SC takes exception to Karnataka HC's decision of allowing BDA to acquire land without hearing owner

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has taken exception to the Karnataka High Court's division bench allowing the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) to go ahead with acquisition of land of an aggrieved landowner in Arkavathy layout, without giving him an opportunity to contest the claim by the land development agency.

Holding it as violation of principles of natural justice, a bench of Justices B R Gavai and K Vinod Chandran set aside the High Court's division bench order of September 27, 2019 which allowed the BDA to acquire the particular land.

The court noted the single judge had given a finding that the appellant's land was entitled to exclusion, as the adjoining land was excluded and also because there were pre-existing structures before the preliminary notification in 2003.

On an appeal filed by landowner D M Jagadish, the bench said, "We find that the approach of the division bench in relying on the affidavit of the authority and closing the matter on the same day, without giving an opportunity to the appellant to meet the averments made in the said affidavit would be in violation of the principles of natural justice".

The court found well-reasoned order passed by the single judge has been reversed by the division bench based on the affidavit of the authority without giving an opportunity to the appellant herein to meet the averments made therein.

"We find that on this short ground alone, the appeal deserves to be allowed and, therefore, is allowed," the bench said.

The court set aside the 2019 judgment and remitted the matter back to the division bench of the High Court to consider it afresh in accordance with law.

"Needless to state that if the High Court finds that any further spot inspection is necessary, it may direct so. The parties are directed to maintain status quo as on the date of the order of the single judge of the High Court, until the decision of the writ appeal on remand," the bench said.

In the case, initially, a preliminary notification was issued on February 3, 2003 in respect of 380 acres 4 guntas of land. In the final notification of February 23, 2004, out of the said 380 acres 4 guntas, the acquisition in respect of 154 acres 26 guntas came to be dropped. A subsequent revised notification was issued on June 18, 2014, excluding a further area of 66 acres 3 guntas from acquisition.

The appellant's father filed a writ petition in the High Court, which quashed the acquisition. On appeal, the division bench upheld the acquisition but issued several directions, including allowing landowners to make applications within 30 days, if they wanted their land to be excluded from acquisition.

The appellant made the application contending the land abutting his land had been excluded from the acquisition and as such, the he was also entitled to the benefit. He also claimed, there were structures existing on the land in question prior to the preliminary notification.

The plea was rejected by the BDA, forcing him approach the HC again. The HC allowed the plea, with a direction to the land acquisition officer to conduct a spot inspection and consider his plea. As the officer conducted the inspection but did not pass any order, the appellant again moved the High Court.

On third occasion, the High Court's single judge bench held the appellant was entitled to relief. The division bench, however, allowed the appeal by the BDA, forcing the appellant to approach the apex court.