BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.] construction and reconstruction of buildings and formation A and alteration of streets;

(c) drainage, water supply and electricity;

(d) the reservation of not less than fifteen percent of the total area of the layout for public parks and playgrounds 8 and an additional area of not less than ten percent of the total area of the layout for civic amenities.

(2) may, within the limits aforesaid, provide for,- C (a) raising any land which the Authority may consider expedient to raise to facilitate better drainage ;

(b) forming open spaces for the better ventilation of the area comprised in the scheme or any adjoining area ; D (c) the sanitary arrangements required ;

[(d) x x x [omitted by Act 17 of 1984).

(3) may, within and without the limit~ aforesaid provide for the construction of houses". E

Section 17 lays down the procedure on completion of scheme and is extracted below:-

"17. Procedure on completion of scheme .- (1) When a F development scheme has been prepared, the Authority shall draw up a notification stating the fact of a scheme having been made and the limits of the area comprised therein, and naming a place where particulars of the scheme, a map of the area comprised therein, a statement specifying the land which is proposed to be acquired and G of the land in regard to which a betterment tax may be levied may be seen at all reasonable hours.

(2) A copy of the said notification shall be sent to the Corporation which shall, within thirty days from the date of H

90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R.

A receipt thereof, forward to the Authority for transmission to the Government as hereinafter provided, any representation which the Corporation may think fit to make with regard to the scheme.

(3) The Authority shall also cause a copy of the said B notification to be published in [ x x x ] the official Gazette and affixed in some conspicuous part of its own office, the Deputy Commissioner's Office, the office of the Corporation and in such other places as the Authority may consider necessary. c (4) If no representation is received from the Corporation within the time specified in sub-section (2), the concurrence of the Corporation to the scheme shall be deemed to have been given. D (5) During the thirty days next following the day on which such notification is published in the official Gazette the Authority shall serve a notice on every person whose name appears in the assessment list of the local authority or in the land revenue register as being primarily liable to pay the property tax or land revenue assessment on any building or land which is proposed to be acquired in executing the scheme or in regard to which the Authority proposes to recover betterment tax requiring such person to show cause within thirty days from the date of the receipt of the notice why such acquisition of the building or land and the recovery of betterment tax should not be made. (6) The notice shall be signed by or by the order of the (Commissioner} and shall be served,- G (a} by personal delivery or if such person is absent or cannot be found, on his agent, or if no agent can be found, then by leaving the same on the land or the building ; or

(b} by leaving the same at the usual or last known place of H

BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE 91

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.] abode or business of such person ; or A

(c) by registered post addressed to the usual or last known place of abode or business of such person.

Section 18 requires sanction of the scheme by the Government and reads thus : B

"18. Sanction of scheme .- (1) After publication of the scheme and service of notices as provided in section 17 and after consideration of representations, if any, received in respect thereof, the Authority shall submit the scheme, c making such modifications therein as it may think fit, to the Government for sanction, furnishing,-

(a) a description with full particulars of the scheme including the reasons for any modifications inserted therein 0

(b) complete plans and estimates of the cost of executing the scheme;

(c) a statement specifying the land proposed to be acquired ;

(d) any representation received under sub-section (2) of section 17;

(e) a schedule showing the rateable value, as entered in the municipal assessment book on the date of the publication of a notification relating to the land under the section 17 or the land assessment of all land specified in the statement under clause(c) ; and G (f) such other particulars, if any, as may be prescribed.

(2) Where any development scheme provides for the construction of houses, the Authority shall also submit to the Government plans and estimates for the construction of the houses. H

92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R.

A (3) After considering the proposal submitted to it the Government may, by order, give sanction to the scheme". Section 19 requires declaration to be published giving particulars of the land to be acquired, upon sanction of the scheme by the Government. B

18Copy pinpoint18. The contentions urged by learned counsel for appellants based on Parts IX and IX-A of the Constitution can be summarised thus :

c (i) BOA Act is a legislation relatable to Article 24~W and some of the matters listed in the Twelfth Schedule. Therefore BOA Act is deemed to be a law relating to Municipalities. Having regard to Article 243 ZF, any provision inconsistent with the provisions of Part IXA of the 0 Constitution, law relating to municipalities ceased to be in force on the expiry of one year from 1.6.1993. - the date of commencement of the Constitution 74th Amendment Act, 1992. (ii) After the insertion of Part IXA of-the Constitution, there cannot be any 'metropolitan area' other than what is declared by the Governor as a metropolitan area, as provided under Article 243P(c). Only an area having a population of 10 lakhs or more in one or more districts and consisting of two or more municipalities or Panchayats or other contiguous areas and specified by the Governor by a public notification to be a Metropolitan Area can be a 'Metropolitan Area'. Consequently, the 'Bangalore Metropolitan Area' as defined under section 2(c) of the BDA Act had ceased to exist and therefore BOA could not draw up any development scheme for Bangalore Metropolitan Area. (iii) A development scheme or an additional development scheme for Bangalore Metropolitan area which the BOA is required to draw up under Section 15 of the BOA Act H

BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE 93

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]

are conceptually and in effect same as the development plan with reference to a municipality referred to in Article 243W and a development plan for a metropolitan area referred to in Article 243ZE. After the insertion of Part IXA in the Constitution, a development plan for a metropolitan area can only be drawn up by a democratically elected representative body that is the Metropolitan Planning Committee by taking into account the factors mentioned in Clause (3) of Article 243ZE. Therefore on the expiry of one year from 1.6.1993 (the date on which Part IXA of the Constitution was inserted), BOA has no authority to draw c up any development scheme.

19Copy pinpoint19. Any statute or provision thereof which is inconsistent · with any constitutional provision will be struck down by courts. Consequently, if BOA Act or any provision of the BOA Act is found to be inconsistent with any provision of Part IXA of the D Constitution, it will be struck down by courts as violative of the constitution. In regard to any provision of any law relating to municipalities, Article 243ZF suspends such inva11dity or postpones the invalidity for a period of one year from 1.6.1993 to enable the competent Legislature to remove the inconsistency by amending or repealing such law relating to municipalitiPs to bring it in consonance with the provisions of Part IXA of the Constitution. Article 243ZF is a provision enabliny continuance of any provision of a law relating to municipalities in spite of such provision being inconsistent with the provisions of Part IXA of the Constitution for a specified period of one year. It does not extend the benefit of continuance to any law other than laws relating to municipalities; it also does not provide for continuance of a law for one year, if the violation is in respect of any constitutional provision other than Part IXA; G and it does not declare any provision of a statute to be inconsistent with it nor declare any statute to be invalid. The invalidity of a statute is declared by a court when it finds that a statute or its provision to be inconsistent with a constitutional provision. H

94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 O] 6 S.C.R.

20Copy pinpoint20. The benefit of Article 243ZF is available only in regard to laws relating to 'municipalities'. The term 'municipality' has a specific meaning assigned to it under Part IX-A. Article 243P(c) defines the word as meaning an institution of self- government constituted under Article 2430. Article 2430 refers B specifically to three types of municipalities. that is, a Nagar Panchayat for a transitional area, a municipal council for a smaller urban area and a municipal corporation for a larger urban area. Thus, neither any city improvement trust nor any development authority is a municipality, referred to in Article c 243ZF. Thus Article 243ZF has no relevance to test the validity of the BOA Act or any provision thereof. If BOA Act or any provision thereof· is found to be inconsistent with the provisions of Part IXA, such inconsistent provision will be invalid even from 1.6.1993, and the benefit of continuance for a period of one year permitted under Article 243ZF will not be available to such 0 a provision of law, as BOA Act is not a law relating to Municipalities.

21Copy pinpoint21. The Constitution (Seventy-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1992 inserting Part IX-A in the Constitution, seeks to strengthen the system of municipalities in urban areas, by placing these local self-governments on sound and effective footing and provide measures for regular and fair conduct of elections. Even before the insertion of the said Part IX-A, Municipalities existed all over the country but there were no uniform or strong foundations for these local self-governments to function effectively. Provisions relating to composition of Municipalities, constitution and composition of Ward Committees, reservation of seats for weaker sections, duration of Municipalities, powers, authority, responsibilities of Municipalities, power to impose taxes, proper superintendence and centralised control of elections to Municipalities, constitution of Committees for District Planning and Metropolitan Planning, were either not in existence or were found to be inadequate or defective in the state laws relating to municipalities. Part IX-A seeks to strengthen the democratic political governance at grass root

BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE 95

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.] level in urban areas by providing constitutional status to A Municipalities, and by laying down minimum uniform norms and by ensuring regular and fair conduct of elections. When Part IX-A came into force, the provisions of the existing laws relating to municipalities which were inconsistent with or contrary to the provisions of Part IX-A would have ceased to apply. To provide B continuity for some time and an opportunity to the concerned State Governments to bring the respective enactments relating to municipalities in consonance with the provisions of Part IX- A in the meanwhile, Article 243ZF was inserted. The object was not to invalidate any law relating to city improvement trusts or c development authorities which operate with reference to specific and specialised field of planned development of cities by forming layouts and making available plots/houses/ apartments to the members of the public.

22Copy pinpoint22. To enable the municipalities (that is municipal corporations, municipal councils and Nagar Panchayats) to function as institutions of self-government, Article 243W authorises the legislature of a state to endow to the municipalities, such powers and authority as may be necessary, by law. Such law made by the state legislature may contain provision for the devolution of powers and responsibilities upon municipalities, with respect to the following: (i) The preparation of plans for economic development and social justice; and F (ii) The performance of functions and implementation of schemes as may be entrusted to them including those in relation to the following matters (earmarked in the twelfth schedule): G

1. Urban planning including town planning.

2. Regulation of land-use and construction of buildings. H

96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R.

