Supreme Court of India
N. A. L. LAYOUT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATIONversusBANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.
- Citation
- 2017 INSC 725
- Decided
- 9 August 2017
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- A K SIKRI
Holding
Possession of Survey No.50 was taken in 1984, making the acquisition final; consequently, the State could not exercise power under Section 48 to withdraw, and the earlier High Court findings are binding res judicata, so the Single Judge’s order quashing the 2005 notification was erroneous.
Summary
The State acquired Survey No.50 in 1977‑78 and took physical possession on 23 March 1984, handing it over to the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). The land owners repeatedly challenged the acquisition, but the Karnataka High Court dismissed their writ petitions, finding that possession had been taken and the acquisition was final. Later, the State Government issued a notification on 12 April 2001 under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act to withdraw the land from acquisition, which was subsequently cancelled on 9 May 2001 and again on 22 March 2005; a Single Judge quashed the 2005 notification, a decision affirmed by the Division Bench. The Supreme Court held that the earlier High Court findings of possession were binding res judicata, that once possession is taken the State cannot invoke Section 48 to withdraw, and that the Single Judge erred in overturning the earlier determinations. Consequently, the Court set aside the judgments of the Single Judge and the Division Bench and dismissed the writ petition. The appeals were allowed, restoring the acquisition and confirming that the land remains vested in the State.
Issues considered
- The question whether possession of Survey No.50 was taken by the State in 1984, thereby rendering the acquisition final.
- Whether the earlier High Court judgments establishing possession operate as res judicata to preclude the later writ petition.
- Whether the State could lawfully withdraw the acquisition under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act after possession had been taken.
- The applicability of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 to rescind notifications issued under the Land Acquisition Act.
- The locus standi of N.A.L. Layout Residents Association to challenge the notifications.
Legislation cited
- General Clauses Act, 1897s. 21
- Karnataka Amendment to Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 16(1), s. 16(2)
- Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987s. 19(7)
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 16, s. 4, s. 48, s. 6
Subjects
land acquisitionpossessionSection 48withdrawal from acquisitionres judicataGeneral Clauses ActKarnataka amendmentBangalore Development AuthorityArticle 136notification
Judgment
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 1053
N. A. L. LAYOUT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION A
v.
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 9790-9791 of2017)
AUGUST 09, 2017 B
(A.K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4, 6, 16 and 48 - Land (including
the suit land, survey no.50) acquired by the State - The State took
over the possession of the suit land and handed over the same to
Bangalore Development Authority - Acquisition of suit land was
c
challenged by the land owners in several rounds of litigations which
were dismissed by the High Court - Thereafter, land owners made
representation before the State Government, which passed
notification dated 12. 04.2001 withdrawing the suit land (survey
no.50) ji-om acquisition - However, the State Government withdrew D
the said notification dated 12.04.2001 vide notification dated
2 2. 03. 2005 - Writ petition challenging notification dated
22.03.2005, allowed by the single judge - Writ appeal dismissed -
Propriety of- Held: Single Judge committed error by quashing order
dated 22.03.2005 - Division Bench also committed error in
E
confirming the judgment of the single judge - Jn earlier judgments
of High Court between the parties regarding the acquisition in
question, a finding was returned that acquisition proceedings had
become final and possession was taken Ji-om the land owners in the
year 1984 - High court in writ petition arising out of a notification
by the State dated 22.03.2005 could not have ignored or discarded F
the said finding in earlier proceeding regarding delivery of
possession - Single judge committed error in proceeding to re-
examine the same issue and gave a contrary finding that possession
was not taken - Further, land owners had earlier filed two writ
petitions, seeking direction to the State to de-notify the suit land,
G
which were dismissed - Thereafter, the entire exercise by land owners
of approaching the State Government to withdraw from acquisition
of suit land was uncalled for and was not permissible in view of the
dismissal of writ petitions - Res-judicata.
H
1053
1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 13 S.C.R.
A Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The Single Judge in judgment dated 30.03.2007
(W.P. No.13404 of 2005) has referred to earlier judgment dated
16.03.1998 (W.P. No.4042of1998) of High Court in which a finding
was returned that possession of land has been taken in the year
B 1984 and land has absolutely vested in the State. The Single
Judge could not have returned a contrary finding that possession
has not been taken from the petitioners. The dismissal of the
earlier writ petitions (W.P. No.4042 of 1998 and W.P. Nos.14779-
14781 of 2000 where land owners were seeking a direction to
withdraw survey no.SO from acquisition on the ground that they
c are still in possession) and finding to the effect that acquisition
proceedings have become final and possession of the land was
taken back in the year 1984 shall operate as res-judicata in
subsequent writ petition filed by the land owners. Thus, the
opinion of the High Court is unsustainable. [Paras 54, 55 and 611
D [1082-A-B; 1083-G-H]
2. The observation of the Single Judge that observation in
earlier judgment dated 16.03.1998 (W.P. No.4042 of 1998) was
made by Judge without reference to any of the record but only
based on the contention of the parties is incorrect and unfounded.
E The finding recorded by the High Court was on the basis of
submissions of the parties based on the pleadings and materials
which were placed on the record as well as on the notification
dated 07.05.1985 issued under Section 16(2) evidencing taking
of possession of land on 23.03.1984. Notification dated 07.05.1985
published in official Gazette on 24.10.1985 under Section 16(2)
F of the Act 1894(as amended in Karnataka) was an evidence rightly
relied by High Court for coming to the conclusion that possession
was taken as notified in the notification. The Judgment of High
Court dated 16.03.1998 was fully in accordance with the
provisions of Section 16(2) of Act 1894, which provision has not
G even adverted to either by Single Judge or the Division Bench
in the impugned judgment. The findings recorded in the judgment
dated 16.03.1998 could not have been discarded in such slipshod
manner by Single Judge. [Para 57] [1082-G-H; 1083-A-BJ
3. High Court lost sight of the fact that Notification dated
12.04.2001(issued to withdraw survey no.SO from acquisition) was
H
N.A.L. LAYOUT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION v. BANGALORE 1055
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.
issued after 16 years of taking of the possession. In the meantime, A
BDA has proceeded with the development of the land. Roads
were constructed and society's allotment was also passed in the
year 1985 itself, layout sanctioned in the year 1988 itself. [Para
60) [1083-EJ
4. There is one other reason due to which the Judgment of B
High Court cannot be sustained. Land owners have filed two Writ
Petitions, seeking a direction to the State to de-notify the land
i.e. Survey No.50 i.e. by exercising power under Section 48. Both
the above Writ Petitions were dismissed. After dismissal of the
aforesaid Writ Petitions where relief of withdrawing from the
acquisition of the Survey No.50 was refused, land owners without C
disclosing the relevant facts approached the State Government
in the year 2001 by submitting a representation that they are in
possession and acquisition of Survey No.50 be withdrawn. [Paras
62, 67) [1084-C; 1086-D-EJ
5. When the Writ Petitions, praying for similar relief i.e. D
withdrawal of Survey No.50 from acquisition have been dismissed
by the High Court, the petitioners could not have approached
the State Government praying for same relief. [Para 68](1086-E-F)
6. Both the judgments of the High Court i.e. judgment dated
16.03.1998 in W.P. No.4042 of 1998 as well as judgment dated E
16.08.2000 in Writ Petition Nos.14779-14781 of 2000 were not
brought into notice of the State Government by the land owners
and they succeeded obtaining a Notification on 12.04.2001 which
was cancelled within one month. [Para 69] [1086-F-GJ
7. When the two Writ Petitions, filed by land owners for F
same relief have been dismissed by the High Court, the
petitioners could not have approached the State Government by
representation thereafter praying the State Government to
exercise its power under Section 48 to withdraw Survey No.50
from acquisition. Thus, the entire exercise by the land owners of G
approaching the State Government to withdraw from acquisition
of Survey No.50 was uncalled for and was not permissible in view
of the dismissal of their Writ Petitions by High Court where the
same relief was prayed and refused. (Para 70) (1086-G-H; 1087-A)
H
1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.
A Ba/want Narayan Bagde v. N. B. Bhagwat & Ors. (1976)
1 SCC 700 : [1975] Suppl. SCR 250; Balmokund Khatri
Educational and industrial Trust, Amritsar v. State of
Punjab (1996) 4 SCC 212 : [1996[ 2 SCR 643;
Tamilnadu Housing Board v. A Wiswam (1996) 8 SCC
259 : 11996] 2 SCR 402; Sitaram Bhandar Society, New
B
Delhi v. Lieutenant Governor, Government ofNCT. Delhi
& Ors. (2009) 10 SCC 501 : 12009[ 14 SCR 507; Hubli-
Dharwad Urban Development Authority v.
