Act would not lapse, even if an award is not made within the statutorily stipulated period. [Vide Awadh Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar [(1995) 6 SCC 31] , U.P. Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd. [(1996) 3 SCC 124 : AIR 1996 SC 1170], Allahabad Development Authority v. Nasiruzzaman [(1996) 6 SCC 424] , M. Ramalinga Thevar v. State of T.N. [(2000) 4 SCC 322] and Govt. of A.P. v. Syed Akbar [(2005) 1 SCC 558 : AIR 2005 SC 492] .] 26. The said land, once acquired, cannot be restored to the tenure-holders/persons interested, even if it is not used for the purpose for which it was so acquired, or for any other purpose either. The proceedings cannot be - 32 - WA NO. 1329 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1330 OF 2006, WA NO. 1789 OF 2006 & WA NO. 1811 OF 2006 withdrawn/abandoned under the provisions of Section 48 of the Act, or under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, once the possession of the land has been taken and the land vests in the State, free from all encumbrances. (Vide State of M.P. v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma [AIR 1966 SC 1593] , Lt. Governor of H.P. v. Avinash Sharma
Decision
ORDER a) All these writ appeals namely, i) W.A.No.1329/2006, ii) W.A.No.1330/2006, iii) W.A.No.1789/2006 and iv) W.A.No.1811/2006, filed by the respective appellants are dismissed. b) Consequently, i) the order dated 06.06.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1984/2004, ii) the order dated 06.06.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1985/2004, iii) the order dated 06.06.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3566/2004, and iv) the order dated 06.06.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6622/2004, - 61 - WA NO. 1329 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1330 OF 2006, WA NO. 1789 OF 2006 & WA NO. 1811 OF 2006 are hereby upheld. As a result, the acquisition proceedings are also upheld. iii) Pending applications if any, stand disposed of as a consequence. Before parting with this judgment, this Court places on record its deep appreciation for the able research and assistance rendered by its Research Assistants, namely Mr.Pranav.K.B , Ms. Sushmithaa Roshini R and Mr. Mohammed Sulaiman. SD/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE SD/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE KS