A 3. Planning for economic and social development.

4. Roads and bridges.

5. Water supply for domestic, industrial and commercial purposes. B

6. Public health, sanitation conservancy and solid waste management.

7. Fire services.

C 8. Urban forestry, protection of the environment and promotion of ecological aspects.

9. Safeguarding the interests of weaker sections of society, including the handicapped and mentally D retarded.

10. Slum improvement and upgradation.

11. Urban poverty alleviation.

E 12. Provision of urban amenities and facilities such as parks, gardens, playgrounds.

13. Promotion of cultural, educational and aesthetic aspects.

F 14. Burials and burial grounds; cremations, cremation grounds; and electric crematoriums.

15. Cattle pounds; prevention of cruelty to animals.

16. Vital statistics including registration of births and G deaths.

17. Public amenities including street lighting, parking lots, bus stops and public conveniences.

H 18. Regulation of slaughter houses and tanneries.

BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE 97

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.] The aforesaid powers and authority (enumerated in the twelfth A Schedule) may also be endowed to the Ward Committees which are required to be constituted, by Article 243S.

23Copy pinpoint23. On the other hand, the purpose and object of the BOA is to act as a development authority for the development of the . 8 city of Bangalore and areas adjacent thereto. The Preamble of BOA Act describes it as 'an Act to. provide for the establishment of a Development Authority for the development of the city of Bangalore and areas adjacent thereto and for matters connected therewith. The development contemplated . by the BOA Act is "carrying out of building, engineering or other C operations in or over or under land or the making of any material change in any building or land and includes redevelopment" (vide Section 2(j) of BOA Act. Therefore, the purpose is to make lay outs, construct buildings or carry out other operations in regard to land. Municipalities are not concerned with nor 0 entrusted with functions similar to those entrusted to BOA under the BOA Act, that is building, engineering or other operations by forming layout of plots with all amenities, construction of houses and apartments, as a part of any scheme to develop a city. Municipalities are concerned with the overall economic development providing sodal justice (urban poverty alleviation and slum improvement) regulating land use and constructions, providing amenities (roads, bridges, water supply, fire services, street lighting, parking, bus stops, public conveniences), promoting education and culture etc. Neither urban town planning nor regulation of land use and construction, is similar to the 'development' as contemplated in BDA Act, that is carrying out building, engineering operations in or over or under land. It would thus be seen that the object and functions of a Municipal Corporations are completely different from the object and purpose of a development authority like BOA. BDA is not a municipality. Therefore, it cannot be said that mere existence of Municipal Corporations Act, duly amended to bring it in conformity with Part IX-A of the Constitution, will nullify or render redundant, the BOA Act. H

98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 6 S.C.R.

24Copy pinpoint24. Article 243ZE no doubt provides that there ..sflall be constituted in every metropolitan area, a MetropolitEln Planning Committee to prepare a draft development plan for the metropolitan area as a whole. The metropolitan area is defined in clause (c} of Article 243P as an area having a population of B 10 lakhs or more comprised in one or more districts and consisting of two or more municipalities or panchayats or other contiguous areas specified by the Governor by a public notification to be a metropolitan area for the purpose of Part IXA. The Bangalore Development Authority is constituted inter c alia to draw up a detailed scheme for the Bangalore Metropolitan Area. The Bangalore Metropolitan Area is defined in Section 2(c) of the BOA Act and1be said definition need not necessarily be the same as or equivalent to any metropolitan area declared with reference to Bangalore under Article 243P(c) of the Constitution. It was submitted before the High 0 Court that the Governor had not issued any public notification specifying any area as metropolitan area, with reference to Bangalore city. Further the declaration of metropolitan area by the Governor, as provided in clause (c} of Article 243P is specifically with reference to the law relating to municipalities. The Bangalore Metropolitan Area as defined in the Bangalore Development Authority Act is only for the purpose of development i.e. development by way of building or engineering operations in or over or under land. Therefore neither the provision defining 'metropolitan area' in Article 243P(c) nor the provision for constitution of a Metropolitan planning committee for preparing a draft development plan for such metropolitan area under Article 243ZE has any relevance or bearing to the Bangalore Metropolitan Area with reference to which BOA has been constituted. G

25Copy pinpoint25. Next contention urged by the appellant is that in pursuance of Article 243ZE, KMC Act has been amended inserting Section 503-B providing for constitution of a Metropolitan Planning Committee for preparing a draft development plan for the Bangalore Metropolitan Area and

BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE 99

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.] therefore the Bangalore Development Authority can no longer function as an authority for development of metropolitan area, nor can it draw development schemes therefor. Development scheme to be drawn up by the BDA for development of Bangalore Metropolitan Area is specific i.e. acquisition of land, laying out or re-laying plots, formation of roads, construction of buildings, providing drainage, water supply and electricity and allot them to members of the public. On the other hand, the development plan for the metropolitan area as a whole, to be prepared by Metropolitan Planning Committee constituted under the KMC Act involves making a plan for overall development c with reference to the various functions enumerated in the twelfth Schedule, that is, plans for economic and social justice, planning for economic and social development, slum improvement and upgradation, urban poverty alleviation, and providing several urban amenities and facilities referred to in D the twelfth Schedule. It would thus be seen that the 'development scheme' formulated for Bangalore Metropolitan Area by BDA has nothing to do with a 'development plan' that has to be drawn by a municipality or by Metropolitan Planning Committee. The development plan to be drawn for a metropolitan area, by a Metropolitan Planning Committee should not be confused with E a development scheme to be drawn by a development authority like BOA for a metropolitan area. It should also be noticed that insofar as Bangalore is concerned,·the Bangalore Metropolitan Area as defined in Section 2(c) of the BDA Act is the area comprising the City of Bangalore as defined in the City of F Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, the area where the city of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 was immediately before the commencement of the BOA Act in force, and such other areas adjacent to the aforesaid, as the Government may from time to time by notification specify. On the other hand, the G Bangalore Metropolitan Area, referred to in Section 503-B of KMC Act is an area to be specified by the Governor by public notification under Article 243P(c) of the Constitution of India. In fact the Governor had not even specified the Bangalore Metropolitan Area for the purpose of KMC Act. Neither the H

100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R.

A Bangalore Metropolitan Area nor a Metropolitan Planning Committee is in existence under the KMC Act. In these circumstances, the contentions that the BOA Act, is no longer in force and that BOA has no jurisdiction or authority to draw up a development scheme to form layouts and acquire land to form lay outs in pursuance of any development scheme for Bangalore Metropolitan Area, is wholly untenable.

26Copy pinpoint26. The appellants submitted that the powers, authority and responsibilities, to be endowed by the State Legislatiure upon the Municipalities are enumerated in Article 243W read with Twelfth Schedule; that Articles 234ZD and 243ZE require the state government to constitute a District Planning Committee at District Level and a Metropolitan Planning Committee for every Metropolitan Area; that such Metropolitan Planning Committee is required to prepare a draft development plan for the Metropolitan Area as a whole. It was contended that the BOA Act was a Legislation which related to some of the responsibilities and functions of Municipalities, enumerated in the Twelfth Schedule to the Constitution read with Article 243W and that its provisions, in particular, sections 15 to 19 were inconsistent with the provisions of Part IXA of the Constitution; that no law can entrust powers and responsibilities referred to in Article 243W including those relating to matters listed in Twelfth Schedule to an authority other than an authority having popular mandate; and that therefore the BOA Act entrusting such powers and responsibilities to a non-elected authority ceases to be in force.

27Copy pinpoint27. While it is true that BDA is not an elected boqy like the municipality, it has several elected representatives as members. Section 3 relates to the Constitution of the Authority and provides that the Authority shall consist of 22 members and made up as follows : Six officers of the BOA viz., The Chairman, The Finance Member, The Engineering Member, The H Town Planning Member, The Commissioner and

BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE 101

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.] Secretary of the Authority. (All of them are full-time employees, three of them are specialists in finance,· engineering and town planning. Four elected representatives, that is, two members of state legislature assembly and two counsellors of Bangalore Municipal Corporation.

One representative of the state government and four representatives of statutory corporations, that is, the Commissioner of Bangalore Municipal Corporation and representatives of Bangalore Water Supply C Sewerage Board, Karnataka Electricity Board, and Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. Six members of the public (with minimum of one woman, one person belonging to SC/ST, and one 0 representing labour) One Architect. It would thus be seen that members of the BOA represent different interests and groups, technical persons and elected representatives. Further, no development scheme can be finalised or put into effect without the sanction of the State Government which in turn has to take note of any representation by the Bangalore Municipal Corporation in regard to the development scheme. Therefore, the mere fact that BOA is not wholly elected body as in the case of a municipal corporation will make no difference. The membership pattern is more suited to fulfil the requirements of a specialist agency executing development schemes. We therefore find no merit in the contention that provisions of BOA Act become inoperative, on G Parts IX and IX-A of the Constitution coming into force.

28Copy pinpoint28. The BDA Act empowers the Bangalore Development Authority to formulate schemes for the development of Bangalore Metropolitan Area. The word 'development' refers H

102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R.

A to building, engineering or other operations in regard to land, that is making layouts and making available plots for allotment to members of the public. It is authorised to acquire lands for execution of development schemes, prepare layouts and construct buildings, provide drainage, water supply and B electricity, provide sanitary arrangements, form open spaces, lease, sell or transfer the plots/immovable properties. The area in which the BOA Act operates is totally different from the areas in which Part IX A of the Constitution and KMC Act which relate to local self-government operate.