Shekharagowda Chennabasannagowda Phakirgowdar
(2016) 9 SCC 13; Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of
c Gujarat and Others (1998) 4 SCC 387 : [1998[ 2 SCR
339; State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Vishnu
Prasad Sharma and Others AIR 1966 SC 1593 : [1966]
SCR 557; Ba/want Narayan Bhagde v. MD.Bhagwat
And Others (1976) 1 SCC 700 : [1975] Suppl. SCR
250; Balmokand Khatri Educational And industrial
D
Trust, Amritsar v. State Of Punjab and Others (1996) 4
SCC 212 : [1996] 2 SCR 643; Banda Development
Authority, Banda v. Moti Lal Agarwal and Others (2011)
5 SCC 394 : [2011 J 7 SCR 435; PK. Kalburqi v. State
of Karnataka and Others (2005) 12 SCC 489 - referred
E to.
Case Law Reference
11975] Suppl. SCR 250 referred to Para 16
[1996) 2 SCR 643 referred to Para 16
F 11996[ 2 SCR 402 referred to Para 16
[2009] 14 SCR 507 referred to Para 16
(2016) 9 sec 13 referred to Para 16
[1998) 2 SCR 339 referred to Para 31
G [1966) SCR 557 referred to Para 33
[1996] 2 SCR 643 referred to Para 44
12011 I 7 SCR 435 referred to Para45
(2005) 12 sec 489 referred to Para 46
H
N.A.L. LAYOUT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION v. BANGALORE 1057
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 9790- A
9791 of2017
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.12.2008 in Writ Appeal
No. 936 of2007 and Writ Petition No. 6253 of2004 of the High Court of
Karnataka at Bangalore
WITH B
C. A. Nos. 9792-9793 of2017.
Rajesh Mahale, Mis. Khaitan & Co., Advs. for the Appellants.
K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv., Navin Prakash, Ms. N. Annapoorani,
S. J. Amith, Dr. (Mrs.) Vi pin Gupta, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Raghvendra S. C
Srivastsa, S. K. Kulkarni, M. Gireesh Kumar, Ankur S. Kulkarni, R.
Gopalakrishnan, Joseph Aristotle S., Ms. PriyaAristotle, Ashish Yadav,
Ms. Romsha Raj, Advs. for the Respondents.
Respondent-in-person.
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ASHOKBHUSHAN,J. I. The issue raised in these two appeals
centres around the Notification dated 12.04.200 I, issued by State
Government, withdrawing Survey No.50, area 6 acres, 20 guntas from
the acquisition made by the State Government by Notification under
Section 4 dated 19.09.1977 and declaration under Section 6 dated E
07.02.1978 of the of the LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 (hereinafter referred
to as "Act 1894").
2. All the appeals have been filed against the Division Bench
judgment dated 11.12.2008 dismissing the Writ Appeal filed against the
judgment dated 30.03.2007 in Writ Petition No.13404 of2005. Writ Petition F
No.13404 of2005 was filed by the land owners challenging the Notification
dated 22.03.2005 issued by the State Government by which the State
Government had withdrawn the earlier Notification dated 12.04.2001.
The learned Single Judge had allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the
Notification dated 22.03.2005 and restoring the earlier Notification dated G
12.04.2001 by which Survey No.50 was withdrawn from acquisition.
3. Land acquisition proceeding for acquisition of various plots
including Survey No.50 (which is the subject matter of dispute) has a
chequered history. It is necessary to note the series of events and various
H
1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.
A litigations undertaken by the parties and their predecessors before we
consider the issues raised in these appeals.
4. The Bangalore Development Authority framed a Scheme for
formation of layout known as BTM layout which was sanctioned by
State ofKarnataka. For the above purpose the State ofKarnataka decided
B to acquire land to the extent of 1703-10 acres. A Notification
under Section 4 dated 19.09.1977 was published on 29.09.1977.
Declaration under Section 6 dated 07.02.1978 was issued, which was
published on 09.03.1978, acquiring large extent of land. The acquired
land included Survey No.50, 51 and 52 of the Tavarekere Village. Notice
under Section 9 of the Act was published on 05.06.1978. Land owners
c filed W.P.Nos.21097-21107 of 1983, praying for quashing the Notification
dated 19.09.1977 under Section 4 and Notification dated 07 .02.1978 under
Section 6. The Writ Petitions were dismissed by the High Court vide its
judgment and order dated 10.02.1984. Writ Appeal Nos.271-281 of 1984,
challenging the judgment of the Single Judge were also dismissed. The
D award was passed on 08.02.1984, which was approved by the competent
authority on 19.03.1984. On23.03.1984, the possession ofSurveyNo.50
at Tavarekere Village was taken and handed over to the Bangalore
Development Authority by going on to the spot and preparing a Mahazer.
Compensation for Survey No.50 was also deposited in the Civil Court. A
Notification dated 07.05.1985 under Section 16(2) of the Act was also
E published in the Karnataka Gazette on 24.10.1985 notifying the taking
of possession of the land.
5. The Writ Petition No.5508of1984 was filed by Munivenkatappa,
one of the co-land owners, challenging Notification under Section 4 to 6.
The Writ Petition was dismissed by Karnataka High Court vide its
F judgment dated 14.12.1984. The High Court in its judgment also held
that the development plan has been completed by the Bangalore
Development Authority and the Scheme is in process of implementation.
N.A.L. Employees Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. had made a
request to Bangalore Development Authority for allotment for forming a
G housing colony. BOA passed a resolution dated 17 .11.1982, allotting an
area of 8 acres of land for forming a housing colony. The Sale Deed
dated 09.05.1985 was executed by BOA in favour ofNAL Employees
Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. which included land in Survey Nos.50,
51 and 52. In spite of sale, in favourofN .A.L. Employees Co-operative
Housing Society Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as 'Society'), family
H
N.A.L. LAYOUT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION v. BANGALORE 1059
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J]
members of the owners attempted to interfere in the possession of the A
society. Hence, the OS No.1492 of 1985 was filed for permanent
injunction. Trial Court granted a temporary injunction, which was
confirmed by the order dated 04.01.1986. Munivenkatappa also filed
OS No.2294 of 1988, claiming that he was in possession of the land,
which was sold to society, which suit came to be dismissed. B
Allotment in favour of society was unsuccessfully challenged by
Munivenkatappa by filing a W.P. No.18360 of 1988 which too was
dismissed.
6. The daughter of Munivenkatappa, namely, Papamma filed a
W.P. No.4042of1998, praying that respondents be directed not to proceed
with the acquisition in respect of Survey No.50. It was claimed in the c
Writ Petition that recommendation dated 30.06.1981 by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer has been sent for de-notifying the acquisition of 6
acres and 20 guntas of Survey No.50. In the said Writ Petition, it was
submitted by the respondent that possession of the land was taken and
Notification under Section 16(2) has already been issued on 07 .05.1985. D
The High Court, noticing the aforesaid facts held that the acquisition
proceeding has become final and the possession has already been taken
as early as in 23.03.1984, the Writ Petition has no merit and was dismissed
on 16.03.1998.
7. Further, W.P. Nos.14779-14781 of 2000 were filed by one E
S.M.Bhimanna @ Subbanna, S/o Munivenkatappa and two others,
seeking a direction to respondents to consider the representation of the
petitioners to drop the acquisition proceedings in respect of!and in Survey
No.50. In the said representation, it was contended on behalf of the
BDA that after issuance of final Notification in 1978, the award was
passed and possession was taken by publishing a Notification under F
Section 16(2), hence, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. After
considering the submission of the parties, the Writ Petition was dismissed
by this Court vide its judgment and order dated 16.08.2000.
8. One K.R.Rajakumar proprietor of Mis Veeranjeya Auto
Engineering Works, claiming to be a lessee vide Lease Deed dated G
08.04.1985 from land owners of Survey Nos.50, 51 and 52, filed an OS
No.5511 of 1995 for injunction against the land owners as well as the
society, which was imp leaded as defendant No. 7. In the suit, defendant
No.7 pleaded that possession of land was taken in the year 1984.
H
1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.
A Acquisition has become final. The suit for iajunction was dismissed.
R.F.A.No.58/99 was filed by Shri K.R.Rajakumar against the society
which too was dismissed by Karnataka High Court vide its order dated
07.03.2000.
9. It appears that land owners having failed to obtain any favourable
B order against acquisition proceeding from the High Court or any order
from the Civil Court approached the State Government by filing a
representation, praying for withdrawal ofacquisition in respect of Survey
No.50. The State Government issued a Notification dated 12.04.200 l,
exercising its power under Section 48 of the Act, withdrawing Survey
No.50 from acquisition. The Bangalore Development Authority which
c was not informed prior to issuance of order dated I 2.04.2001, immediately,
brought to notice of the State Government that possession of land has
already been taken in the year 1984, no order can be passed under
Section 48. The State Government immediately, issued another order on
09.05.2001, cancelling the Notification dated 12.04.200 I.
D I 0. Land owners challenged the order dated 09.05.200 l by filing
a W.P. No.37577 of 2002, Shri Bhimanna @ Subbanna S/o
Munivenkatappa vs. State ofKarnataka. The Writ Petition was allowed
by learned Single Judge vide its judgment dated 04. l I .2003 on the ground
that the State Government before taking a decision on 09.05.2001 has
E not issued a notice to the petitioner for whose benefit Notification under
Section 48(1) dated 12.04.2001 was issued. On the above ground, the
Notification dated 09.05.2001 was set aside and Writ Petition against
the said order was allowed. Subsequent to the judgment oflearned Single
Judge dated 04. l l.2003, the State Government issued notice to land
owners and after taking into consideration the material on record issued
F a Notification dated 22.03.2005, withdrawing/ cancelling the Notification
dated 12.04.2001.
