LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 applies to land acquisitions made under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976.
CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Law
Case Name: Bangalore Development Authority & Anr. vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors.
Judgment Date: 20 January 2022
Date of the Judgment: 20 January 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 43
Judges: S. Abdul Nazeer, J., Sanjiv Khanna, J.
The Supreme Court of India addressed a crucial question regarding land acquisition for the Peripheral Ring Road (PRR) project in Bangalore. The core issue was whether the 2013 Land Acquisition Act applies to acquisitions made under the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) Act of 1976. This judgment clarifies the legal framework governing land acquisition by the BDA, impacting numerous ongoing and future development projects. The judgment was authored by Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.
Case Background
The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) proposed a Peripheral Ring Road (PRR) in 2006 to ease traffic congestion in Bangalore. The project was sanctioned by the Karnataka government in 2007. The BDA initiated land acquisition proceedings, leading to several writ petitions in the High Court of Karnataka challenging the acquisition notifications. These petitions raised questions about the applicability of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the subsequent Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 to the BDA Act.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 27 November 2006 | Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) proposes Peripheral Ring Road (PRR) to the State Government. |
| 23 April 2007 | The Karnataka Government sanctions the PRR scheme. |
| 2008 | Writ Petition No. 4550 of 2008 (Sri Sudhakar Hegde and others vs. the State of Karnataka and others) and other similar matters filed in the Karnataka High Court challenging the land acquisition notifications for the PRR. |
| 22 July 2014 | Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court decides on the writ petitions. |
| 03 August 2018 | Supreme Court pronounces judgment in Civil Appeal No(s). 7661-7663 of 2018. |
| 09 November 2021 | Affidavit filed by the Additional Chief Secretary before the Supreme Court highlighting the importance of the construction of PRR. |
| 01 December 2020 | Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court disposes of W.A. No.1415/2018 (LA-BDA). |
| 20 January 2022 | Supreme Court disposes of the Miscellaneous Application No(s).1614-1616 of 2019. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Karnataka, in its judgment dated 22 July 2014, held that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as applied to the BDA Act, are a case of legislation by reference. The High Court further stated that the repeal of the 1894 Act and the enactment of the 2013 Act would mean that the corresponding provisions of the 2013 Act would regulate the acquisition proceedings. However, the High Court also held that the acquisition proceedings had not lapsed under Section 24 of the 2013 Act. The BDA filed the present application before the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court’s decision had upset the project’s budget calculations and failed to consider the Supreme Court’s judgment in Offshore Holdings Private Limited v. Bangalore Development Authority and others.
Legal Framework
The Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, was enacted to establish a development authority for Bangalore. Section 36(1) of the BDA Act states:
“The acquisition of land under this Act otherwise than by agreement within or without the Bangalore Metropolitan Area shall be regulated by the provisions, so far as they are applicable, of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894.”
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was the primary law governing land acquisition in India until it was repealed by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The 2013 Act introduced new procedures for land acquisition and compensation. Section 24 of the 2013 Act addresses the lapse of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act.
Arguments
Submissions by the BDA:
- The BDA argued that Section 36 of the BDA Act mandates legislation by incorporation, not by reference.
- They contended that the 2013 Act does not apply to the BDA Act, and the High Court’s judgment was incorrect and unenforceable.
- The BDA stated that the High Court failed to consider the Constitution Bench judgment in Offshore Holdings Private Limited v. Bangalore Development Authority and others.
- The BDA argued that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as incorporated into the BDA Act, are unaffected by the repeal of the 1894 Act.
Submissions by the Respondents:
- The respondents argued that the 2013 Act applies to land acquisitions made under the BDA Act.
- They contended that the repeal of the 1894 Act and the enactment of the 2013 Act would mean that the corresponding provisions of the 2013 Act would regulate the acquisition proceedings.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| BDA’s Submission: The 2013 Act does not apply to the BDA Act. |
✓ Section 36 of the BDA Act mandates legislation by incorporation. ✓ The High Court’s judgment failed to consider the Constitution Bench judgment in Offshore Holdings Private Limited v. Bangalore Development Authority and others. ✓ The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as incorporated into the BDA Act, are unaffected by the repeal of the 1894 Act. |
| Respondents’ Submission: The 2013 Act applies to land acquisitions made under the BDA Act. | ✓ The repeal of the 1894 Act and the enactment of the 2013 Act would mean that the corresponding provisions of the 2013 Act would regulate the acquisition proceedings. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as applied to the BDA Act, are in the nature of legislation by reference or legislation by incorporation.
- Whether the repeal of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the enactment of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, affect the land acquisition proceedings under the BDA Act.