C Question (iii) - Re : BOA lacking territorial !urisdiction to draw up the development scheme

29Copy pinpoint29. The contention of appellants is that the villages in which the acquired lands are situated do not fall within the Bangalore o Metropolitan Area as defined in section 2(c) of the BOA Act, and consequently the BOA has no jurisdiction to either acquire lands or make a development scheme in regard to those areas. As noticed above, section 15 empowers the BOA to draw up development schemes or additional development schemes for the development of the Bangalore Metropolitan Area. Bangalore Metropolitan Area is defined in section 2(c) as the area comprising (i) the City of Bangalqre as defined in the City Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, 1949; (ii) the areas where the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 was immediately before the commencement of this Act was in force; (iii) such other areas adjacent to the aforesaid areas as the government may from time to time by notification specify. The areas in which the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 was in force immediately before the commencement of BOA G Act was the City of Bangalore and other areas adjoining the city specified by the state government from time to time by notification (vide section 1(2) of the said Act).

30Copy pinpoint30. The Government of Karnataka issued a notification dated 1.11.1965, under section 4A (1) of the 'Town Planning H Act' declaring the area comprising the City of Bangalore and

BON DU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE 103

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.] other areas (218 villages) enumerated in Schedule I thereto to A be the 'Local Planning Area' for the purposes of the said Act to be called as the Bangalore City Planning Area and the limits of the said planning area were as described in Schedule II thereto. All the 16 villages in which the lands were acquired for Arkavathi Layout fell within the said Bangalore City Planning B Area (that is within the 'other areas' described in the I Schedule).

31Copy pinpoint31. The Government of Karnataka is&iled another notification dated 13.3.1984 under section 4A (1) of the Town Planning Act declaring that the area comprising 325 peripheral villages around Bangalore as indicated in Schedule I to be Local Planning Area for the environs of Bangalore and the limits of the said planning area shall be as indicated in Schedule II thereto. It may be mentioned that the areas added by this notification were beyond the core area (Bangalore City) and the first concentric circle area which were already notified as the Bangalore City planning area under the notification dated 1.11.1965. Schedule II to the notification dated 13.3.1984 gave the boundaries of the entire local planning area of Bangalore which included not only 325 villages which were added by the said notification but the original planning area described and declared in the notification dated 1.11.1965. The following note was added after the Schedule II to the notification dated 13.3.1984 : "This excludes the Bangalore city local planning area declared (by) government notification No.PLN/42/MNP/65/ F S0/3446 dated 1.11.1965."

32Copy pinpoint32. Thereafter, the Government of Karnataka issued a notification dated 6.4.1984 under section 4A (3) of the Town Planning Act, amalgamating the 'Local Planning Area of G Bangalore' declared under notification dated 1.11.1965 and the 'Local Planning Area' declared for the environs of Bangalore by notification dated 13.3.1984. The said notification called the amalgamated Local Planning Area as the 'Bangalore City Planning Area' with effect from 1.4.1984. Schedule I to the said H

104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 6 S.C.R.

A notification consolidated the areas shown in Schedule I to the notification dated 1.11.1965 and the Schedule I to the notification dated 13.3.1984 and contained the names of 538 villages. It also confirmed that the limits of the planning area shall be as indicated in II Schedule to the notifications dated B 1.11.1965 and 13.3.1984.

33Copy pinpoint33. The Government of Karnataka issued a notification dated 1.3.1988 in exercise of the power under section 2(c) 0 1 the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 specifying the villages, indicated in I Schedule and within the boundaries indicated in II Schedule to the notification dated 13.3.1984, to be the areas for the purpose of the said clause. The contention of the petitioner is that the notification dated 1.3.1988 only specifies the villages indicated in the notification dated 13.3.1984 as Bangalore Metropolitan area; that therefore, the areas that were earlier declared as a local planning area under the notification dated 1.11.1965, were not part of Bangalore Metropolitan area; and that as all the 16 villages which were the subject matter of the impugned acquisition, were part of the local planning area declared under notification dated 1.11.1965, E but not part of the local planning area declared under the notification dated 13.3.1984, the said 16 villages do not form part of the Bangalore Metropolitan Area for the purpose of section 2(c) of the BOA Act; and consequently, BOA cannot execute any development scheme in regard to the said 16 F villages under section 15 of the BOA Act.

34Copy pinpoint34. A careful reading of the notification dated 1.3.1988 would show that the clear intention of the state government was to declare the entire area declared under the notification dated 1.11.1965 and the notification dated 13.3.1984, together as the G Bangalore Metropolitan Area. The notification dated 1.3.1988 clearly states that the entire area situated within the boundaries indicated in Schedule II to the notification dated 13.3.1984 was the area for the purpose of section 2(c) of BOA Act. There is no dispute that the boundaries indicated in Schedule II to the H

BON DU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE 105

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.] notification dated 13.3.1984 would include not only the villages A enumerated in I Schedule to the notification dated 13.3.1984 but also the area that was declared as planning area under the notification dated 1.11.1965. This is because the areas declared under notification dated 1.11.1965 are the core area (Bangalore City) and the area surrounding the core area that B · is 218 villages forming the first concentric circle; and the area declared under the notification dated 13.3.1984 (325 villages) surrounding the ar~a declared under the notification dated 1.11.1965 forms the second concentric circle. Therefore, the boundaries of the lands declared under the notification dated c 13.3.1984, would also include the lands which are declared under the notification dated 1.11.1965 and therefore, the 16 villages which are the subject matter of the impugned acquisition, are part of the Bangalore Metropolitan Area.

35Copy pinpoint35. The learned counsel for the Appellants contended that the note at the end of II Schedule to the notification dated 13.3.1984 excluded the Bangalore city planning area declared under the notification dated 1.11.1965. As the planning area that was being declared under the notification dated 13.3.1984, was in addition to the area that was declared under the notification dated 1.11.1965, it was made clear in the note at the end of the notification dated 13.3.1984 that the area declared under the notification dated 1.11.1965 is to be excluded. The purpose of the note was not to exclude the area declared under the notification dated 1.11.1965 from the local planning area. The intention was to specify what was being added, to the local planning area declared under the notification dated 1.11.1965. But in the notification dated 1.3.1988, what is declared as the Bangalore Metropolitan Area is the area that is within the boundaries indicated in schedule II to the notification dated 13.3.1984, which as noticed above is the area notified on 1.11.1965 as also the area notified on 13.3.1984. The note in ·the notification dated 13.3.1984 was only a note for the purposes of the notification dated 13.3.1984 and did not form part of the notification dated 1.3.1988. There H

106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 6 S.C.R.

A is therefore no doubt that the intention of the state government was to include the entire area within the boundaries described in Schedule II, that is the area declared under two notifications dated 1.11.1965 and 13.3.1984, as the Bangalore Metropolitan Area. B

36Copy pinpoint36. In fact ever since 1988, everyone had proceeded on the basis that the Bangalore Metropolitan Area included the entire area within the boundaries mentioned in Schedule II to the notification dated 13.3.1984. Between 1988 and 2003, BOA had made several development schemes for the areas C in the first concentric circle around Bangalore City (that is, in the 218 village described in I Schedule to the notification dated 1.11.1965) and the state government had sanctioned them. None of those were challenged on the ground that the area was not part of Bangalore Metropolitan Area. 0

37Copy pinpoint37. It is true that the wording of the notification is clumsy and ambiguous. It refers to the villages indicated in Schedule I and it also refers to villages within the boundaries of Schedule II. It also states that the area stated in the notification is the area for the purpose of section 2(c) of BOA Act. It is well settled that when there is vagueness and ambiguity, an interpretation that would avoid absurd results should be adopted. The interpretation put forth by the appellants, if accepted would mean the outer centric circle of Bangalore which consists of only the peripheral villages would be the Bangalore Metropolitan Area and neither the Bangalore city nor the 218 villages immediately adjoining and surrounding the Bangalore city would form part of Bangalore Metropolitan Area. This, to say the least, is absurd and will be in direct violation of section 2(c) G of BOA Act which states that Bangalore City and the areas surrounding it where City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 was in force, will form part of Bangalore Metropolitan Area.

38Copy pinpoint38. Let us view it from another angle. Bangalore City forms the central corE. area or the innermost circle. The adjoining 218 H villages enumerated in the notification dated 1.11.1965

BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE 107

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.] surrounding Bangalore City form the first concentric circle. The A peripheral villages described in Schedule I to the notification dated 13.3.1984 form the second concentric circle which surrounds the central core area and the areas within the first concentric circle. To interpret Bangalore Metropolitan Area as referring only to the peripheral villages and not the core city area and its adjoining villages would be like saying the outer skin of a fruit is the fruit and the entire fruit inside does not form part of the fruit.

39Copy pinpoint39. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that if the notification dated 1.3.1988 is interpreted as including the inner areas, then it would amount to reading the words "Government of Karnataka hereby specifies the villages indicated in Schedule I and within the boundaries indicated in Schedule II to the notification dated 13.3.1984 to be the area for the purpose of the said Clause" as follows: D "Government of Karnataka hereby specifies the villages indicated in Schedule I and the villages within the boundaries indicated in Schedule II to the notification dated 13.3.1984 to be the areas for the purpose of the said E clause".

It is submitted that a casus omissus cannot be supplied by courts where the language is clear and unambiguous and is capable of an intelligible interpretation. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this court in Dr. Baliram Waman Hiray v. F Justice 8. Lentin & Ors. - 1988 (4) SCC 419, and S.R. Bommai & Ors. v. UOf & Ors, - 1994 (3) sec 1 and several declsicms following them, to contend that the court cannot, in interpreting a provision, supply any casus omissus. The doctrine of casus omissf.Js was e)(pl;:iinec:f thus in American G Jwisprudf)nce, 2nd Sl3ri~s Vol, 73 ai pagf) 397 : '1t is a gener;:il rule that tile court r•. ay not by construction insert words or p!lrases in a statute or sµpply a cas(.Js omiss1.1s by giving force and effect to the l;:inguage of the statute when applied to a H

108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R.