I I. Land owners filed a Writ Petition No. l 3404 of2005, challenging
the Notification dated 22.03.2005 issued by the State Government in
which Writ Petition the allottees of society, namely, respondent Nos.3 to
G 2 I got imp leaded. The Writ Petition, after hearing the parties was allowed
by the learned Single Judge vide its judgment and order dated 30.03.2007.
The Bangalore Development Authority filed a Writ Appeal against
judgment ofleamed Single Judge, which was dismissed by Division Bench
of the Karnataka High Court vide dated 11.12.2008 against which
H judgment all the above Civil Appeals have been filed.
N.A.L. LAYOUT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION v. BANGALORE 1061
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J]
12. Civil Appeal arisingoutofSLP(C) Nos.29553-29554 of201 l A
has been filed by the appellant, who claimed allotment ofa part ofland
of Survey No.SO in public auction conducted on 30.07.2003. Appellant
claimed to have paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.24,41,775/-. But
the Sale Deed has yet not been executed in favour of appellant. Appellant
claimed to have filed applications for impleadment i.e. I.A.Nos.3-4 of B
2010 in SLP(C) Nos.20190-20191 of 2009 filed by Bangalore
Development Authority in which notices were issued by this Court and
order of status quo was granted. However, the said SLP(C) Nos.20190-
20191 of2009 have been withdrawn on 02.03.2011. Hence, the appellant
has filed these appeals, questioning the judgment of the Division Bench
dated 11.12.2008, affirming the judgment of the Single Judge dated C
30.03.2007, quashing the notification dated 22.03.2005.
13. Civil Appeals filed by the P.M. Anoop Kumar refer to similar
facts and grounds, challenging the judgments of the Karnataka High
Court. Reference of pleadings and judgments in Civil Appeal Nos.9790-
9791 of2017 (arisingoutofSLP(C) Nos.5911-5912 of20!0) shall be D
sufficient for deciding all the Civil Appeals.
14. Shri B. H. Marlapalle, senior counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that the appeal filed by appellant is fully maintainable and the
appellant has /orns standi to file this appeal, this Court has already
granted permission to file SLP by its order dated 15.02.2010. BDAhad E
allotted the land to N .A.L. Employees Co-operative Housing Society,
the predecessors in interest of appellant. For espousing the cause of its
members the appellant has ample locus standi to challenge the judgment
of High Court, restoring the Notification dated 12.04.2001. lt is submitted
that the W.P. No.13404 of2005 filed by Muniamma, the widow oflate
Bhimanna who was one of the three sons of Munivenkatappa, was not F
maintainable on the ground of doctrine of stare decisis and doctrine of
res judicata. Further, there was delay and !aches and non-joinder of
necessary parties in the Writ Petition. The writ-petitioners never
challenged the Notification dated 07 .05 .1985 issued under Section 16(2)
of the Land Acquisition Act (Karnataka amendment). Hence, it was not G
open for the writ-petitioners to contend that possession ofland was not
taken over by the State. It is submitted that in W.P. No.4042 of 1998
filed by the Papamma, daughter of Munivenkatappa this Court, while
dismissing the Writ Petition has held that acquisition proceedings having
reached finality by taking possession of the land in March, 1984. Further,
H
1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20 l 7] 13 S.C.R.
A same finding of possession was taken in the year, 1984 was rendered by
this Court in W.P. Nos. 14779-14781 of2000.
15. The appellant was necessary party in the Writ Petition since,
land in favour of the society was allotted by the BDA on l 8.05.1985.
The appellant is registered Association of members who have been
B allotted land in the above land and has sufficient interest to be necessary
party, pertaining to any litigation of land in question .
. 16. Learned counsel further contends that learned Single Judge
committed an error in holding that actual possession was not taken by
the State in March, 1984. It is submitted that possession was taken by
c Special Land Acquisition Officers of the State by going on to the spot on
23.03.1984. Learned counsel for the appellant, referring to Mahazer
contends that it has been specifically recorded in the Mahazer that owners
of the land and building were present and they refused to hand over the
land and building. Learned counsel further relied on judgment of this
Court in Ba/want Narayan Bagde vs. N. B. Bhagwat & Ors. (1976)
D I SCC 700, Balmok11nd Khatri Ed11cational and lnd11strial Tr11st,
Amritsar vs. State of Punjab, (1996) 4 SCC 212, Tamilnad11 Ho11sing
Board vs. A Wiswam (1996) 8 SCC 259, Sitaram Bhandar Society,
New Delhi vs. Lie11tenant Governor, Government of NCT, Delhi &
Ors (2009) JO SCC 501 and H11bli -Dharwad Urban Development
E A11thority vs. Slrekharagowda Chennabasannagowda
Phakirgowdar, (2016) 9 SCC 13.
17. Learned counsel for the appellant has further attacked the
Survey Report dated Ol.04.2017 filed by the BDA, which was prepared
in pursuance of the order dated 22.02.2017 passed in this appeal. He
F submits that the allegation that society has encroached 5 guntas in Survey
No.50, in excess of what was allotted to it, is incorrect. It is submitted
that Survey Nos.50, 51 and 52 were included in the registered Sale Deed
dated 09.05.1985. The BDA cannot be allowed to make submission that
appellant does not have any land in Survey No.50.
G 18. Shri K.V. Vishwanathan, senior counsel appearing for
respondent Nos.2(a) to 2(g), refuting the submission of the learned
counsel for the appellant contends that the appeals filed by the appellant
are neither maintainable nor appellant has locus standi to challenge the
judgment of the High Court. It is submitted that original allottee was
N.A.L Employees Co-operative Housing Society which is a registered
H
N.A.L. LAYOUT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION v. BANGALORE 1063
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J]
Society having a separate and distinct identity from the appellant. In any A
view of the matter the appellant cannot espouse the cause beyond 8
acres ofland which was originally allotted to Housing Society. Referring
to Survey conducted by BDA on 22.03.2017 and its report, learned
counsel submits that the appellant Association is in enjoyment of 8 acres
24 guntas as has been reported, which is against the sanctioned allotment
B
of 8 acres. It is further submitted that BDA which was the beneficiary
ofacquisition having itself withdrawn the SLP(C) Nos.20190-20191 of
2009, the appellant cannot claim to be on better footing to challenge the
impugned judgment. The Association having themselves wrongfully
encroached upon the land no interference of this Court is called for in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136. Learned Single Judge after c
perusing the original records has returned the findings that physical
possession was not taken by the State which findings have been affirmed
by the Division Bench. When the physical possession was never taken
by the State, there was no impediment in exercise of power under Section
48 of the Act, 1894. Both learned Single Judge and Division Bench D
have held that the symbolic/paper possession taken under Section 16 of
the 1894 was not in conformity with Karnataka Amendment, where it is
Deputy Commissioner to take possession and notify the same in the
Official Gazette.
19. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Single Judge
has also recorded a finding regarding discriminatory treatment to the E
land owners since various Survey Nos. which were acquired by the
same acquisition Notifications were released from acquisition under
Section 48 of Act, 1894 whereas respondent land owners were not
extended the same benefit. Learned Counsel further contends that after
issuance of Notification under Section 48(1) dated 12.04.2001, the said F
Notification could not have been withdrawn by the State. It is contended
that Section 21 of General Clauses Act, 1897 was not applicable in the
present case, so as to, empower the State to issue Notification dated
09.05.2001. lt is submitted that at the time of the conducting the auction
on 26.09.2002, 30.7 .2003, 14.08.2003 and 26.08.2003, the Notification
dated 12.04.2001 was in subsistence, hence, there is no legal sanctity to G
any of the acts of auction of the sites.
20. Replying the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant
in Civil Appeals filed by P.M. Anupkumar, it is submitted that there is
already an order dated 22.05.2009 in W.P. No.5814 of2008, directing
H
1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.
