The Supreme Court has expressed its strong disapproval of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court closing a matter related to land acquisition for a layout on the same day, relying on an affidavit filed by the Bangalore Development Authority, without giving the appellant an opportunity to meet the averments made therein.
Terming it a violation of the principles of natural justice, the Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran set aside the September 27, 2019, order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, allowing the BDA to acquire the land belonging to the appellant, one DM Jagadish.
Noting that a well-reasoned order of the single-judge Bench had been reversed by the Division Bench, based on an affidavit of the authority, the top court of the country directed the High Court Division Bench to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law.
As per the case, a preliminary notification was issued on February 3, 2003, in respect of 380 acres 4 guntas of land. In the final notification issued on February 23, 2004, out of the said 380 acres 4 guntas, the acquisition in respect of 154 acres 26 guntas came to be dropped.
The effect being the area ad measuring 225 acres 18 guntas came to be covered under the final notification for acquisition. A subsequent revised notification was issued on June 18, 2014, which excluded a further area of 66 acres 3 guntas from acquisition.
The father of the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court in 2004 against the acquisition. The High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the acquisition. The respondents challenged the single-judge Bench order before the Division Bench.
On November 25, 2005, the Division Bench upheld the acquisition and issued several directions to the BDA.
It further permitted such owners of the land, whose lands were situated within the green belt where structures were existing; where they were totally built up; where there were buildings constructed by charitable, educational and/or religious institutions; nursery lands; who had set-up factories and the lands adjoining the ones which were excluded from acquisition, to file application before the BDA within 30 days.
The BDA was directed to pass appropriate orders after issuing notice and hearing the land owners.
It further ordered that till the completion of such an exercise, the possession of landowners was not to be disturbed, and the existing construction was not to be demolished.
The appellant then filed an application before the BDA within the prescribed period, urging that the land abutting his land had been excluded from the acquisition. He further said that he was entitled to the benefit of exclusion of his land from the acquisition. There were structures existing on the land in question prior to the preliminary notification being issued, noted the appellant.
The BDA, however, rejected his application on June 17, 2006. The decision was challenged by a writ petition. On the second occasion also, the petition was allowed with directions to the Land Acquisition Officer to conduct a spot inspection and consider the claim of the appellant for exclusion of land.
Although the Land Acquisition Officer conducted the inspection, he did not pass any orders. The appellant filed a writ petition for the third time in 2015. The single-judge Bench partly allowed the writ petition by its judgment and order of October 3, 2017.
The single-judge Bench came to a specific finding that the land adjoining the appellant’s land was excluded from the acquisition and as such, the appellant was also entitled to the benefit of exclusion. It was also found that there were structures existing on the land prior to the preliminary notification issued in 2003.
The BDA contended that the constructions were carried by the appellant on the land in question after the preliminary notification was issued.
The High Court, however, specifically rejected the said contention. It found that the appellant was entitled to the reliefs claimed. It further observed that this was the third round of litigation at the instance of the appellant and, therefore, it was appropriate not to remand the matter.
The single-judge Bench further took note of the fact that out of the land belonging to the appellant, 15 sites were already allotted to third parties. The High Court, therefore, directed that the benefit of the quashing of acquisition would not be applicable in the case of the 15 sites that were already allotted to third parties.
The BDA challenged the order before the Division Bench of the High Court.
The Apex Court noted that the Division Bench found from the inspection report of September 20, 2003, there existed one RCC roof building and four AC sheet rooms, the approximate age of the building was recent. As per the subsequent inspection report of March 28, 2006, conducted pursuant to the Division Bench order of November 25, 2005, it was noticed that there were further additional constructions.
The Division Bench found that the constructions appeared to have been done either after the preliminary notification was issued or just before the issuance of preliminary notification, having gotten wind of the possible land acquisition proceedings.
Despite the contention of the appellant that the adjoining lands were already excluded from acquisition, the Division Bench relied on an affidavit of September 12, 2019 sworn by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, BDA, to arrive at the conclusion that the land on the western side of the land of the appellants already stood acquired, noted the Apex Court.
Though the said affidavit was filed on September 12, 2019, the Division Bench, without giving any opportunity to the appellant to respond to the said affidavit, closed the matter for hearing on the very same day, though the judgment was subsequently pronounced on September 27, 2019, added the Apex Court.