A subject about which nothing whatever is said, and which, to all appearances, was not in the mind of the legislature at the time of the enactment of law". But the position will be different where the language is ambiguous and an intelligible interpretation would require addition of words particularly when the intention 8 of the State Government is clear and evident and it is reiterated by the State Government and the BDA. Justice G.P. Singh in his Principles of Statutory Interpretation (2008 Edition - Page 65) expresses the view that when the object or policy of a statute can be ascertained, imprecision in its language should C not be readily allowed in the way of adopting a reasonable construction which avoids absurdities and incongruities and carries out the object or policy. This Court has also repeatedly emphasised that although a court cannot supply a real casus omissus, nor can it interpret a Statute to create a casus omissus when there is really none. In Padma Sunder Rao v. D State of Tamil Nadu 2002 (3) SCC 533, a Constitution Bench of the this Court held : •..... a casus omissus cannot be supplied by the court by judicial interpretative process, except in the case of clear necessity and when reason for it is found in the four corners of the statute itself, but at the same time a casus omissus should not be readily inferred and for that purpose all the parts of a Statute or section must be construed together and every clause of a section should be construed with reference to the context and other clauses thereof so that the construction to be put on a particular provision makes a consistent enactment of the whole Statute."

40Copy pinpoint40. Let us now refer to the wording and the ambiguity in the notification. Section 2(c) of BOA Act makes it clear that the city of Bangalore as defined in the Municipal Corporation Act is part of Bangalore Metropolitan Area. It also makes it clear that the areas where the city of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 was in force, is also part of Bangalore Metropolitan Area. It contemplates other areas adjacent to the aforesaid areas H

BON DU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE 109

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.] being specified as part of Bangalore Metropolitan Area by a A notification. Therefore, clearly, the area that is contemplated for being specified in a notification under Section 2(c) is "other areas adjacent" to the areas specifically referred to in Section 2(c). But it is seen from the notification dated 1.3.1988 that it does not purport to specify the "such other areas adjacent" to B the areas specifically referred to in section 2(c), but purports to specify the Bangalore Metropolitan Area itself as it states that it is specifying the "areas for the purpose of the said clause". If the notification specifies the entire Bangalore Metropolitan Area, the interpretation put forth by the appellants c that only the villages included in Schedule I to the notification · dated ii 3.3.1984 would be the Bangalore Metropolitan Area, would result in an absurd situation. Q_~iously the city of Bangalore and the adjoining areas whic~ere notified under the city of Bangalore Improvement Act-4 945 are already 0 included in the Bangalore Metropolitan Area and the interpretation put forth by the appellants would have the effect of excluding those areas from the Bangalore Metropolitan Area. As stated above, the core area or the inner circle area, that is Bangalore City, is a part of Bangalore Metropolitan Area in view of the definition under Section 2(c). The 218 villages specified E . in the notification dated 1.11.1965 are the villages immediately surrounding and adjoining Bangalore city and it forms the first concentric circle area around core area of Bangalore city. The 325 villages listed in I Schedule to the notification dated 13.3.1984 are situated beyond the 218 villages and form a F wider second concentric circle around the central core area and the ·first concentric circle area of 218 villages.•That is why the notification dated 1.3.1988 made it clear that the Bangalore Metropclitan Acea would be the area within the boundaries indicated in II Schedule to the notification dated 13.3.1984. It G would mean that the three areas, namely, the central core area, the adjoining ·?18 villages constituting the first concentric circle area and the 'hext adjoining 325 villages forming the second con·centric circle are all included within the Bangalore Metropolitan Area. What is already specifically included by H

110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R.

A Section 2(c) of BOA Act cannot obviously· be excluded by notification dated 1.3.1988 while purporting to specify the additional areas adjoining to the areas which were already enumerated. Therefore, the proper way of reading the notification dated 1.3.1988 is to read it as specifying 325 B villages which are described in the First Schedule to the notification dated 13.3.1984 to be added to the existing metropolitan area and clarifying that the entire areas within the boundaries of Second Schedule to the notification dated 13.3.1984 would constitute the Bangalore Metropolitan Area. c There is no dispute that the boundaries indicated in the notification dated 13.3.1984 would clearly include the 16 villages which are the subject mater of the acquisition.

41Copy pinpoint41. We therefore, reject the contention of the appellant that Bangalore Development Authority does not have territorial jurisdiction to form any development scheme in regard to the 16 villages which are th&subject matter of the final declaration dated 23.2.2004.

Question Civl - Re : Invalidity of final declaration with reference to time limit in section 6 of Land Acquisition Act.

42Copy pinpoint42. This question arises from the contention raised by one of the appellants that the provisions of section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('LA Act" for short) will apply to the acquisitions under the BOA Act and consequently if the final declaration under section 19(1) is not issued within one year from the date of publication of the notification under sections 17 (1) and (3) of the BOA Act, such final declaration will be invalid. The appellants submissions are as under : The notification under sections 17(1) and (3) of the Act was issued and gazetted on 3.2.2003 and the declaration under section 19(1) was issued and published on 23.2.2004. Section 36 of the Act provides that the acquisition of land under the BOA Act within or outside the Bangalore Metropolitan Area, shall be regulated by the provisions of the LA Act, so far as they are applicable. Section 6 of LA Act requires that no declaration shall

,.., BONPU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE 111 "' DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.] be mad~.:!!J respect of any land covered by a notification under section 4 of the LA Act, after the expiry of one year from the __ .J' date of the publication of such notification under section 4 of LA Act. As the provisions of LA Act have been made applicable to acquisitions under BOA Act, it is necessary that the declaration under Section 19(1) of BOA Act, (which is equivalent to the final declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act), should also be made before the expiry of one year from the date of publication of notification under Sections 17 (1) and (3) of BOA Act (which is equivalent to Section 4(1) of LA Act).

43Copy pinpoint43. BOA Act contains provisions relating to acquisition of properties, up to the stage of publication of final declaration. BOA Act does not contain the subsequent provisions relating to completion of the acquisition, that is issue of notices, enquiry and award, vesting of land, payment of compensation, principles relating to determination of compensation etc. Section 36 of D BOA Act does not make the LA Act applicable in its entirety, but states that the acquisition under BOA Act, shall be regulated by the provisions, so far as they are applicable, of LA Act. Therefore it follows that where there are already provisions in the BDA Act regulating certain aspects or stages of acquisition E or the proceedings relating thereto, the corresponding provisions of LA Act will not apply to the acquisitions under the BOA Act. Only those provisions of LA Act, relating to the stages of acquisition, for which there is no provision in the BDA Act, are applied to the acquisitiqns under BOA Act. BOA Act F contains specific provisions relating to preliminary notification and final declaration. In fact the procedure up to final declaration under BOA Act is different from the procedure under the LA Act · relating to acquisition proceedings up to the stage of final notification. Therefore, having regard to the Scheme for G acquisition under sections 15 to 19 of BDA Act and the limited application of LA Act in terms of section 36 of BDA 1\ct, the provisions of Sections 4 to 6 of LA Act will not c.fipiy to the acquisitions under BDA Act. If section 6 of LA Act is not made applicable, the question of amendment to section 6 of ~·Act H

112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R.

A providing a time limit for issue of final declaration, will also not · apply.

44Copy pinpoint44. Learned counsel for the BOA submitted that the issue 0

is no longer res integra. He submitted that in Munithimmaiah B vs. State of Kamataka - 2002 (4) SCC 326, this Court held that the BOA Act is a special and self-contained code; that BDA and LA Act cannot be said to be either supplemental to each other, er pari materia legislations; that BOA Act could not be said to be either wholly unworkable and ineffectual if the subsequent amendments to the LA Act are not imported into C BOA Act; and that the amendments to LA Act subsequent to the enactment of the BOA Act did not get attracted or become applicable to acquisitions under the BDA Act either by express provision or by necessary intendment or implication. He therefore submitted that the appellants cannot rely upon the amendment to Section 6 of LA Act requiring publication of the final declaration within one year from the date of publication of the preliminary notification, to contend that the final declaration under the BOA Act should be made within one year from the date of preliminary notification. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the issue whether the provisions of LA Act as amended would apply to acquisitions under laws relating to town planning has been referred to a larger Bench of this Court and the decision therein will have a bearing on the issue whether amendments to the provisions of LA Act F would apply to acquisition under laws relating to City Improvement Trusts and development authorities. It is unnecessary to enter into the controversy whether the amendments to LA Act inserting Section 11A\ would apply to acquisitions under Town Planning Laws or City Improvement/ 3 Development Laws, as that issue does not arise here. As noticed above, when section 6 of the LA Act itself is inapplicable to acquisition under BOA Act, the question whether amendment to Section 6 will apply will not arise. We accordingly hold that the final declaration dated 23.2.2004 does not suffer from any infirmity on account of the same having been

BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE 113

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]

published a few days beyond one year from the date of publication of the preliminary notification under sections 17 (1) and (3) of the BOA Act. : ~ Question (v) - Re : Applicability of sections 4, 5A and 16 of LA Act B

45Copy pinpoint45. The appellants contend that the provisions of sections 4, 5A and 6 of LA Act apply to the acquisitions under the BOA Act and the acquisition is liable to be quashed, as being in violation of the said provisions. Different appellants have raised two distinct and somewhat inconsistent contentions to say that C sections 4 to 6 of LA Act are applicable.