A the BDA to execute the Sale Deed in favour of Anupkumar in respect
of site No.58 and in view of the Survey No.50 being de-notified, the said
order in W.P. No.5814 of2008 cannot be implemented, by the BDA. It
is further submitted that in the Writ Petition of Anupkumar answering
respondents were not parties, the Special Leave Petitions filed by
Anupkumar and SLP deserves to be dismissed. •
B
21. Respondent Nos.3 to 21 have supported the submissions made
by learned counsel for the appellant. Respondent No.21 who has
appeared in person, has also adopted the submission made by learned
counsel for the appellant. Respondent No.3 to 21 have further submitted
that a joint memo in W.P. No.13404 of2005 was filed by land owners
c and respondent Nos.3-21 wherein, it was agreed between the land owners
and respondent Nos.3-21 that the rights and title of respondent Nos.3-
21 shall not be affected in any manner and the land owners have
recognized the rights of respondent Nos.3-21, who were auction
purchaser of sites after investing the huge amount. It is submitted that
D learned Single Judge while disposing of the Writ Petition on 30.03.2007
has already held that right, title and interest acquired by respondent Nos.3-
21 could not be affected by any of the observations made in the Writ
Petition and the Writ Petition was disposed of in terms of the joint memo
entered into between the writ-petitioner(land owners) and the respondent
Nos.3-2l(auction purchasers). It is thus submitted that in any view of
E the matter rights of the respondent Nos.3-21 are safe and protected. It
is submitted that BDA has already executed Sale Deed in favour of the
respondent Nos.3-21 and BDA has also issued a Possession Certificate
in their favour. Residential Plots sold in public auction by the BDA in
favour ofrespondent Nos.3 to 21 are all part of Survey No.50 and they
F are clearly demarcated as per the Allotment Plan prepared by the BDA.
22. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and
have perused the record.
23. From the facts, as noted above following facts emerge:
G (i) The Notification dated 19 .09 .1977 was issued under Section 4
of the Land Acquisition Act, proposing to acquire large chunk of
land including Survey No.50, a declaration under Section 6 dated
07.02.1978 was issued acquiring the land for Bangalore
Development Authority, including Survey No.50.
H
N.A.L. LAYOUT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION v. BANGALORE 106S
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J]
(ii) The State Government proceeded to take possession of Survey A
No.SO on 23.03.1984 and after taking over possession, handed
over the same to Bangalore Development Authority.
(iii) The Land owners filed several Writ Petitions, challenging the
Notification under Section 4 & 6, which were dismissed by this
Court on 10.02.1984 and 14.12.1984. B
(iv) The Society filed Suit No.1492 of 1984, seeking permanent
injunction against the owners in which temporary injunction was
confirmed and Suit decreed.
(v) A Civil SuitNo.2294of1988 was filed by Munivenkatappa, a
co-owner of the land, claiming to be in the possession, which was c
subsequently dismissed.
(vi) W.P.No.4042 of 1998 was filed by daughter of
Munivenkatappa, seeking a direction to BDA not to proceed with
the acquisition proceeding on the ground that an application before
the Government for de-notifying the 6 acres 20 guntas of Survey D
No.SO had been made on which favourable recommendations have
been obtained on 30.06.1981. The W.P. was dismissed on
16.03.1998.
(vii) Another W.P.Nos.14779-14781 of 2000 were filed by
Munivenkatappa and another co-owners praying for a direction E
to the State to consider representation ofland owners for dropping
the acquisition proceedings with regard to Survey No.SO. The
Writ Petitions were dismissed on 16.08.2000.
(viii) A representation was submitted by the land owners in the
year 200 I before the State Government. Notification under Section F
48 of the Act dated 12.04.2001 was issued withdrawing Survey
No.SO from acquisition without giving any notice or opportunity to
the BDA for whose benefit the land was acquired.
(ix) On the State Government having been apprised about the
correct fact by the BDA that acquisition has already been finalized G
and possession taken in the year 1984, the State Government,
immediately, withdrew the Notification dated 12.04.2001 vide
Notification dated 09 .OS.200 I
H
1066 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.
A (x) W.P. N0.37577 of2002 was filed by land owners, challenging
the Notification dated 09.05.200 l, which was allowed on
04.11.2003 by the High Court on the ground that before issuing
the Notification dated 09.05.200 l, no notice was given to the land
owners.
B (xi) The state Government after giving notice to the land owners
issued another Notification on 22.03.2005 withdrawing the
Notification dated 12.04.2001. The State Government thus,
refosed to withdraw the Survey No.50 from acquisition in exercise
of power under Section 48.
c (xii) The Writ Petition No.13404 of2005 was filed by land owners,
challenging the Notification dated22.03.2005, which was allowed
by learned Single Judge on 30.03.2007. Writ appeal filed by BDA
was dismissed on 11.12.2008.
24. The sum total of aforesaid events indicate that acquisition of
D Survey No.50 was challenged by land owners in several rounds which
were repelled by the High Court.
25. The State Government initially issued an orderon 12.04.2001,
withdrawing Survey No.50 from the acquisition which order itself was
withdrawn after notice to the land owners on 22.03.2005. The State
E Government thus, refused to withdraw Survey No.50 from the acquisition.
26. The learned Single Judge allowed Writ Petition, quashing the
order dated 22.03.2005. Basically, two reasons have been given by learned
Single Judge for quashing the Notification dated 22.03.2005. Firstly, the
possession of Survey No.50 was not taken by the State Government in
accordance with law and secondly, although, the State Government has
F
withdrawn various survey numbers on the representation made by
owners of the land, whereas, petitioners have been discriminated by
refusing to give similar and equal treatment.
27. Shri K.Y. Yishwanathan learned counsel appearing for land
owners has challenged the maintainability of the appeals as well as locus
G
of appellant to file the appeals. Hence, it is necessary to consider the
above preliminary submissions at the very outset. The appeals have been
filed with the leave granted under Article 136 of Supreme Court of India.
Although, the appellant was not party in the writ proceeding before the
Karnataka High Court but this Court in its discretion by order dated
H
N.A.L. LAYOUT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION v. BANGALORE 1067
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J]
15.02.2010 granted permission to the appellant to file S.L.P. and this A
Court has granted leave on 25.07.2017. The Constitution did not for best
of reasons choose to fetter or circumscribe the power exercisable under
Article 136 in any way. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 is
discretionary and equitable in nature. Article 136 begins with non
obstante clause "notwithstanding anything''. The words 'notwithstanding
B
anything' in Chapter IV of Part V are words of overriding effect and
clearly indicate the intention of the framers of the Constitution that it is a
special jurisdiction and residuary power unfettered by any statute or
other provisions of Chapter IV of Part V of the Constitution. We thus do
not find any substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the
respondent, questioningthe maintainability of the appeals. c
28. Now, we come to the submissions raised by the counsel for
the respondent, questioning the locus of appellant to file the appeal. The
appellant Association is a registered Association with Registration
No.753/2003-04. As noted above, Bangalore Development Authority
auctioned various sites in the year 2002-03 in the acquired land. The D
N .A.L. Employees Co-operative Housing Society after allotment of 8
acres land in Survey Nos.50, 51 and 52 has formed the layout which
layout was sanctioned by the BDA on 15.06.1998. After the sites were
auctioned to various individuals, they formed the appellant Association
to espouse the cause of residents. The appellant has been espousing
cause of its members, which~ has also been reflected from the various E
actions taken by it in the interest of members of the Association. In this
context reference is made to the letter dated 06.07.2009,Annexure P.16
to the appeals filed by the Association, where Association has written to
the Commissioner, BBMP, bringing in notice of the Commissioner
regarding the health hazard due to inaction of the BBMP Officials. F
29. The Association which has been espousing the cause of its
members, who are allottees of different sites thus has sufficient locus to
file this appeal. It is further relevant to note that against the judgment of
the Division Bench, BDA has also filed SLP(C) Nos.20190-20191 of
2009. SLP(C) Nos.5911-5922 of2010 were tagged with these vi de order G
dated 15.02.2010. SLPs filed by BDA have been withdrawn on
02.03.2011. We thus find sufficient justification to accept the locus of
the appellant to file the present appeal. We thus do not find any substance
in preliminary objections raised by the learned counsel for the
respondents.
H
1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 13 S.C.R.
A 30. Another submission raised by K.V. Vishwanathan learned
senior counsel for the respondents needs to be considered. It is submitted
by Shri K.V. Vishwanathan that after issuance of Notification dated
12.04.2001 under Section 48 of the Act, 1894, the State Government
had no jurisdiction to withdraw such Notification. He contends that
Section 2 l of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is not applicable. He submits
B
that under Section 48 land vested already in the land owners, hence,
recourse under Section 2 l of the General Clauses Act to withdraw the
Notification under Section 48 cannot be taken. Section 2 l of General
Clauses Act, l 897 provides as follows:
"21. Power to issue. to incl11de power to add to, amend, vary
c or rescind notifications, orders. rules or bye-laws.-Where, by
any [Central Act} or Reg11lations a power to [iss11e
notifications.] orders, rules or bye-laws is conferred, then
that power includes a power, exercisable in the like manner
and subject to the like sanction and conditions (if any), to
D add to, amend, vary or rescind any [notifications.] orders.
rules or bye-laws so [issued]."
31. According to Section 21 power to issue Notification conferred
by any Central Act includes the power, exercisable in the like manner
and subject to like sanctions and conditions, if any, to add to, amend,
E vary or rescind any Notification so issued. Although, Section 48 does not
refer to the issuance of any Notification, however, this Court has laid
down in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. versus State of Gujarat and Others,
(1998) 4 sec 387 that withdrawal from acquisition has to be notified.
