UMA SHANKAR & ORS.versusR. HANUMAIAH SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS. & ORS.

                       [2017] 3 S.C.R. 1013


                    UMA SHANKAR & ORS.                              A
                                v.
 R. HANUMAIAH SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS. &
                      ORS.
              (Civil Appeal Nos. 2576-2593 of 2017)                  B
                          MAY 12,2017
          [ARUN MISHRA AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
        Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4 and 48 - Land acquisition
- De-acquisition of land - On facts, issuance of notification dated C
14.10.2009 by the State Government for de-acquisition of land in
favour of the owner-respondent - Permissibility of- Held: State
Government committed contempt of this Court while issuing the said
 notification - It was not permissible exercise in view of the dictum
binding on all the parties - In view of inter parties judgment of this
 Court, there was 110 scope leji to de-acquire the property under the D
provisions of s. 48 - Notification was totally void, illegal and.
 conferred no right to respondent - Thus, no hearing to be given to
 respondent in the matter - Notification dated 13.11.2009 was right(v
 issued cancelling the previous notification dated 14.10.2009 as there
 could not be any de-acquisition of the land - Order passed by the E
 High Court is set aside since the High Court did not look into the
 binding precedent of this Court - Precedent.
      R. Hanwnaiah v. Bangalore Development Authority and
      Ors. (2002) 10 SCC 221; Muniyappa v. Bangalore
      Development Authority ILR 1992 Kant 125; Bangalore
                                                                     F
      Development Authority and Ors. v. R. Hanumaiah and
      Ors. (2005) 12 SCC 508 : [2005) 3 Suppl. SCR 901 -
      referred to.
                       Case Law Reference
        (2002) 10 sec 221              referred to    Para 4         G
        ILR 1992 Kant 125              referred to    Para 4
        [2005) 3 Suppl. SCR 901        referred to    Para 5
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2576-
2593 of2017.
                                                            H
                          1013
1014            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2017) 3 S.C.R.


 A           From the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.2014 of the High Court
       of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal Nos. 3051-67 of 2012 (LA-
       BDA) and Writ Appeal No. 3492 of2013
                                      WITH
             C. A. Nos. 2594-2611 of2017.
 B
            Sanjay Parikh, Ms. Ninni Susan Thomas, Pukhrambam Ramesh
       Kumar, Uday Manaktala, Avhinav Trehan, S. K. Kulkarni, Ms. K.
       Kulkarni, Ankur S. Kulkarni, Ad vs. for the Appellants.
            Naveen Chawla, V. Anand, T. Mahipal, Rohit Sharma, Rounak
 c     Nayak, V. N. Raghupathy, Advs. for the Respondents.
             The follwoing Order of the Court was delivered:
                                   ORDER
         1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order
 D passed by the High Court of Karnataka at ]3angalore in Writ Appeal
   Nos. 3051-3067 of 2012 and Writ Appeal No. 3492 of 2013, dated
   10.12.2014.
          2. Shocking state of affairs is reflected in the judgment of the
   High Court ofKarnataka. The lands had been acquired by issuance of
   notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,
 E "the Act") on 26.11.1959.
           3. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on
   28.09.1965 and award was passed on 29.11.1966. The amount of
   compensation was paid and possession of the land was taken in the year
   1975. Some incumbents sought for relief as regards to enhancement of
 F compensation amount by filing reference under Section 18 of the Act.
   On 26.06.1969 a resolution was passed by City Improvement Trust Board
   (CITB), Bangalore to re-convey an extent of 8 acres, 21 guntas of the
   total land acquired to R. Hanumaiah. Another resolution was passed
   by CITB on 19.04.1972 modifying its earlier resolution and agreeing to
 G re-convey 6 acres 20 guntas and 42 Sq.yards in favour ofR. Hanumaiah
   with some riders. After formation of site R. Hanumaiah filed petition
   before the High Court of Karnataka seeking mandamus directing the
   Bangalore Development Authority (BDA)to re-convey 6 acres and 20
   guntas and 42 Sq. yards of land as per resolution of CITB dated
   19.04.1972.
 H
   UMA SHANKAR v. R. HANUMAlAH SINCE DECEASED                                1015
               THROUGH HIS LRS.