46Copy pinpoint46. The first contention is as follows : The BOA Act relates to development of Bangalore Metropolitan Area. It is not an Act for acquisition of property. Sections 15 and 19 when read with 0 section 36 of BOA Act, can lead to only a conclusion that for acquisition of lands for its development schemes, BOA has to resort only to the provisions of LA Act, in entirety and BOA Act does not provide for or empower BOA to make acquisitions. Section 15 enables the authorities to draw-up development schemes or additional development schemes for development of Bangalore Metropolitan Area. Section 15 does not confer any power to acquire land. Section 16 only specifies the particulars to be provided for in the development schemes and does not empower BOA to acquire land. The reference to acquisition in clause (1)(a) of section 16 is not to empower acquisition, but merely to provide that every development scheme shall, within the limits of the area comprised in the scheme provide for acquisition of any land which will be necessary for or affected by the execution of the scheme. Section 16(1}(a) therefore refers to only identifying the lands to be acquired and does not authorise acquisition. Section 17 contains the procedure to be followed when the development · scheme has been prepared. Section 18 refers to the need for the BOA to submit the scheme to the Government for its sanction, and grant of sanction by the Government. Neither H

114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R.

A section 17 nor section 18 authorise the BOA to acquire land. Section 19 requires a declaration to be published by the Government stating that it had sanctioned a development scheme of BOA, and the lands proposed to be acquired by the authority are required for a public purpose. Therefore, the actual acquisition as such should follow the declaration under section 19 of the BOA Act by issuing a preliminary notification under section 4, by an inquiry under section 5A and a final declaration under section 6 of the LA Act, followed by an award, reference etc. Sectiofl 36 of the BOA Act provides that acquisitions shall be regulated by the provisions of LA Act, as far as they are applicable. This makes it clear that the entire acquisition will have to be made under the provisions of the LA Act. BOA has all along proceeded on a wrong assumption that it has the power to acquire property under the BOA Act when it has no such power. 0

47Copy pinpoint47. The assumption by the appellant that Chapter Ill of the BOA Act relating to development schemes does not provide for acquisition is erroneous. Sections 15 to 19 of the BOA Act contemplate drawing-up of a development scheme or additional development scheme for the Bangalore Metropolitan Area, containing the particulars set down in section 16 of the said Act, which includes the details of the lands to be acquired for execution of the scheme. Section 17 requires the BOA on preparation of the development scheme, to draw-up and publish in the Gazette, a notification stating that the scheme has been made, showing the limits of the area comprised in such scheme and specifying the lands which are to be acquired. The other provisions of section 17 make it clear that the BOA has to furnish a copy of the said notification and invite a representation from the Bangalore City Corporation, affix the notification at conspicuous places in various offices, and serve notice on every person whose land is to be acquired. Thus, the notification that is issued under section 17(1) and published under section 17(3), is a preliminary notification for acquiring the lands required for the scheme under the Act. Section 17(5) and

BON DU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE 1 115/ 1

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.] ,, / section 18 (1) requires BOA to give an opportunity to landowners to show cause against acquisition and consider the representations received in that behalf. Section 18 (1) also requires BOA to furnish a statement of the lands1)jroposed to be acquired to the State Government for obtaining it~,,,$~r;u~tion for the scheme including the acquisition. Sub-seq~idn (1) of section 19 requires the Government to publish a"declaration upon sanctioning the scheme, declaring that such a sanction has been given and declaring that the "lands proposed to be acquired by the authority" are required for public purpose. Sub- section (3) of section 19 makes it clear that the declaration c published under section 19(1) should be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose and that the Authority shall, upon publication of such declaration, proceed to execute the same. Thus, it is clear that the acquisition by the Authority for the purposes of the development scheme is 0 initiated and proceeded with under the provisions of the BOA Act. Section 36 of BOA Act provides that the "acquisition of land under this Act", shall be regulated by the provisions, so .. far as they are applicable of the LA Act. fo view of the " categorical reference in section 36 of the BDA Act, to acquisitions under that Act, there cannot be any doubt that the acquisitions for BDA is not under the LA Act, but under the BDA Act' itself. It is also clear from section 36 that LA Act, in its entirety, is not applicable to the acquisition under the BOA Act, but only such of the provisions of the LA Act for whK:h a corresponding provision is not found in the BDA Act, will apply to acquisitions under the BDA Act. In view of sections 17 to 19 of the BDA Act, the corresponding provisions - Sections 4 to 6 of the LA Act-will not apply to acquisitions under the BDA Act. We therefore reject the contention that the BDA Act does not contemplate acquisition and that the acquisition which is required to be made as a part of the development scheme, should be made under the LA Act, applying sections 4, SA and 6 of LA Act.

48Copy pinpoint48. The second contention urged by the appellants is as H

116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R.

A follows : A development authority is a City Improvement Trust referred to in Entry 5 of the State List (List II of the Seventh Schedule). 'Acquisition of property' is a matter enumerated in Entry 42 in the Concurrent List (List Ill of the Seventh Schedule). LA Act relating to acquisition of property, is an existing law with B respect to a matter (Entry 42) enumerated in the Concurrent List. BOA Act providing for acquisition of property is a law made by the State Legislature under Entry 42 of the Concurrent List. Article 254 of the Constitution provides that if there is any repugnancy between a law made by the State Legislature (BOA c Act) and an existing central law in regard to a matter enumerated in the Concurrent List (LA Act), then subject to the provisions of clause (2) thereof, the existing Central law shall prevail and the State law, to the extent of repugnancy, shall be void. Clause (2) of Article 254 provides that if the law made by the State Legislature in regard to any matter enumerated in the 0 Concurrent List, contains any provision repugnant to an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the State Legislature, if it had been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, shall prevail in that State. It is contended that the provisions of section 19 of E the BOA Act are repugnant to the provisions of section 6 of the LA Act; and as BOA Act has not been reserved for consideration of the President and has not received his assent, section 6 of LA Act will prevail over section 19 of BOA Act.

49Copy pinpoint49. This contention also has no merit. The question of repugnancy can arise only where the State law and the existing Central law are with reference to any one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List. The question of repugnancy arises only when both the legislatures are competent to G legislate in the same field, that is, when both the Union and State laws relate to a subject in List Ill. Article 254 has no application except where the two laws relate to subjects in List Ill [See: Mis. Hoechst Pharmaceuticals vs. State of Bihar - 1983 (4) SCC 45]. But if the law made by the State Legislature, H covered by an Entry in the State List, incidentally touches upon

BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE 117

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.] any of the matters in the Concurrent List, it is well-settled that it will not be considered to be repugnant to an existing Central law with respect to such a matter enumerated in the Concurrent List. In such cases of overlapping between mutually exclusive lists, the doctrine of pith and substance would apply. Article 254(1) will have no application if the State law in pith and substance relates to a matter in List II, even if it may incidentally trench upon some item in List Ill. (See Hoechst (supra), Megh Raj v. Allah Rakhia AIR 1947 PC 72, Lakhi Narayan v. Province of Bihar AIR 1950 FC 59). Where the law covered by an Entry in the State List made by the State Legislature c contains a provision which directly and substantially relates to a matter enumerated in the Concurrent List and is repugnant to the provisions of any existing law with respect to that matter in the Concurrent List, then the repugnant provision in the State List may be void unless it can co-exist and operate without 0 repugnancy to the provisions of the existing law. This Court in Munithimmiah (supra) has held that the BOA Act is an Act to provide for the establishment of a development authority to facilitate and ensure planned growth and development of the City of Bangalore and areas adjacent thereto, and that acquisition of any lands, for such development, is merely E incidental to the main object of the Act, that is development of Bangalore Metropolitan area. This Court held that in pith and substance, the BOA Act is one which squarely falls under Entry 5 of List II of the Seventh Schedule and is not a law for acquisition of land like the LA Act, traceable to Entry 42 of List · F Ill of the Seventh Schedule, the field in respect of which is already occupied by the Central Act, as amended from time to time. This Court held that if at all, BOA Act, so far as acquisition of land for its developmental activities is concerned, in substance and effect will constitute a special law providing for G acquisition for the special purposes of BOA and the same will not be considered to be a part of the LA Act. The fallacy in the contention of the appellants is that it assumes, erroneously, that BOA Act is a law referable to Entry 42 of List Ill, while it is a law referable to Entry 5 of List II. Hence the question of H

118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 6 S.C.R.

A repugnancy and Section 6 of the LA Act prevailing over Section 19 of BDA Act would not at all arise.

50Copy pinpoint50. We may next refer to the argument that there is no enquiry as contemplated under section 5A of the LA Act. The assumption that a final declaration under section 19 has to be. 8 preceded by an inquiry, similar to what is contemplated under section 5A of LA Act, is without any basis. Section 5A of LA Act relates to hearing of objections. Sub-section (1) thereof provides that any person interested in any land which has been notified under section 4(1) as being needed or likely to be needed, for a public purpose, may, within thirty days from the date of the publication of the notification, object to the acquisition. Sub-section (2) of section 5A of LA Act provides that every objection under sub-section (1) of section 5A shall be made to the Collector and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by any person authorised by him in that behalf or by a pleader and shall after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either make reporUs in respect of the land which has been notified under section 4(1) to the appropriate Government, containing the recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him for the decision of the Government, and the decision of the appropriate Government on the objection shall be final. We have already held that section F 5A is inapplicable to acquisitions under the BDA Act. The scheme of BDA Act also contemplates consideration of objections but does not require any personal hearing or inquiry. Sub-section (5) of section 17 of the BDA Act requires that during the thirty days next following the date on which the G preliminary notification under section 17(1) and (3) is published, the authorities shall serve a notice on every person whose name appears in the assessment list/land revenue register, requiring such person to show-cause within thirty days from the date of receipt of the notice why such acquisition should not be made. H Sub-section (1) of section 18 provides that the authority shall,

BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE 119

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.] after service of notices as provided in section 17 and after consideration of the representations, if any received in respect thereof, shall submit the scheme, making such modifications therein as it may think fit for Government for sanction. It would thus be seen that while the scheme for acquisition under the LA Act and the BDA Act contemplates notice to the landholders/persons interested, the procedure thereafter is markedly different. While LA Act requires an 'enquiry' where the Dy. Commissioner is required to give the objectors opportunity of being heard in person and conducting such further inquiry as he thinks necessary, BDA Act requires issuing c notices to the persons interested to show-cause why acquisition should not be made and consider the representations received. No personal hearing or 'enquiry' is contemplated. Therefore, it is impermissible to import the requirement of section SA of LA Act in regard to acquisitions 0 under the BOA Act.