Following was stated in Para 30 & 31:
F "30. It was submitted by Mr. Salve that Section 48 of the Act
did not contemplate iss11e of any notification and withdrawal
from the acquisition could be by order simpliciter. He said
that Sections 4 and 6 talked of notifications being issued under
those provisions but there was no s11ch mandate in Section
48. It was thus contended that when the statute did not require
G to issue any notification for withdrawal from the acquisition,
reference to Section 21 of the General Clauses Act was not
correct. Section 21 of the General Cla11ses Act is as 11nder:
"21. Power to issue, to include power to add to, amend, vary
or rescind, notifications, orders. rules or bye-laws.-Where
H
N.A.L. LAYOUT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION v. BANGALORE 1069
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J]
by any Central Act, or Regulation, a power to issue A
notifications, orders. rules, or bye-laws is conferred. then that
power includes a power. exercisable in the like manner and
subject to the like sanction and conditions (if any) to add to.
amend, vary or rescind any notifications, orders, rules or bye-
laws so issued. "
B
Mr Salve said that Section 21 express~v referred to the powers
being given to iss11e notifications etc. 11nder an Act or
Regulation and under this that power incl11ded power to
withdraw or rescind any notification in a similar fashion. It
was therefore submitted that when Section 48 did not empower
the State Government to iss11e any notification and it could C
not be read into that provision that withdrawal had to be issued
by a notification. His argument, therefore. appeared to be
that on correct interpretation of Section 21 of the General
Clauses Act before reaching the stage of Section 48, the State
Government could withdraw notifications 11nder Sections 4 D
and 6 of the Act by issuing notifications withdrawing or
rescinding earlier notifications and that would be the end to
the acquisition proceedings. We do not think that Mr Salve is
quite right in his submissions. When Sections 4 and 6
notifications are issued, much has been done towards the
acquisition process and that process cannot be reversed merely E
by rescinding those notifications. Rather it is Section 48 under
which, after ·withdrawal from acquisition is made,
compensation due for any damage s1iffered by the owner
during the course of acquisition proceedings is determined
and given to him. It is, therefore, implicit that withdrawal from F
acquisition has to be notified. "
"31 .... Principles of law are, therefore, well settled. A
notification in the Official Gazette is req11ired to be issued if
the State Government decides to withdraw from the acq11isition
under Section 48 of the Act of any land of which possession G
has not been taken. An owner need not be given any notice
of the intention of the State Government to withdraw from the
acquisition and the State Government is at liberty to do so.
Rights of the owner are well protected by s11b-section (2) of
Section 48 of the Act and if he s1iffered any damage in
H
1070 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 13 S.C.R.
A consequence of the acquisition proceedings, he is to be
compensated and sub-section (3) of Section 48 provides as
to how such compensation is to be determined. .... "
32. Applicability of Section 2 l cannot be denied to any Central
Act as defined in Section 3(7) of General Clauses Act, 1897. Section
B 3(7) is as follows:
"3. In this Act, and in all Central Acts and Regulations made
a.fler the commencement of this Act, unless there is anything
repugnant in the subject or context,-
••• ••• •••
c
"(7). "Central Act" shall mean an Act of Parliament, and shall
include-
(a) an Act of the Dominion Legislature or of the Indian
Legislature passed before the commencement of the
D
Constitution, and
(b) an Act made before such commencement by the Governor
General in Council or the Governor General, acting in a
legislature capacity;
••• ••• •••
E
33. The Land Acquisition Act, l 984 clearly falls within the definition
of Central Act. The applicability of Section 2 l of the General Clauses
Act was considered by this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and
Others versus Vishnu Prasad Sharma and Others, AIR 1966 SC
1593, where it is held that in a case where under Section 9 Notification
F has not been issued the Government can cancel the Notification under
Section 4 and Section 6 by virtue of Section 21 General Clauses Act. It
is useful to extract following observations made in paragraph 20:
"20. Then reliance is placed on Section 48 which provides
for withdrawal from acquisition. The argument is that Section
G 48 is the only provision in the Act which deals with withdrawal
from acquisition and that is the only way in which the
Government can withdraw from the acquisition and unless
action is taken under Section 48(/) the notification under
Section 4(1) would remain (presumably for eve1). It is urged
that the only way in which the notification under Section 4(1)
H can come lo an end is by withdrawal under Section 48(/). We
N.A.L. LAYOUT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION v. BANGALORE 1071
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J]
are not impressed by this argument. In the .first place. under A
Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, (10 of 1897), the power
to issue a notification includes the power to rescind it.
Therefore it is always open to government to rescind a
notification under Section 4 or under Section 6, and
withdrawal under Section 48(1) is not the only way in which
B
a notification under Section 4 or Section 6 can be brought to
an end. Section 48(1) confers a special power on the
government of withdrawal from acquisition without canceling
the notifications under Sections 4 and 6, provided it has not
taken possession of the land covered by the notification under
Section 6. In such circumstances the Government has to give c
compensation under Section 48(2) ...... "
34. The applicability of Section 21 in exercise of particular power
granted by Central Act can be negated only when the statute in question
itself expressly or implicitly indicates so. As noted above, this Court in
Larsen & Toubro has rejected the submission of learned counsel that D
Notification under Section 4 and 6 with aid of Section 21 of General
Clauses Act can be cancelled at any time. This Court held that when
Notifications under Section 4 and 6 are issued and much has been done
towards the acquisition process and that process cannot be reversed
merely by rescinding this Notification.
E
35. However, when the State has exercised its power under
Section 48(1) by withdrawing from acquisition there is nothing in the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to indicate that such Notification cannot be
amended varied or rescinded by issuing a notification in like manner. In
the event, it is accepted that after issuance ofNotification under Section
48, there is no power to amend, vary or rescind any such Notifications, F
it may cause undue hardship. Take an example of simple mistake whereby
Notification under Section 48 has been issued where acquisition has
been completed in all respects and acquired land had already been utilized.
We are thus of the opinion that there may be several circumstances
where Notifications under Section 48 may be required to be amended, G
modified or rescinded. As observed above, there is nothing in the Act,
which indicates that after exercising power under Section 48, the State
Government exhaust its jurisdiction to vary, amend, modify or rescind
the notification. Thus, the applicability of Section 21 of General Clauses
Act in exercise of powerunder Section 48 of Act 1894 by a Notification
cannot be denied. H
1072 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.
A 36. The discussion of the learned Single Judge, in its judgment
mainly centred around to the claim of taking possession by the State
Government on 23.03.1984. What is the procedure of taking possession
of the land under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has to be
first looked into.
B 37. The State is empowered to take possession under Section 16
of the Act. There is State amendment in Section 16, in so far as, the
State ofKarnataka is concerned by Act No.17of1961 w.e.f. 24.08.1961
by which Section 16 has been renumbered as sub Section (I) and after
sub Section(!), sub Section (2) has been added. Thus, Section 16 as
applicable in State ofKarnataka is as follows:
c
"Section 16. Power to take possession:
(1) When the Deputy Commissioner has made award under
Section 11, he may take possession ~f the land which shall
thereupon vest absolutely in the Government free from all
o encumbrances.
(2)The fact of such taking possession may be notified by
the Deputy Commissioner in the official Gazette, and such
Notification shall be evidenced of such fact. "
38. In the present case, the award was passed on 08.02. l 984 by
E Land Acquisition Officer, which was approved by the competent authority
on 19.03.1984. The award was prepared, after issue of notice unless
Section 9 and after considering the objections filed by the land owners,
in reference to Notification dated 19.09.1977 and 17.2.1978. After the
award was passed, possession was claimed to be taken on 23.03.1984
by the State Government, which was also handed over to the BOA on
F
the same date.
39. Notification dated 07.5.1985 was published in the Gazette on
24.10.1985, as contemplated by Section 16(2). The possession was taken
by the authorities by going on the spot and preparing a Mahazer.
G 40. Learned Single Judge, has quoted the entire Mahazer dated
23.03.1984 in his judgment and order which is to the following effect:
"Office of the Sp/. Land Acquisition O.fficer, Bangalore
Development Authority. Jn the presence of the Revenue Inspector.
H
N.A.L. LAYOUT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION v. BANGALORE 1073
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J]
Mahazar written by gathering on Sy. No. 50, Tavarekere A
Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.
Read the Order of the Sp/. Land Acquisition Officer
dated 19.8.1984 in LAC No. 266178-79 passed for the purpose
of making over possession to the Bangalore Development
Authority in respect of Sy. No. 50 of Tavarekere Village to an B
extent of 6 acres 20 guntas which has been acquired for the
purpose of.formation of Byrasandra Tavrekere Madivala
Layout and in respect of which compensation is already
awarded. Today, BDA Officers of the Engineering Department
have accompanied the Revenue inspector and with assistance
of Revenue Surveyor they have inspected the land. The c
Surveyor has measured the land and shown the boundaries
to the Officers of the Engineering Department. Presently. the
following buildings, malkies are existing on the land and
people are residing in the buildings. Some merchants have
also started shops therein and doing business. D
Malkies:
J) Allahabad Guava 30
2) Pannarale Trees 8
3) Jackfndt Trees 8 E
4) Tamrind Trees 16
5) Coconut Trees 18
6) Mango Trees 63
7) Custard Apple Trees 15 F
8) Nerale Trees 7
9) Hippe Trees 1
10) Chigare Trees 1
G
11) Sweet Tamarind 6
12) Chelli Trees 3
H
1074 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 13 S.C.R.
