<p> <br />While dismissing a petition of a land owner, a bench of Justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly said, “… the 1976 Act is a law enacted with reference to Article 31(2A) of the Constitution.”<br /><br />K K Poonacha had challenged a decision of the Bangalore Development Authority to acquire his land under the 1976 law which was enacted by the Karnataka Legislature.<br /><br />The Karnataka High Court, in its decision, had said acquisition of his land under the 1976 law was valid and legal.<br /><br />President’s assent<br /><br />Advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for Poonacha, submitted that the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 should be declared void on the ground that it did not have President’s assent.<br /> <br />Dave argued that such law made by any state to acquire land for development should have Presidential assent under the provision of Article 31(3) of the Constitution.<br /><br />As the law did not have the Presidential assent, the land of Poonacha acquired by the BDA should be returned, he argued. <br /><br />However, advocate Aftab Alam, appearing for the BDA, submitted that the 1976 Act is valid and was enacted for the establishment of an authority for the development of Bangalore city and its adjacent areas.<br /><br />The court also said an earlier judgment of the apex court 3-judge bench in Bondu Ramaswamy vs Bangalore Development Authority and others on land acquisition is valid and legal.<br /></p>
<p> <br />While dismissing a petition of a land owner, a bench of Justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly said, “… the 1976 Act is a law enacted with reference to Article 31(2A) of the Constitution.”<br /><br />K K Poonacha had challenged a decision of the Bangalore Development Authority to acquire his land under the 1976 law which was enacted by the Karnataka Legislature.<br /><br />The Karnataka High Court, in its decision, had said acquisition of his land under the 1976 law was valid and legal.<br /><br />President’s assent<br /><br />Advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for Poonacha, submitted that the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 should be declared void on the ground that it did not have President’s assent.<br /> <br />Dave argued that such law made by any state to acquire land for development should have Presidential assent under the provision of Article 31(3) of the Constitution.<br /><br />As the law did not have the Presidential assent, the land of Poonacha acquired by the BDA should be returned, he argued. <br /><br />However, advocate Aftab Alam, appearing for the BDA, submitted that the 1976 Act is valid and was enacted for the establishment of an authority for the development of Bangalore city and its adjacent areas.<br /><br />The court also said an earlier judgment of the apex court 3-judge bench in Bondu Ramaswamy vs Bangalore Development Authority and others on land acquisition is valid and legal.<br /></p>