51Copy pinpoint51. In view of the above, the contention that the BOA Act has to yield to LA Act and consequently, the provisions of sections 4, 5 and 6 of LA Act will be applicable and have to . be complied with for acquisitions under the BOA Act, does not have any merit and the same is rejected. Question (vi)- Re : Non-compliance with section 15 to 19 of the BOA Act. . . ...

52Copy pinpoint52. The appellants contend that a clear and specific development scheme is fundcimentcil pre-requisite for an acquisition and in the present case there was no such scheme ; before the acquisition was initiated. It is submitted that sanction · of the Government to the development scheme is a condition prececjent for publication of a q139laration uncler Section 1~(1) G· of the Act. It is submittec:1 that the requirement of a sanction has Ileen reduced to an empty formality, firstly by BOA not placing the necessary material before the Government, secondly, by government by rnshing through the entire process without proper H

120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R.

A application of mind and thirdly by the Chief Minister giving administrative sanction, without placing the· matter before the Cabinet as required by the relevant Transaction of Business Rules. We will deal with each of these submissions separately. B (al Absence of specificity and discrepancy in extract.

53Copy pinpoint53. Chapter Ill of BOA Act relates to development schemes. Section 15 provides that authority may draw up a d~tailed scheme for the development of the Bangalore Metropolitan Area. It also provides that the Authority can also from time to time make and take up new or additional development schemes either on its own initiative or on the recommendation of the local authority or otherwise. Section 16 provides that the development scheme under section 15 shall, within the limits of the area comprised in the scheme, provide for acquisition of land which will be necessary for execution of the scheme, laying and re-laying out of land (including construction or reconstruction of buildings) and formation and alteration of streets, drainage, water supply, electricity, and reservation of space for public parks and playgrounds and civic amenities. When the development scheme is prepared the authority is required to draw up a notification as stated in Section 17(1 ). The said notification has to be published in the Official Gazette, and a copy thereof sent to the Bangalore City Corporation for its comments. Notices have to be served on the land holders to show cause why the land should not be acquired. After such publication and service of notices and after consideration of the representations the authority is required to submit the scheme making such modification as it may think fit to the Government for sanction furnishing the documents/ G details as stated in Sub-section (1) of Section 18. On consideration of the development scheme, the Government may grant sanction for the same. Upon such sanction, the Government shall publish a declaration stating that sanction has been granted and the land proposed to be acquired by the authority for the purpose of the scheme is required for the public purpose.

BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE 121

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [RV. RAVEENDRAN,J.]

54Copy pinpoint54. Let us consider whether the said provisions have been complied with in this case. On 2.1.2001 the Executive Engineer (North) of BOA, submitted a scheme report dated 1.1.2001 for development of Hennur Devanahalli Road Extension covering an area of 1650 acres in 12 villages (that is Hennur, Geddalahalli, Byrathi Khare, Thanisandra, K. Narayanapura, B Rachenahalli, Sriramapura, Venkateshpura, Sampigehalli, Amruthahalli, Dasarahalli, and Jakkur). It contemplated the execution of the development in three stages: laying 4524 sites in 300 acres in the first stage, 12817 sites in 850 acres in the second stage and 7539 sites in 500 acres in the third stage, c in all 24880 sites. It also gave the detailed working of the cost of the development scheme and the amount expected to be realised by allotment/sale of plots and made it clear that it will be a self-financing scheme.

55Copy pinpoint55. On receipt of the said scheme report, the Surveyors D of BDA made a survey and reported that about 3000 acres of land will be available in 14 villages, that is, the twelve villages mentioned in the report dated 2.1.2001 and two other villages namely Kempapura and Challakere. Therefore, the Addi. Land Acquisition Officer placed a note, reporting that surveyors had E located about 3000 acres of land and suggestirig that the layout may be named as Arkavathi layout instead of Hennur Devanahalli Road layout. The;! Commissioner agreed with the proposal on 8.10.2002 and placed the scheme before the Authority. The Authority considered it in its meeting dated F 10.10.2002 and approved the proposal and decided to issue a preliminary notification for 3000 acres of land in regard to 14 villages. Subsequently with a view to have proper access to the layout certain lands in Hebbala and Nagavara were also added. Thereafter, the preliminary notification dated 3.2.2003 under G section 17(1) was published by the Commissioner, BOA, proposing to acquire the lands shown in the Schedule to the notification. The preliminary notification also contained an abstract of the extents of lands proposed to be acquired for formation of Arkavathi layout. It is stated that the proposal H

122 • SUPREME COURT REPORTS (201 O] 6 S.C.R.

A contemplated of utilisation of about 500 acres of government land also which did not require acquisition and consequently, the total extent was shown as 3389A.12G in the abstract. A corrigendum was issued showing the extent as 3889A.12G. A copy of the notification was forwarded to the Bangalore City B Corporation and notices were also issued to the persons registered as the owners of the lands proposed to be acquired requiring them to show cause why such acquisition should not be made. After consideration of the representations the authoril/ modified the scheme by deleting 1089.12 acres and c submitted the modified scheme for acquisition of 2750 acres in 16 villages to the Government for its sanction. The Government sanctioned the scheme for formation of Arkavathi layout vide Government Order No. UDO 193 MNX 204 dated 21.2.2004. Thereafter a final notification dated 23.2.2004 was issued by the Government of Karnataka under section 19(1) of 0 the Act and published in the Gazette on the same day. The said notification stated that the Government has sanctioned the layout and the lands stated in the Schedule ~herein were required for the public purpose for formation of the Arkavathi E layout. We have repeated the reference to the events in detail to show that there has been due compliance with the provisions of Sections 15 to 19 of the Act.

56Copy pinpoint56. The mere fact that there were modifications from time to time or that some of the lands originally proposed were thereafter omitted will not in any way affect the validity of the ,scheme. Similarly the fact that acquisition was initially .·contemplated in regard to lands in only 12 villages and that two villages were added by the authority in October, 2002 for making a bigger layout or the fact that two other villages were also added to provide better access to the layout will not be in ~ · ·violation of the scheme. Such additions were all made by the Authority prior to the issue of preliminary notification. The fact . , 1 that there were changes in extent does not make the scheme vague or uncertain. Necessarily a preparation of a development scheme would contemplat~ survey and ascertainment of

BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE 123

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.] suitable available land for acquisition and preparation of a A scheme. Before the scheme is finalised there will necessarily be modifications and changes. Even publication of a notification under sections 17(1) and (3) of the Act stating that the scheme has been made and specifying the lands which are proposed to be acquired is subject to a revision on B consideration of representations/objections and deletions warranted. Therefore the mere fact that there were some modifications from time to time between 2001 when the initial proposal was mooted till the issue of the notification under Sections 17(1) and (3) or that some lands were omitted/deleted c in the declaration under Section 19(1) will not effect the validity of the scheme. In fact deletion of some items of land or reducing the extent proposed to be acquired in some items of land, when issuing final declaration is made is quite .common and is indeed a result of the process prescribed under any Act providing for 0 acquisitions. The changes and modifications are infact contemplated in the process of making the scheme under Sections 15 to 19 of BOA Act. (bl Non-furnishing of material particulars to the Government for purpose of sanction. E

57Copy pinpoint57. The appellants submitted that for obtaining sanction the BOA had to submit the scheme, after making sucfl modifications as it may think fit, to the Government for sanction, furnishing (a) a description with full particulars of the scheme F including the reasons for any modifications inserted therein; (b) complete plans and estimates of the cost of executing the scheme; (c) a statement specifying the land proposed to be acquired; (d) any representation received under section 17(2) of the BOA Act from the Bangalore City Corporation; (e) a G schedule showing the rateable value, as entered in the Municipal assessment Book relating to the land under section 17 or the land assessment of all lands specified in the statement under clause (c); and (f) any other particulars as may be prescribed. H

124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R.