A Stone Walled Wells 2
Unauthorised Constmctions
I) Touring Talkies I
2) Mosaic Tiles Factory I
B 3) Car Garage I
4) Lorry Garage I
5) RCC Buildings 3 (about4-7 height)
6) Stone boundary Wall
c The above buildings are currently in use and amongst them,
wood shop, kerosene godown, etc are present. Orders are
passed in OS. No. 849184, 850184, 851184, 852184, on
20.03.1984 restraining Bangalore Development Authority
from demolishing the buildings. That apart stay has been
D granted by the Hon. High Court of Karnataka in WP No.
5010184 on 15.03.1984. The land owners were present at the
land and the owners of the buildings and land owners have
refi1sed to hand over possession of both land and buildings.
Therefore, without any other recourse the possession of
E the land is taken under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition
Act and handed over to the Engineering Department.
Therefore, from now on, the said Sy. No. 50 has been handed
over to the possession of the Bangalore Development
Authority as evidenced by this Mahazer.
F
Read over and certified
to be correct"
Taken possession Sd!-Narayan Reddy
Sd/- sdl-Daval Khan
G (HG Hanumaiah sd 1-Kanayaka Naidu
Assistant Executive sd!- Kaleemulla
Engineer/, 2, South
Sub, Dn. EDA,
H
N.A.L. LAYOUT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION v. BANGALORE 1075
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J]
Bangalore - 90 Before Me A
Sd/-R./. Sp/. LAO, EDA"
41. The Land Acquisition Act does not provide any manner or
procedure of taking possession of the acquired land. The question as to
how the possession of acquired land is to be taken under the Land
AcquisitionAct came for consideration before this Court in large number B
of cases.
42. The Three Judge Bench in Ba/want Narayan Bhagde versus
M. D. Bhagwat And Others, (1976) 1 SCC 700, had occasion to
consider the said issue. Justice Untwalia's view at Para 25 in the above
case, is as follows: c
"25. When a public notice is published at a convenient place
or near the land to be taken stating that the Government
intends to take possession of the land, then ordinarily and
generally there should be no question of resisting or impeding
the taking of possession. Delivery or giving of possession by D
the owner or the occupant of the land is not required. The
Collector can enforce the surrender of the land to himself
under section 4 7 of the Act if impeded in taking possession.
On publication of the notice under section 9(1) claims to
compensation for all interests in the land has to be made ; be E
it the interest of the owner or of a person entitled to the
occupation of the land. On the taking of possession of the
land under section 16 or 17(1) it vests absolutely in the
Government free from all encumbrances. It is, therefore, clear
that taking of possession within the meaning of section 16 or
17(1) means taking of possession on the spot. It is neither a F
possession on paper nor a "symbolical" possession as
generally understood in Civil Law. But the question is what is
the mode of taking possession ? The Act is silent on the point.
Unless possession is taken by the written agreement of the
party concerned the mode of taking possession obviously G
would be for the authority to go upon the land and to do
some act which would indicate that the authority has taken
possession of the land. It may be in the form of a declaration
by beat of drum or otherwise or by hanging a written
H
1076 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.
A declaration on the spot that the authority has taken possession
of the land. The presence of the owner or the occupant of the
land to effectuate the taking, of possession is not necessary.
No further notice beyond that under section 9(1 J of the act
is required. When possession has been taken, the owner or
the occupant of the land is dispossessed. Once possession
B
has been taken the land vests in the Government."
43. Bhagwati, J. by giving a concurring opinion on his behalf and
on behalfofJusticeA. C. Gupta had laid down the following in para 27:
"'27.... We think it is enough to state that when the Government
c proceeds to take possession of the land acquired by it under
the Land Acquisition Act, I 894, it must take actual possession
of the land, since all interests in the land are sought to be
acquired by it. There can be no question of taking 'symbolical'
possession in the sense understood by judicial decisions under
the Code of Civil Procedure. Nor would possession merely 011
D paper be e11ough. What the Act contemplates as a necessary
condition of vesting of the land in the Government is the taking
of actual possession of the land. How such possession may
be taken would depend on the nature of the land. Such
possession would have to be take11 as the nature of the land
E admits of There can be no hard and fast rule laying down
what act would be sufficient to constitute taking of possession
of land. We should not, therefore, be taken as laying down
an absolute and inviolable rule that merely going on the spot
and making a declaration by beat of drum or otherwise would
be sufficient to constitute taking of possession of land in every
F case. But here, in our opinion, since the land was lying fallow
and there was no crop on it at the material time, the act of the
Tehsi/dar in going on the spot and inspecting the land for the
purpose of determining what part was waste and arable and
should, therefore, be taken possession of and determining its
G extent, was sufficient to constitute taking of possession. It
appears that the appellant was not present when this was
done by the Tehsildar, but the presence of the owner or the
occupant of the land is 1101 necessmy to effectuate the taking
of possession. It is also not strictly necessary as a matter of
legal requirement that notice should be given to the owner or
H
N.A.L. LAYOUT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION v. BANGALORE 1077
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J]
the occupant of the land that possession would be taken at a A
particular time, though it may be desirable where possible to
give such notice before possession is taken by the authorities,
as that would eliminate the possibility of any fraudulent or
collusive transaction of taking of mere paper possession,
without the occupant or the owner ever coming to know qf B
it. "
44. In Balmokaml Khatri Educational And Industrial Trust,
Amritsar versus State Of P11njab amt Others, (1996) 4 SCC 112,
this Court had laid down that normal mode of taking possession is drafting
the Panchnama in presence of Panches and taking possession and giving
delivery to the Officials. Para 4 of the judgment is as follows:
c
"4 ..... Jt is now well-settled legal position that it is difficult to
take physical possession of the land under compulsory
acquisition. The normal mode of taking possession is drajiing
the panc/111ama in the presence of panchas and taking
possession and giving delivery to the beneficiaries is the D
accepted mode of taking possession of the land. Subsequent
thereto, the retention of possession would tantamount only to
illegal or unlawfit! possession."
45. In Banda Development A11thority, Banda versus Moti Lal
Agarwal and Others, (20Il) 5 SCC 394, this Court has considered E
the question of taking up possession of acquired land after noticing all
earlier judgments of this Court. This Court culled out the principles in
Para 37 of the judgment, which is quoted as below:
"37. The principles which can be culled out from the
abovenoted judgments are: F
I) No hard-and-fast nt!e can be laid down as to what act
would constitute taking of possession of the acquired land.
ii) If the acquired land is vacant, the act of the State
authority concerned to go to the spot and prepare a
G
panchnama will ordinarily be treated as sufficient to
constitute taking of possession.
iii) If crop is standing on the acquired land or building/
stnicture exists, mere going on the spot by the authority
concerned will, by itself, be not sufficient for taking
H
1078 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.
A possession. Ordinarily, in such cases, the authority
concerned will have to give notice to the occupier of the
building/stn1cture or the person who has cultivated the land
and take possession in the presence of independent
witnesses and get their signatures on the panchnama. Of
course, refusal of the owner of the land or building/
B
structure may not lead to an inference that the possession
of the acquired land has not been taken.
iv) if the acquisition is of a large tract of the land, it may
not be possible for the acquiring/designated authority to
take physical possession of each and every parcel of the
c land and it will be sufficient that symbolic possession is
taken by preparing appropriate document in the presence
of independent witnesses and getting their signatures on
such document.
v) If beneficiary of the acquisition is an agency!
D instrumentality of the State and 80% of the total
compensation is deposited in terms of Section 17(3-A) and
substantial portion of the acquired land has been utilised
in ji1rtherance of the particular public purpose, then the
court may reasonably presume that possession of the
E acquired land has been taken."
46. In the present case Notification under Section 16(2) dated
07.05.1985 was published in the Karnataka Gazette of 24.10.1985.
Publication in the Gazette is evidence of the fact that possession has
been taken as is statutorily provided by Section 16 (2). This Court has
F occasion to consider Section 16(2) (as amended in Karnataka in P.K.
Kalburqi versus State of Karna/aka and Others, (2005) 12 SCC
489. This Court considered the relevance of Notification under Section
16(2) and held that such Notification could be evidence of fact that
possession was taken, though not conclusive and in absence of such
notification, the Court can consider the other fact on record which has a
G bearing on this question. Following is stated in Para 9:
"9. A plain reading of the said section would indicate that the
power conferred on the Deputy Commissioner is enabling in
nature, and if such a notification is issued it shall be evidence
of the fact that possession was taken, though not conclusive.
H
N.A.L. LAYOUT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION v. BANGALORE 1079
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J]
Such a notification would be a piece cif evidence which may A
establish that possession of the land~ was in fact taken. It is
not as if in the absence of such a notification the Court cannot
consider the other evidence on record which has a bearing
on this question. We are, therefore, satisfied that the High
Court 1'1'as right in coming to the conclusion that possession B
of the lands was taken by the State and there was therefore
no authority in the State Government to issue a notification
denotif.;ing the lands under Section 19(7) of the Karnataka
Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987."