       4. The learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka A
dismissed the Writ Petition No. 15487 of 1987 summarily at the admission
stage. The Writ Appeal filed by R.Hanumaiah was also dismissed
sununarily. Thereafter, R.Hanumaiah approached this Com1 by way of
filing appeal (R.Hanumaiah Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and
Ors.), (2002) 10 SCC 221 decided on 31.01.2001. This Court vide afore- B
mentioned judgment accepted the appeal and remitted the matter to the
Division Bench of the High Court to re-consider the matter on me1its, in
view of the contentions raised on behalfof R. Hanumaiah in a judgment
in Muniyappa vs. Bangalore Development Authority, ILR 1992 Kant
125 in which the High Court had taken the view that re-conveyance
was permissible.                                                         C
       5. The Division Bench after remand of the matter considered the
matter afresh and set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge
relying upon Muniyappa's case (supra). Aggrieved by the same, BDA
preferred the appeal before this Court (Bangalore Development Authority
and Ors. vs. R. Hanumaiah and Ors.),(2005) 12 SCC 508, decided on            D
03.10.2005. This Court had allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment
under appeal. While dealing with the matter this Court had held that
power of re-conveyance could not be exercised after vesting of the land
with the State Government under provisions of Section 48 of the Act.
The following discussion was made by this Court in the aforesaid decision:
                                                                        E
      "46. The possession of the land in question was taken in the year
      1966 after the passing of the award by the Land Acquisition
      Officer. Thereafter, the land vested in the Government which
      was then transferred to CITB, predecessor-in-interest of the
      appellant. After the vesting of the land and taking possession
      thereof, the notification for acquiring the land could not be F
      withdrawn or cancelled in exercise of powers under Section 48 ·
      of the Land Acquisition Act. Power under Section 21 of the
      General Clauses Act cannot be exercised after vesting of the
      land statutorily in the State Government.
       47. The High Court also erred in holding that land acquisition G
       process and the vesting process became incomplete since the
       land owners were asked to re-deposit the amount of compensation.
       High Court failed to lake notice of Section 31 of the Land
       Acquisition Act. Section 31 contemplates that on making of an
       award under Section 11 the Collector shall tender amount of H
1016      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2017] 3 S.C.R.


 A     compensation awarded by him to the person interested and entitled
       thereto according to the award and shall pay to them unless
       prevented by any one or more of the contingencies mentioned in
       the subsequent clauses. None of those contingencies arose in the
       present case. Thus, once the amount was tendered and paid the
       acquisition process was complete. After making the award under
 B
       Section 11 the Collector can take possession of the land under
       Section 16 which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the
       Government free from all encumbrances. Jn the instant case,
       after making the payment in terms of the award, possession was
       taken. The acquisition process stood completed. The subsequent
 c     development will not alter the fact that the acquisition was
       complete.
       48. This brings us to the last contention raised by the counsel for
       the respondent. Respondent placed on record copy of the letter
       No.UDD/260/2005 dated 12.7.2005 addressed by the Principal
 D     Secretary to the Government, Urban Development Department,
       Bangalore to the Commissioner, Bangalore Development
       Authority, Bangalore. This letter was addressed by the Urban
       Development Department with reference to Chief Minister's note
       No.CM/SCM-2/49/BDA/05 dated 5.7.2005. The letter reads as
       under:-
 E.
       "With reference to the above subject the copy of the note under
       reference is enclosed along with this Letter and the subject is self
       explanatory.
       I have been directed to inform you that in the light of the order of
 F     the Hon'ble Chief Minister, an extent of 6 acres 20 guntas of
       Land should be re-conveyed to Sri. R. Hanumaiah in accordance
       with the decision rendered by the High Court of Karnataka in
       Writ Appeal No.72711989, dated 9/10.7.2001, you should take
       necessary action immediately and send a report to the Government
       regarding the action taken."
G
       49. The Bangalore Development Authority sent their reply
       contending inter alia that the directions issued by the Chief Minister
       were contra1y to law and the third party rights· had set in and
       therefore, not capable of being implemented. Thereafter, there
       has been no communication from the office of the Chief Minister
H      to the BOA.
UMA SHANKAR v. R. HANUMAIAH SINCE DECEASED                                 1017
            THROUGH HIS LRS.