58Copy pinpoint58. The Commissioner, addressed a letter dated 13.2.2004 to the Principal Secretary to Government, Urban Devell)pment Department, seeking sanction. The said letter referred to the preliminary notification, the subsequent consideration of representations/objections and the resolution B dated 3.2.2004 to acquire 2750 acres of land, preparation of a project for formation of a layout with 28,600 sites at a cost of Rs.981.36 crores under Section 15(2) of BOA Act and requested for sanction under section 18(3) of the BOA Act and publication of the final declaration in the Official Gazette under c section 19(1) of the Act. The Government having examined the proposal, sent a letter dated 17.2.2004 seeking the following clarifications/particulars: (a) Information as to how the Authority will bear the expenses for the proposed project and whether it will bear it from its own sources; (b) Copies of the project map; and (c) Copies of the final declaration. The required particulars 0 were furnished by BOA. The state government, after considering them made an order dated 21.2.2004 granting permission as under (vide Government Order No.NAE 193 BLA 2004 made in the name of the Governor) :

E "(3) The Bangalore Development Authority has obtained the approval of the General Body to procure the sanction of the Government to the Arkavathi Layout Scheme and to procure issuances of a final notification under Section 19(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 F for the purpose of formation of the layout over available 2750 acres of land as per the No.43/2004 in the meeting of the Authority dated 2.3.2004. As per the approval of the General Body, the Authority has in the letters referred to above put forward a proposal seeking for the sanction of G the Government for the Arkavathy Layout Scheme as well as for the issuance of the Final Notification. The Authority has informed that it will meet out of its coffers the entire expenditure that would be incurred for the proposed scheme. After executing 589 acres 12 guntas from the total extent of 3339 acres 12 guntas notified in the preliminary

BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE 125

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]

notification, the proposal for sanction of the scheme as per A Section 18(3) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 for the Arkavathy Layout Scheme in 2750 acres of land involving the following scheme particulars have been considered. B Sy. Name of Appro- Extent of No. of sites Executed Expected No. the Layout xi mate land proposed recovery total saving Extent proposed to be (Rs. in (Rs. In Acres to be formed crores) crores) Guntas acquired Acres Guntas c 1 Arkavathy 933-47 2750-00 28600 of 981.36 47.89 varying dimens- ions

The approximate cost of the Arkavathy Layout, which is D being referred to in the Proposal of the Bangalore Development Authority, is Rs.933.47 crores. The approval has been given under Section 18(3) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 subject to the following conditions: E

1. The Bangalore Development Authority shall bear all the expenses to be incurred for the implementation of the scheme from its own resources and shall not expect any financial assistance from the Government for the same. F

2. For the implementation of the said scheme, the Government shall not be the guarantor for any of the loans that may be taken by the BOA. It shall be the sole responsibility of the BOA to repay the said loan amount. G

3. The Government shall to be party to any transactions that the BDA may enter into with respect to the proposed scheme.

4. With respect to the proposed scheme if the land has to be converted for using it, it shall be mandatory to get pre- H

126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 6 S.C.R.

A approval from the Government".

The zonal regulation shall be strictly followed and the requisitions shall be complied with."

59Copy pinpoint59. The appellants contended that the fact that the non- B furnishing of the said information/documents showed that the scheme was not finalised or complete when the proposal was sent to the Government for approval and BDA had not even prepared a map of the area to be acquired and therefore there was non-compliance with the requirements of section 18(1) of C the BDA Act by BDA and that in the absence of necessary material, there could not have been proper application of mind by the Government for granting the sanction.

60Copy pinpoint60. Section 18 is clear about the material to be furnished 0 by the BDA for seeking sanction of the scheme. On examining the records of the BDA and the Government, the Division Bench recorded a finding that all the required particulars had been furnished so that the Government can apply its mind. In fact, the notings show that in response to the further information sought by the Government on 17.2.2004, the Authority furnished the required information, that is, the Authority will bear the entire expenses for Akravathi layout project from its own sources, it also noted that the BDA had informed that the preparation of the project map was at the final stage and will be furnished after completion thereof. This of course shows that the project map was not ready either on 17.2.2004 when the BDA sent its reply to the letter dated 17.2.2004 or at the time the Government granted sanction on 21.2.2004. But what is relevant to be noticed is that the project map was not one of the documents that had to be furnished by the BOA while seeking sanction of the scheme. We have already referred to the documents and particulars to be furnished by the BOA. The project map was not one of the items that had to be furnished. In fact the scheme report had been submitted by the Executive Engineer, North Division of BOA to the Engineer Member on 5.2.2004 itself and that had been made available to the Government. The

BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE 127

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.] Government in its reply stated that whatever particulars that were required to be furnished, had been furnished and they were satisfied that the scheme required to be sanctioned. It is only thereafter sanction was granted. We therefore reject the contention that the material required for seeking sanction had not been furnished by the BDA to the Government. B Ccl Absence of valid sanction bv the Government

61Copy pinpoint61. As far as the BDA is concerned, there is thus due compliance with Sections 18 and 19 also. Bui the appellants would contend having regard to the provisions of the Karnataka C Government Transaction of Business Rules, 1977, the sanction for the scheme under Section 18(3) could validity be given only by a decision of the Cabinet; and that in these cases, the decision of the Government was based on the order of the Chief Minister and not the Cabinet, and therefore, sanction was not D a valid sanction in law. As noticed above, the BDA sent the scheme approved by the authority for the sanction of the Government by writing a letter to the Principal Secretary to the Government Urban Development Department on 13.2.2004. By the time the communication reached the Government, there was E a demand for dissolution of the House on 16.2.2004 and the House was dissolved on 21.2.2004. In the meanwhile, certain clarifications were sought on 17.2.2004 which were furnished on the same day. The file was processed and the matter was placed before the Chief Minister who had the dual capacity of F Chief Minister and the Minister-in-charge of Bangalore Development Authority. The Chief Minister approved the proposal on 20.2.2004. The noting placed by the concerned Ministry and the order of the Chief Minister thereon are extracted below : G "(10) The above receipt is kept at page no.11. Kindly peruse note para 1 to 6. On the background of paras 6 to 9, few information from authority (page 10) was sought, the authority has furnished to the required information (page- 11 ). The authority has informed in the said letter that it will H

128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R.

A bear the expenses required for the Arkavati layout Extension Project from its sources itself and the preparation project map is at final stage, it will be furnished after completion. And also the construction work of the Arkavati layout extension has to be taken immediately and the sites has to be distributed to the publics hence the authority has requested to give approval for the Arkavathi ~~ layout extension and the final notification has to be published. ,; (11) The authority has informed that it will bear the c expenses for the proposed project out of its source its self hence the necessity of getting ratification of the Finance Department for this proposal does not arise.

(12) According to Rule 15 of Government of Karnataka D (Execution of Business) Rules 1977, the ratification of the Cabinet is required for the expenses of project works which is more than 500 lakh rupees. On this background, the ratification of Cabinet has to be obtained for the below mentioned points : E (a) To issue Government's approval for the Arkavathi Layout extension project approximately of Rs.981.36 crores under section 18(3) of Bangalore Development Authority Act.

F (b) To publish final notification under section 19(1) of Bangalore Development Authority Act for the available 2750 acres land for construction of Arkavathi layout extension (page 138-1212). It may be requested Hon'ble Chief Minister for according ratification before tabling the G file for ratification of the Cabinet.

xxxxxxxx

Chief Minister,

H PSCM 1180/2004/20.2.2004

BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE 129

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [RV RAVEENDRAN, J.]

(14) Pending ratification by the Cabinet, para 12(a) and A (b) is approved. Sd/- (S.M. Krishna) Chief Minister" B Subsequently the matter was placed before the Cabinet and ratified.

62Copy pinpoint62. The appellants contend that such an order by the Chief Minister and ratification thereof were invalid, having regard to Rules 12, 20 and 21 read with Entry 36 in the First Schedule C of the Karnataka Government (Transaction of Business) Rules

1977. Rule 12 provides that there shall be a Committee of the Council of Ministers to be called the Cabinet and all matters referred to in the First Schedule to the Rules shall ordinarily be considered at a meeting of the Cabinet. Rule 20 provides that cases specified in the First Schedule to the Rules shall be brought before the Cabinet after submission to the Minister-in- charge of the Department; and cases other than those specified in the First Schedule should be brought before the Cabinet by the direction of the Chief Minister, or the Minister-in-Charge of the Department with the consent of the Chief Minister. Rule 21 provides that subject to provisions of Rule 20 all cases specified in the First Schedule to the Rules shall be brought before the Cabinet. Entry 36 of the First Schedule relates to "all self- financing schemes of local bodies including the Urban F Development Authorities, the Karnataka Housing -Board and such other statutory bodies". In this case the matter (relating to sanction under section 18(3) of BOA Act) was placed before the Chief Minister who also happened to be the Minister-in- Charge on 20.2.2004. He granted the approval subject to G ratification by the Cabinet. In view of the subsequent ratification by the Cabinet there is nothing irregular in the procedure adopted. The delay in ratification was on account of the dissolution of the house. H

130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R.

63Copy pinpoint63. The contentions that the sanction is void, is untenable. As noticed above, Rule 12 requires that the matter should ordinarily be considered at a meeting of the Cabinet. This itself shows that there can be exceptional circumstances where it will not be possible to place it before the Cabinet. The approval B granted by the Chief Minister, subject to the ratification of the Cabinet was treated by the Urban Development Department as approval for the sanction under Section 18(3) and a Government order was made on 21.2.2004 in the name of the Governor granting sanction under section 18(3) of the BDA Act. c The State Government also issued a final declaration under Section 19(1) of BDA Act. It is thus evident that the State Government proceeded on the basis that the order of approval of the Chief Minister for the sanction, was sufficient for grant of sanction. Even if it is to be assumed that such approval was irregular as it was made subject to ratification, as the ratification was subsequently made, the challenge for want of proper approval of the Cabinet for the sanction cannot be accepted. question (vii) : Re : Discrimination, malafides and arbitrariness :

64Copy pinpoint64. We may start with the following preliminary facts :

Date Stage Area F proposed to be acquired (i) 2.1.2001 Initial proposal by the Executive 1650 Acres Engineer (North) (12 villages) (ii) 10.12.2002 Resolution of Bangalore 3000 Acres Development Authority to issue (14 villages) G a p!:f!liminary notification under sections 17(1) and (3) of the Act (iii) 3.2.2003 Area notified in the preliminary 3339 acres notification under section 17(3) 12 guntas of SDA Act (in 16 villages) H

BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE 131

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.] (iv) 16.9.2003 Corrigendum regarding notifica- 3839 acres tion u/s. 17(3) of BOA Act 12 guntas (in 16 villages) (v) 3.2.2004 Resolution of BOA to implement 2750 acres Arkavathy Scheme .(in 16 villages) (vi) 23.2.2004 Declaration under section 19(1) ,2750 acres of BOA Act. (in 16 villages)

The proposal placed before the Authority and resolution dated 3.2.2004 of the Authority (approving the scheme to be placed before the Government for sanction) proceeded on the basis that the total area notified proposing acquisition was 3339 acres 12 guntas, and the area deleted/withdrawn from the said area notified in the preliminary notification on examining the representations was 589 acres 12 guntas and therefore the final declaration for acquisition was for 2750 acres. This was the scheme that was placed for approval before the state government. The state government also in the sanction order dated 21.2.2004 granted sanction for acquisition of 275 acres after noting that 589 acres 12 guntas was excluded from the proposed extent of 3339 acres 12 guntas, after considering 'the representations received in pursuance of notices issued \Jnder Section 17(5) of BDA Act. But when the cases came up before the High Court and this court, the categorical case of BDA is that the total area notified under section 17(1) and (3) of the BDA Act, was 3839 acres 12 guntas and that the area deleted/ F excluded was 1089 acres 12 guntas. How the preliminary notification extent area increased by 500 acres and how the area deleted also increased exactly by 500 acres is not properly explained and is virtually a mystery. Different .explanations have been given at different points of time. G

65Copy pinpoint65. On behalf of BDA, an affidavit dated 14.3.2007 was filed before us wherein it is disclosed that in regard to a question put regarding deletion in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, the followino particulars were furnished on 25.1.2006: H

132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 6 S.C.R.