47. The present is a case where on the land various trees were
standing, which has been noted in the Mahazer. Certain other c
constructions, as refeJTed to in the Mahazer as unauthorised construction
were also noticed. The Mahazer further noticed that land owners and
owners of the building were also present at the land and land owners
and owners of building refused to hand over the possession ofland and
building. The Mahazer was signed by Revenue inspector, Special LAO, D
Engineer of BDA as well as four other persons.
48. Present is a case where land was acquired for a public authority
and Bangalore Development Authority has prepared the BMT Scheme
layout which was sanctioned. Society was allotted the land on 18.05.1985
and the society also got its allotment sanctioned. E
49. It is useful to notice as to what was recorded by High Court
on 14.12.1984 while dismissing the Writ Petition filed by land owners
being W.P. No.5508of1984. While dismissing the above Writ Petition,
High Court has held the following, in the aforesaid judgment:
" .... Though he has taken a specific contention that the land F
in question was not covered by the development scheme
prepared by the EDA, the records produced by the learned
counsel for EDA show that the land bearing S. Nos. 50, 51
and 52 form part and parcel of the EDA Scheme. This scheme
covers a very large extent of land and the lands of a number
G
of persons had been acquired under the said scheme and the
acquisition proceedings regarding these lands have become
final. The development plan has been completed by the EDA
and the scheme is in the process of implementation.
H
1080 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20 l 7] 13 S.C.R.
A In the circumstances and for the reasons stated by this
court in the order in the aforesaid writ petitions. this petition
fails and accordingly it is rejected at the stage ofpre/iminary
hearing.... "
50. One of the main submissions, which has been pressed by
B counsel for the appellant is that in different Writ Petitions filed by the
land owners themselves, this Court has accepted the contention of the
BOA that possession of the land was already taken on 23.03.1984 and
the land has vested in the BOA.
51. It is contended that there being findings recorded in judgment
c of this Court in earlier litigation between the parties, learned Single Judge
in the judgment dated 30.03.2007 could not have recorded different
findings regarding the possession. The possession having taken over by
the State Government, which was handed over to BOA the land vested
in the State Government free from all encumbrances and power under
Section 48 could not have been invoked. For appreciating the aforesaid
D submission, it is necessary to look into the judgment of the High Court
where it is claimed that with regard to possession, finding has already
been returned that possession had been taken by the State in the year
1984.
52. In above context followingjudgments of the High Court need
E to to be specifically noted:
(a) The W.P. No. l 8360 of 1988 was filed by Shri S.M.Bhimanna
@ Subbanna and two others, challenging the order passed by the
Minister for Urban Development, dismissing the Writ Petition by
which, allotment in favour of society was sought to be cancelled.
F This Court after noticing the earlier judgment of High Court in
W.P.No.5508 of 1984 dated 14.12.1984 made the following
observations:
"The order made in W:P No. 5508183 has become final as
far as the legality of the acquisition proceedings is
G concerned. Accordingly the land in question became vested
in the Bangalore Development Authority. It is for the
Bangalore Development Authority to allot the land in
accordance with the provisions framed under the
Bangalore Development Authority Act..... "
H (underlined by us)
N.A.L. LAYOUT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION v. BANGALORE 1081
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J]
(b) The Writ Petition No.4042 of 1998 Smt. Papamma versus A
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, was filed seeking a direction
to the respondents not to proceed with the acquisition in respect
to Survey No.50. Following was stated in Para 8:
"8. I do not _find any merit in this petition. This petition is
liable to be rejected on every one of the grounds urged by B
the learned counsel for the Respondents. As noticed by me
earlier. the notification under subsection(!) of Section 17
of the Act was issued on 19th September 1987 and
Notification under subsection(J) of Section 19 of the Act
was issued on 9th March 1978 and award was passed on
8th February 1984 and a Notification evidencing taking C
possession of the said land on 19th March 1984 came to
be issued on 7th May 1985 as per Annexure-RJ. Jn this
petition, the Petitioner has not challenged the correctness
of the said notifications. On the other hand the prayer of
the Petitioner is for a direction to the Respondents not to D
proceed with the acquisition proceedings. The narration
offacts stated above clearly shows that the acquisition
roceedin s have become ma/ and the ossession o the
land was taken as back as J9L March 1984. Under these
circumstances, 1 am unable to understand as to how the
Petitioner can seek for a direction to the Respondents not E
to proceed with the acquisition proceedings without
challenging the acquisition proceedings without
challenging the acquisition proceedings and more
particularly the Notifications issued tmder Section 17(1)
and 19(1) of the Act. On this short ground alone this petition F
is liable to be dismissed. Further, as rightly pointed out by
Sri Hegde, the acquisition proceedings having reached
finality by taking possession of the said land on 19th
March, 1984. the Petitioner cannot be, at this stage,
permitted to challenge the acquisition proceedings. "
G
(underlined by us)
53. The above two Writ Petitions were filed by Writ Petitioners
where the Special LAO as well as BDA both were parties to the
proceedings. In Writ Petition filed by S.M.Bhimanna, the State of
Karnataka as well as Society(N.A.L.) was also respondents.
H
1082 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.
A 54. The Court after considering the submissions of the parties
and material on record has returned the finding that possession of land
has been taken in the year 1984 and land has absolutely vested in the
State.
55. The learned Single Judge in its judgment dated 30.03.2007
B has not given due weight to the aforesaid findings. The learned Single
Judge in its judgment dated 30.03.2007 could not have returned a contrary
finding that possession has not been taken from the petitioners. The
learned Single Judge, in its judgment has referred to earlier judgment of
the High Court in W.P. No.4042of1998, Smt. Papamma versus Special
Land Acquisition Officer in which judgment, a finding was returned by
c the High Court that possession has already been taken.
56. The High Court has discarded the finding returned in the above
judgment ofthis Court dated 16.03.1998 by making following observations:
"33 ....... Copy of the judgment in Writ Petition No.4042of1998
D is perused. At Paragraph-8 while discussing with regard to
validity of acquisition a reference was made to a notification
dated 07.05.1985 evidencing taking possession of the said
land on 19.03.1984. The learned judge opines narration of
facts clearly shows that the acquisition proceedings have
become final and the possession of the land was taken over
E as on 19. 03.1984. This observation was made by Court
without reference to any of the records but only based on the
contentions of the parties. At that point of time, there was
neither de-notification of the land from acquisition nor
withdrawal of the order of de-notification. As a matter offact,
F petitioner did contend being in possession and enjoyment of
the land all through. "
57. The observation of the learned Single Judge that observation
in judgment dated 16.03.1998 was made by Learned Judge without
reference to any of the record but only based on the contention of the
G parties is incorrect and unfounded. The finding recorded by the High
Court was on the basis of submissions of the parties based on the
pleadings and materials which were placed on the record as well as on
the notification dated 07 .05 .1985 issued under Section 16(2) evidencing
taking of possession ofland on 23.03.1984. Notification dated 07 .05.1985
published in official Gazette on 24.10.1985 under Section 16(2) of the
H
N.A.L. LAYOUT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION v. BANGALORE 1083
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J]
Act 1894(as amended in Kamataka) was an evidence rightly relied by A
High Court for coming to the conclusion that possession was taken as
notified in the notification. The Judgment of High Court dated 16.03. 1998
was fully in accordance with the provisions of Section 16(2) of Act
1894, which provision has not even adverted to either by learned Single
Judge or the Division Bench in the impugned judgment. The findings
B
recorded in the judgment dated 16.03. 1998 could not have been discarded
in such slipshod manner by learned Single Judge.
58. We are thus of the view that in earlier judgments of the High
Court between the parties regarding the acquisition in question a finding
was returned that possession was taken from the land owners in the
year 1984. c
59. High Court in subsequent Writ Petition filed by land owners,
even though, arising out of a Notification by the State, by which it had
cancelled earlier Notification withdrawing from the acquisition, the said
finding in earlier proceeding regarding delivery of possession could not
have been ignored or discarded. Learned Single Judge committed error D
in proceeding to re-examine the issue with regard to which finding was
recorded in earlier proceeding that possession was already taken by the
State in the year 1984 and the land absolutely vests in the State.
60. High Court lost sight of the fact that Notification dated
12.04.2001 was issued after 16 years of taking of the possession. In the E
meantime, BDA has proceeded with the development of the land. Roads
were constructed and society's allotment was also passed in the year
1985 itself, layout sanctioned in the year 1988 itself.
61. Thus, we are of the opinion that High Court instead of relying
on the earlier findings recorded by the High Court as noted above that F
the possession of land has already been taken by the State and handed
over to the BDA in the year 1984, gave a contrary finding that possession
was not taken, which is unsustainable. The issue as to whether possession
of Survey No.50 was already taken by the State and handed over to
BDA in the year 1984 which was directly and substantially in issue in
G
the earlier writ proceedings initiated by the land owners, especially in
W.P. No.4042of1998 and W.P. Nos.14779-14781 of2000 where land
owners were seeking a direction to withdraw Survey No.50 from
acquisition on the ground that they are still in possession. The dismissal
of aforesaid writ petitions and finding to the effect that acquisition
H
1084 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.