 50. The letter was written on behalf of the Government in purported       A
 exercise of its power under Section 65 of the Act which reads:
           "65. Government's power to give directions to the
 Authority- The Government may give such directions to the
 authority as in its opinion are necessary or expedient for carrying
 out the purposes of this Act, and it shall be the duty of the authority   B
 to comply with such directions."
 51. We do not agree with the contention raised by the counsel for
 the respondent that the directions issued by the Chief Minister
 through his note were binding on the BDA or that the BDA was
 bound in law to re-convey the land in terms of the directions issued      c
 in the impugned judgment. It has not been shown that the Chief
 Minister was authorised to issue the directions to the BDA to re-
 convey the land. Under Section 65 the Government can give
 such directions to the authority which in its opinion are necessary
 or expedient for carrying out the purpose of the Act. It is the duty
 of the BDA to comply with such directions. Contention that BDA            D
 is bound by all directions of the Government irrespective of the
 nature and purpose of the directions cannot be accepted. Power
 of the Government under Section 65 is not unrestricted. Directions
 have to be to cany out the objective of the Act and not contrary
 to the provisions of the Act. The Government can issue directions          E
 which in its opinion are necessary or expedient for "carrying out
 the purposes of the Act".
  52. Directions issued by the Chief Minister in the present case
  would not be to carry out the purpose of the Act rather it would
  be to destroy the same. Such a direction would not have the               F
  sanctity oflaw. Directions to release the lands would be opposed
  to the statute as the purpose of the Act and object of constituting
  the BDA is for the development of the city and improve the lives
  of the persons living therein. The authority vested with the power
  has to act reasonably and rationally and in accordance with law
  to carry out the legislative intent and not to destroy it. Direction      G
  issued by the Chief Minister run counter to and are destructive of
  the purpose for which the BDA was created. It is opposed to the
  object of the Act and therefore, bad in law. Directions of the
   Chief Minister is to re-convey the land in terms of the decision
   rendered by the High Court in the impugned judgment i.e. Writ            H
•· 1018      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2017) 3 S.C.R.


   A      Appeal No. 727 of 1989. Since we are setting aside the impugned
          judgment, the BDA as per directions issued by the Chief Minister
          cannot re-convey the land to the respondent in terms of the decision
          rendered by the High Court in the impugned judgment i.e. Writ
          Appeal No.727of1989.
   B                         xxx      xxx      xxx
          55. It is not in dispute that Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act
          would apply to the acquisitions made under the 1976 Act and in
          that view of the matt-er the Sfate could exercise its jurisdiction for
          re-conveyance of the property in favour of the owner thereof
          only in the event possession thereof had not been taken. Once
   c      such possession is taken even the State cannot direct re-convey
          the property. It has been accepted before us that Section 21 of
          the General Clauses Act has no application but reliance has been
          sought to be placed on Section 65 of the 1976 Act which empowers
          the Government to issue such directions to the authority as in its
  D       opinion are necessary or expedient for carrying out the purpose
          of the Act. The power of the -State Government being
          circumscribed by the conditions precedent laid down therein and,
          thus, the directions can be issued only when the same are
          necessary or expedient for carrying out the purpose of the Act.
          In a case of this nature, the State Government did not have any
   E      such jurisdiction and, thus, the Bangalore Development Authority
          has rightly refused to comply therewith.
                             xxx      xxx      xxx      xxx
          58. Bangalore Development Authority has been constituted for
   F      specific purposes. It cannot take any action which would defeat
          such purpose. The State also ordinarily cannot interfere in the
          day to day functioning of a statutory authority. It can ordinarily
          exercise its. power under Section 65 of the 1976 Act where a
          policy matter is involved. It has not been established that the
          ChiefMinister had the requisite jurisdiction to issue such a direction.
   G      Section 65 of the 1976 Act contemplates an order by the State.
          Such an order must conform to the provisions of Article 166 of
          the Constitution oflndia.
                             xxx      xxx     xxx       xxx
                             xxx      xxx      xxx      xxx
   H
   UMA SHANKAR v. R. HANUMAIAH SINCE DECEASED                              1019
               THROUGH HIS LRS.