A (i) Extent of land acquired 2626 acres 13 guntas

(ii) Extent dropped in the final 1089 acres 12 guntas Notification

B (iii) Extent of government lands 487 acres 11 guntas Included in formation of Arkavathi layout

In a statement furnished in this Court on 20.3.2006, BDA gave c the break up as under:

(i) Extent as per preliminary 3839 acres 12 guntas Notification

(ii) Extent deleted after preliminary : 1089 acres 12 guntas 0 Notification

(iii) Extent of government lands 459 acres acquired as per final notification E (iv) Extent of private land acquired : 2291 acres 2750 acres as per final notification Another statement furnished to us shows 500 acres have been deleted under the heading "religious institutions".

66Copy pinpoint66. The appellants contended that the deletion of as much as 1089 acres 12 guntas from out of 3839 acres 12 guntas proposed to be acquired under the preliminary notification would mean that more than 28% was deleted. Several deletions formed islands within the acquired areas. Some of the deletions in some villages were of such a magnitude that what remained of the acquisition in those villages were small and negligible islands completely surrounded by acquired/deleted lands making it difficult or impossible to effectively use such remaining land for development. Such an extensive deletion can

.BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE 133 D~VELOPMENT AUTHORITY [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]

lead to the following two inferences: (i) that there was total non application of mind when the proposal was made and without proper survey and by completely ignoring the ground realities about the constructed areas, suitability and availability for acquisition and other relevant circumstances, BOA in extreme haste had proposed acquisition; and/or (ii) the deletion of such vast areas,showed that the deletions were arbitrarily made or to favour a chosen few.

67Copy pinpoint67. The learned Single Judge after examining the facts held that there were improper inclusions and exclusions which amounted to hostile discrimination. He held that the acquisition of certain lands and non-acquisition or deletion from acquisition of some other similarly situated lands situated in the same area, was arbitrary and discriminatory, violative of Article 14of the Constitution. He further held that the BOA had failed to furnish any plan showing the details of the lands proposed for acquisition, lands deleted from acquisition, built up areas and the lands originally not incluqed in the acquisition, even though they were in the midst of the acquired lands. The learned Single Judge also noticed that in regard to the deletion of 500 acres, no reasons have been assigned. E

68Copy pinpoint68. The Division Bench agreed with the single Judge that there were improper inclusions and exclusions amounting to discrimination. The Division Bench was of the view that though the single Judge was justified in holding that there was discrimination in acquiring the land, that alone cannot be a ground for quashing the entire acquisition of 2750 acres. The Division Bench also noticed that the BDA had not traversed the allegations regarding discrimination specifically and even a bare perusal of the map showed that 2750 acres sought to be acquired, did not form a contiguous area. In particular he referred to the haphazard manner in which the acquisition of deletions were made in Kempapura and Srirampura villages. The Division Bench noticed that even in other villages small extents of acquired lands were completely surrounded by large H

134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R.

A chunks of areas which were either not acquired or deleted from acquisition, making access to such notified land difficult. In the circumstances instead of setting aside the acquisition, in view a memo and the memo filed by the BDA proposing certain remedial measures, the Division Bench decided to give an B opportunity to all the landowners (excluding site owners) who had taken the plea of discrimination to file an appropriate application before the BDA for deletion of their lands from acquisition and to substanti51te their contention by producing such evidence as was available with them. c 69. The BOA does not seriously dispute the fact that there were some amount of arbitrariness and discrimination in the matter of inclusions and exclusions. Apart from that we find that even in this court the BOA has not come up with true and correct position. As noticed above the break up of deletions 0 and the reasons for such deletions have not been disclosed. The extent of deletion without explanation has jumped from 589.12 acres to 1089 acres 12 guntas. The BOA has not chosen to explain the exact extent of the government land involved. E

70Copy pinpoint70. Even the map produced showing the 2750 acres of acquired land and 1089 acres 12 guntas of deleted area contains several discrepancies. For example, in regard to Sampigehalli, the map produced before us shows that the F entire extent of the village has been acquired except the village proper (Abadi) and survey Nos.1 O and 11. But we find that survey Nos.1 Oand 11 are not in fact deleted and the declaration shows those survey nos. as acquired. In the same village a perusal of the preliminary notification and final declaration shows that Survey Nos.38/2A, 44/10, 44/11, 44/13, 44/14, 44/ G 15 and 46/4 have been omitted in the final declaration but the plan shows no such omission. On the other hand, it shows the entire village as having been acquired.

71Copy pinpoint71. We give below the particulars of the area notified and H

BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE 135

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.] deleted to get a true picture of the magnitude of deletions and · A the resultant discrimination:

s. Name of the Extent notified Total extent Extent dropped No. village in the notified in from preliminary the final acquisition B notification dt. declaration while issuing 3.2.2003 dated final 23.2.2004 declaration (in Acre. (in Acre. Gunta) Gunta)

1. Dasarahalli 380.04 225.18 154.22 c

2. Byrathikhare 86.07 77.25 8.22

3. Chellakere 155.03 135.14 19.29

4. Geddalahalli 210.22 133.24 76.38

5. K. Narayanpura 195.13 133.05 62.08 D

6. Rachenahalli 396.29 298.03 98.26

7. Thanisandra 557.04 482.07 74.37

8. Amruthahalli 196.11 139.01 56.10

9. Jakkur 422.28 360.24 62.04 E

10. Kempapura 55.13 26.38 28.15

11. Sampigehalli 401.39 256.20 145.21

12. Sriramapura 196.35 94.13 102.22

13. Venkateshpura 95.65 60.13 34.28 F

14. Hennur 262.22 140.21 122.01

15. Hebbala 59.01 59.14

16. Nagavara 169.16 127.00 42.16 Total 3839A.12G. 2750A. 1089 A. 12 G. G

72Copy pinpoint72. The acquisition was for planned development of the c'ity and to avoid haphazard growth. But when the layout plan is examined with reference to the preliminary notification and final declaration, several startling facts emerge. We may first refer to the pick. and choose method adopted with reference H

136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R.

A to Kempapura and S~iramapura villages, to which the division bench maC:.a specific reference.

(i) In Kempapura village, large areas, that is nearly 50% of the area of the village (Sy. No.2, 4 to 16, 23, 24, 30, 31) had not been included in the preliminary notification, B even though the entire surrounding area had been notified. Only 55.13 acres were notified in the preliminary notification but the final declaration was only in regard to 26A.38G and the remaining 28A.15G (more than 51% of what was notified) were deleted. After deletion of Sy. No.1, c 3, 18(Part) and 33 the entire northern portion (north of the Road bisecting the village) is free from acquisition (except part of Sy. No.17). Even in the southern portion of the village, there are haphazard deletions.

D (ii) In Srirampura village, quite a few lands (Sy. No.2, 3, ?(Part), 13, 62, 64, 65) were not included in the preliminary notification even though all the surrounding areas had been notified. Further, out of total area of 196A.35G notified in the preliminary notification, only 94A.13G find a place in the final declaration and the remaining 102A.22G (more than 52% of what was notified) were deleted. The 11cquired lands of 94A.13G are not in a contiguous block~ but in eleven odd shaped pockets. The deletions and initial omissions make it impossible to have orderly development in regard to acquisition in this village. Some of the pockets are of such odd shape and size that BOA proposes to leave them as stand alone parks/open spaces/community centres, without any development.

73Copy pinpoint73. We find the haphazard and arbitrary exclusions are in several other villages also, though not to the extent in Kempapura and Sriramapura. We may refer to some of them:

(i) Venkateshapura is a comparatively small village. All the lands were proposed for acquisition under the preliminary notification (except a block consisting of Sy. No.6, 7 and

BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE 137

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.] 8) in all measuring 95A.05G. Virtually the entire southern and western portions of the village have been omitted in the final declaration and only 60A.13G are included in the final declaration. But the entire southern portion of the village (about 30 acres) have been deleted except four small pockets which have not been deleted : B

(b) Sy. No.33 and 34 measuring 2A.06G and 1A.18G, in all 3A.24G; C

(c) Sy No.37/2 measuring 2A.10G.

(d) Sy. No.19/1 measuring 3A.31 G.

There is no explanation as to why, when all surrounding lands D are deleted these small four pockets are acquired.

(iii) In Challakere also we find haphazard deletions. We may refer to two stand alone pockets, that is land ~o the east of Sy. No.104 and t.he land to the east of 100. H

138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R.

A What we have referred above is illustrative and not exhaustive. Similar pockets of small extents of acquired lands surrounded by lands which are not acquired/deleted, exist in other villages also.