A proceedings have become final and possession of the land was taken
back in the year 1984 shall operate as res-judicata in subsequent W.P.
No.13404 of 2005 filed by the land owner. The findings of Kamataka
High Court that possession of the land has already been taken in the
year 1984 as recorded in writ petitions as noted above precluded the
learned Single Judge in W.P. No.13404 of2005 to take a contrary decision.
B
We thus find that submission of learned counsel for the appellant that
the decision on the issue of taking possession by the State as rendered in
earlier writ petitions filed by land owners shall operate as res-judicata
in subsequent writ petition filed by land owner being W.P. No.13404 of
2005 and judgment oflearned Single Judge as affirmed by the Division
c Bench deserves to be set aside on this ground.
62. There is one other reason due to which the judgment of the
High court cannot be sustained. The land owners had filed W.P. No.4042
of 1998 where a direction was sought for BDA not to proceed with the
acquisition proceeding on the ground that an application before the
D Government for de-notifying Survey No.50 has been filed. The copy of
the judgment dated 16.03.1998 in the aforesaid Writ Petition has been
brought on the paper-book at page No.96 to I 05. The opening part of
the judgment is as follows:
"This writ petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the
E Constitution of India praying to direct the Respondents not
to proceed with the acquisition in respect of Sy. No.50 of
Tavarekere Village, Bangalore South Taluk and etc... "
63. The High Court has also in the same judgment noticed the
claim of petitioner that a communication was issued on 30.06.1981 by
F Special LAO to the State Government praying for de-notification of
Survey No.50 and the prayer of the petitioner that State be directed to
de-notify the land. The said facts have been noticed in Para 2 which are
to the following effect:
"2. In this petition, the Petitioner has sought for a direction
G
to the Respondents not to proceed with the acquisition in
respect of the said land. Sri Suresh Joshi, Learned counsel
for the Petitioner made two submissions. Firstly, he submitted
that since the Petitioner was not served with the notice and
was not heard in the course of Section 5A enquiry and also
at the stage of passing of the award, the Respondents have
H
N.A.L. LAYOUT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION v. BANGALORE 1085
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J)
no authority in law to proceed with the acquisition A
proceedings; and therefore the entire acquisition proceedings
are required to be declared as illegal. Secondly, he submitted
since a communication was issued to the Petitioner on 30th
June 1981, a copy ~[which has been produced as Annexure-
C stating that the recommendations were made by the 2nd
B
Respondent to the State Government to de-notifY 6 acres and
20 guntas of land in Sy.No.50 where structures and garden
are existing, the Respondents must be directed to de-notify
the land in question from the acquisition proceedings.
According to the learned counsel the recommendation made
by the 2nd Respondent as per Annexure-C is pending C
consideration before the State Government. He further
submitted that under similar circumstances, the Government
has de-notified the lands of several others recently, Jn support
of this plea he relied upon the Circular dated 15th November
1978 and 1st January 1987, copies of which have been
D
produced as Annexures-B and D respectively wherein the
Government has notified that wherever the land proposed to
be acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority consists
of garden and nursery, the said lands should be dropped from
acquisition proceedings. "
64. The High Court has dismissed the above Writ Petition in which E
following was observed:
" .... the narration of facts stated above, clearly shows that
the acquisition pruceedings have become final and the
possession of the land was taken as back as 19.03.1984.
Under these circumstances, 1 am unable to understand as to F
how the petitioners can seek for a direction to the respondents.
not to proceed with the acquisition proceedings .... "
(underlined by 11s)
The Writ Petition seeking direction to the State Government to
G
withdraw from acquistion with regard to Survey No.50 was thus
dismissed.
65. Similarly, another Writ Petition Nos.14779-14781 of2000, S.M.
Bhimanna versus Bangalore Development Authority was also filed where
following reliefs were claimed:
H
1086 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.
A "(a) a direction to respondents to consider their
representations and drop the acquisition proceedings in
respect of land measuring 6 acres 20 guntas in Sy. No. 50 of
Tavarkere Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore, South Taluk.
(b) a direction to second respondent not to demolish the
B structures in the petition schedule property pending
consideration of their applications for regularization
(Annexure-E, El and E2 dated 30.04.1994."
66. The aforesaid Writ Petition was contested by BOA by pleading
that posses$ion of the land was already taken in the year 1984 and a
c Notification under Section 16(2) has been published on 24.10.1985 and
the land absolutely vested in the State. Noticing the aforesaid contention
ultimately, the Writ Petition was dismissed by Division Bench of Karnataka
High Court vide judgment dated 16.08.2000.
67. Thus, land owners have filed two Writ Petitions, seeking a
D direction to the State to de-notify the land i.e. Survey No. SO i.e. By
exercising power under Section 48. Both the above Writ Petitions were
dismissed. After dismissal of the aforesaid Writ Petitions where relief of
withdrawing from the acquisition of the Survey No.SO was refused, land
owners without disclosing the relevant facts approached the State
Government in the year 200 l by submitting a representation that they
E are in possession and acquisition of Survey No.SO be withdrawn.
68. When the Writ Petitions, praying for similar relief i.e. withdrawal
of Survey No.50 from acquisition have been dismissed by the Karnataka
High Court, as noticed above, the petitioners could not have approached
the State Government praying for same relief.
F
69. Both the judgments of the High Court i.e. judgment dated
16.03.1998 in W.P. No.4042of1998 as well as judgment dated 16.08.2000
in Writ Petition Nos.14779-14781 of2000 were not brought into notice
of the State Government by the land owners and they succeeded obtaining
a Notification on 12.04.2001 which was cancelled within one month.
G
70. Thus, when the two Writ Petitions as noted above, filed by
land owners for same relief have been dismissed by the Karnataka High
Court, we fail to see how the petitioners could have approached the
State Government by representation thereafter praying the State
Government to exercise its power under Section 48 to withdraw Survey
H
N.A.L. LAYOUT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION v. BANGALORE 1087
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J]
No.50 from acquisition. Thus, the entire excercise by the land owners of A
approaching the State Government to withdraw from acquisition of
Survey No.50 was uncalled for and was not permissible in view of the
dismissal of their Writ Petitions by Karnataka High Court where the
same relief was prayed and refused.
71. Learned Single Judge vide its judgment dated 30.03.2007 has B
not adverted to the aforesaid two judgments of High Court dated
16.03.1998 and 16.08.2000 which was passed in the Writ Petition filed
by the land owners itself where same relief for withdraw! of Survey
No.50 from acquisition was refused. The Division Bench has also not
adverted to the aforesaid aspects of the matter while dismissing the Writ
Appeal. c
72. It has to be noted that in the Writ Petition the land owners
before learned Single Judge has also pleaded that State has withdrawn
acquisition with regard to various Survey Nos. whereas writ-petitioner
has been discriminated by refusing to give similar and equal treatment.
D
73. Be as it may, when the High Court in earlier proceedings has
already held that possession was taken up by the State Government and
land vested in the State free from any encumbrances, power under Section
48 could not have been exercised by the State. Hence, it is not necessary
for us to dwell on the aforesaid reasons given by the learned Single
Judge any further. E
74. We are thus of the view that State Government having
withdrawn the Notification dated 12.04.2001 and having refused to
withdraw Survey No.50 from acquisition which had already become
final sixteen years ago, when the possession was taken by the State and
handed it over to BDA in the year 1984, which fact was notified in the F
official Gazette on 24.10.1985, Learned Single Judge committed an error
in allowing the Writ Petition by quashing order of the State Government
dated 22 .03 .2005.
75. Division Bench also did not advert to the relevant aspects and
committed error in confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge. G
76. This Courtvide its orderdated22.02.2017 has directed learned
counsel for the BDA to inform the Court as to how much land is allotted
to the appellant-Society by the BOA and how much land is in actual
possession. BOA in pursuance of the order of this Court conducted a
H
1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.
A survey and submitted its report dated 01.04.2017. In the Survey Report,
it has been mentioned that total allotment of land in favour of N.L.A.
Co-operative Society was 8 acres and members of the appellant-Society
are in possession of more area then allotted to it. It is not necessary for
us to consider or express any opinion in the above regard. In the event
B members of the appellant-Society are in possession of any excess area,
it is always open for the BDA to take such steps as permissible in law.
77. In result, Civil Appeals Nos.9790-9791 of2017 arising out of
SLP(C) Nos.5911-12 of2010 are allowed. Judgment of Division Bench
dated 11.12.2008 as well as judgment of the learned Single Judge dated
30.03.2007 a,re set aside and W.P. No.13404 of2005 is dismissed.
c
78. For the above reasons, Civil Appeal Nos.9792-9793 of
2017 arising out ofSLP(C) Nos.29553-29554 of 2011 are also allowed.
Ankit Gyan Appeals allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "land acquisition"Sign in to search