      61. We accept this appeal and set aside the judgment of the High A
      Court as well as the directions issued by the State Government on
      the asking of the Chief Minister vide letter dated 12th July, 2005
      to the BDA to re-convey the land measuring 6 acres, 20 guntas
      and 42 Sq. Yds. to the !st Respondent. The judgment under
      appeal is set aside and that of the Single Judge is restored. The B
      writ petition is dismissed except to the extent that the 1st
      respondent would be entitled to re-claim the amount of
      compensation along with interest as indicated in the earlier
      paragraphs. Parties shall bear their own costs."
      This Court concluded the matter by aforesaid decision which
was binding on all concerned.                                              C
       6: Thereafter, as total misadventure, Writ Petition (C) No. 26826
of 2005 was filed by R. Hanumaiah in which ignoring the mandate of
this Court, the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka
passed an order on 10.06.2009 to give representation to the Government
for de-acquiring 6 acres 20 guntas for which there was absolutely no D
room. The direction was in violation of decision of this Court in the
same matter and such a petition ought not to have been entertained by
the High Court for a moment. However, the direction was given to the
Government to decide the representation. The said direction was stayed
in the W.-itAppeal filed by the BDA vide dated 12.06.2009.               E
       7. On 14.10.2009 in gross violation of the judgment rendered by
this Court, notification for de-acquisition was issued by the Government
of Karnataklh Consequently, the BDA as well as R. Hanumaiah
withdrew the legal proceedings. In the meantime, land had already been
allotted to Uma Shankar & Ors, appellants in the appeals before us.        F
They questioned the de-acquisition made under Section 48 of the Act by
way ofWP(C) Nos. 32919-32922 of2009. The Status quo was ordered
on 12.l 1.2009. However, the Government realized its blatant mistake
and withdrew the notification dated 14.10.2009 on 13.11.2009. The
withdrawal of the notification on 13.11.2009 of de-acquisition was
questioned by R. Hanumaiah by way of filing WP(C) No. 21186/2010.          G
The Writ Petition was dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka vi de
 order dated 20.04.2012 rightly and relying upon the judgment of this
 Court in 2005 directing that de-notification itself was not permission.

                                                                            H
1020              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 3 S.C.R.


 A            8. The Division Bench of the High Court, set aside the judgment
        and order passed by the Learned Single Judge;quashed the notification
        dated 13.11.2009 and directed the State ofKarnataka to reconsider the
        matter afresh by giving opportunity to R. Hanumaiah as well as the
        BDA.
 B        9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. We
   are of the considered opinion that it was total misadventure and rather
   contempt of this Court was committed by the State Government while
   issuing notification dated 14.10.2009 of de-acquisition ofland in favour
   ofR. Hanumaiah. It was not permissible exercise in view of the afore-
   mentioned dictum binding on all the parties. Even the conduct of the
 C then Chief Minister was adversely commented upon by this Court in the
   decision rendered in 2005. In view of inter parties judgment of this
   Court, there was no scope left to de-acquire the property under the
   provisions of Section 48 of the Act. .Thus, it was wholly impermissible
   exercise and notification issued on 14. l 0.2009 was totally void, illegal
 D and conferred no right to R. Hanumaiah. Thus no hearing was required
   to be given to R. Hanumaiah in the matter and there was no scope left to
   issue 3uch illegal notification which was in violation of the law laid down
   by this Court in the same case. The notification dated 13.11.2009 was
   rightly issued cancelling the previous notification dated 14. l 0.2009 as
   there could not be any de-acquisition of the land.
 E
                I 0. Thus, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
        Court is set aside. The High Court ought to have mentioned the decision
        of this Court of2005 which was relied upon by.the learned Single Judge.
        The High Couii has not taken care to look into the binding precedent of
        this Court. It was not at all proper and legal course adopted by the High
 F      Court to decide the matter and linger issue on violation of decision of this
        Court.
          11. The appeals are, therefore, allowed with cost ofRs. 5,00,0001
   -(Rupees Five Lakhs only) to be deposited by Lrs. Of respondent No. I
   with the Supreme Court Advocate-on Record Association within two
 G months from today and compliance be reported to this Court.
                12. Since this Court had directed the amount to be deposited with
         9% interest, we are informed by learned counsel on behalf of.EDA that
       . the said amount had been deposited on 02.12.2005 with the concerned
         Court. As per the provisions contained in Section 31 of the Act, since
 H
     UMA SHANK.AR v. R. HANUMAIAH SINCE DECEASED                              1021
                  THROUGH HIS LRS.

the amount had been deposited, it is open to the Legal representatives to     A
withdraw the same. The liability of BOA for interest ceases after the
date of deposit of compensation in the Court.


Nidhi Jain                                                Appeals ·nllowed.




                                                                                     •