- Whether the provisions of the 2013 Act apply to the land acquisition proceedings made under the BDA Act.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as applied to the BDA Act, are in the nature of legislation by reference or legislation by incorporation. | The Court held that it is a case of legislation by incorporation. |
| Whether the repeal of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the enactment of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, affect the land acquisition proceedings under the BDA Act. | The Court held that the repeal of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, does not affect the land acquisition proceedings under the BDA Act. |
| Whether the provisions of the 2013 Act apply to the land acquisition proceedings made under the BDA Act. | The Court held that the provisions of the 2013 Act do not apply to the land acquisition proceedings made under the BDA Act. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offshore Holdings Private Limited v. Bangalore Development Authority and others [2011] 3 SCC 139 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | The BDA Act is a self-contained code, and Section 36 mandates legislation by incorporation. |
| C.N. Paramasivam and Another vs. Sunrise Plaza Through Partner and Others [2013] 9 SCC 460 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Incorporation of an earlier Act into a later Act is a legislative device for the sake of convenience. |
| Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, Mysore and Another vs. Anasuya Bai (dead) by Legal Representatives and others [2017] 3 SCC 313 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Section 11-A of the LA Act and Section 24(2) of 2013 Act are not applicable for acquisition made under KIADB Act. |
| State of M.P. v. M.V. Narasimhan [2011] 3 SCC 111 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Where a subsequent Act incorporates provisions of a previous Act, then the borrowed provisions become an integral and independent part of the subsequent Act. |
| Sri. L. Ramareddy vs. the State of Karnataka and Ors. W.A. No.1415/2018 (LA-BDA) | Karnataka High Court | Approved | Section 24 of the 2013 Act does not apply to acquisitions initiated under the BDA Act. |
| Section 36(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 | Considered | The acquisition of land under the BDA Act is regulated by the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, so far as they are applicable. | |
| Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 | Considered | The 2013 Act applies only to land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| BDA’s Submission: The 2013 Act does not apply to the BDA Act. | Accepted. The Court held that the 2013 Act does not apply to land acquisitions under the BDA Act. |
| Respondents’ Submission: The 2013 Act applies to land acquisitions made under the BDA Act. | Rejected. The Court held that the provisions of the 2013 Act are not applicable for the acquisitions made under the BDA Act. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Supreme Court followed the Constitution Bench judgment in Offshore Holdings Private Limited v. Bangalore Development Authority and others [2011] 3 SCC 139*, which held that the BDA Act is a self-contained code and Section 36 mandates legislation by incorporation.
- The Court also followed C.N. Paramasivam and Another vs. Sunrise Plaza Through Partner and Others [2013] 9 SCC 460*, stating that incorporation of an earlier Act into a later Act is a legislative device for convenience.
- The Court followed Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, Mysore and Another vs. Anasuya Bai (dead) by Legal Representatives and others [2017] 3 SCC 313*, which held that Section 11-A of the LA Act and Section 24(2) of 2013 Act are not applicable for acquisition made under KIADB Act.
- The Court followed State of M.P. v. M.V. Narasimhan [2011] 3 SCC 111*, stating that where a subsequent Act incorporates provisions of a previous Act, then the borrowed provisions become an integral and independent part of the subsequent Act.
- The Court approved the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Sri. L. Ramareddy vs. the State of Karnataka and Ors. W.A. No.1415/2018 (LA-BDA)*, which held that Section 24 of the 2013 Act does not apply to acquisitions initiated under the BDA Act.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle of legislation by incorporation. The Court emphasized that Section 36 of the BDA Act incorporates the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as they are applicable, making them an integral part of the BDA Act. This incorporation means that subsequent changes to the 1894 Act, including its repeal and replacement by the 2013 Act, do not automatically apply to the BDA Act. The Court also highlighted that the BDA Act is a self-contained code with its own procedures for land acquisition, and the reference to the 1894 Act is limited to matters not specifically covered by the BDA Act. The Court also noted that the 2013 Act expressly refers to land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act and does not extend to acquisitions under other enactments like the BDA Act.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Legislation by Incorporation | 40% |
| Self-Contained Code of BDA Act | 30% |
| Limited Applicability of 1894 Act | 20% |
| Express Reference in 2013 Act | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
Logical Reasoning
Issue: Applicability of 2013 Act to BDA Act Acquisitions
Point 1: Section 36 of BDA Act incorporates provisions of 1894 Act
Point 2: Incorporation makes 1894 Act provisions integral to BDA Act
Point 3: Repeal of 1894 Act does not affect incorporated provisions in BDA Act
Point 4: 2013 Act applies only to acquisitions under 1894 Act
Conclusion: 2013 Act does not apply to BDA Act acquisitions
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as applied to the BDA Act, are a case of legislation by incorporation. This means that the provisions of the 1894 Act, as they stood when incorporated into the BDA Act, continue to apply, and the subsequent repeal of the 1894 Act and the enactment of the 2013 Act do not affect the acquisition proceedings under the BDA Act. The Court stated that:
“The borrowed provisions of LA Act, became an integral part of the BDA Act and are totally unaffected by the repeal of the LA Act.”
The Court also clarified that the 2013 Act does not regulate acquisition proceedings under the BDA Act. The Court noted that:
“The 2013 Act repeals only the LA Act and not any other Central or State enactment dealing with acquisition. Therefore, what is sought to be saved under Section 24 of the 2013 Act is only acquisitions which had been initiated under the LA Act and not those acquisitions which had been initiated under any other Central or State enactment.”
The Court overruled the judgment of the High Court in Sri Sudhakar Hegde (supra), which had held that the corresponding provisions of the 2013 Act would regulate acquisition proceedings under the BDA Act. The Supreme Court stated:
“It is hereby clarified that since LA Act has been incorporated into the BDA Act so far as they are applicable, the provisions of 2013 Act are not applicable for the acquisitions made under the BDA Act.”
Key Takeaways
- The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, does not apply to land acquisitions made under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976.
- The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as incorporated into the BDA Act, continue to apply for land acquisitions under the BDA Act.
- The BDA Act is considered a self-contained code for land acquisition, and the reference to the 1894 Act is limited to matters not specifically covered by the BDA Act.
- This judgment provides clarity on the legal framework for land acquisition by the BDA, which will have implications for ongoing and future development projects in Bangalore.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the BDA to proceed with the acquisition of the land as proposed in the notification.
Development of Law
The Supreme Court’s judgment clarifies that Section 36 of the BDA Act is a case of legislation by incorporation, not by reference. This means that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as they were when incorporated into the BDA Act, continue to apply, and the subsequent enactment of the 2013 Act does not affect land acquisition proceedings under the BDA Act. This judgment reinforces the principle that when an earlier law is incorporated into a later law, the incorporated provisions become an integral part of the later law, unaffected by subsequent changes in the earlier law. This decision reinforces the principle of legislation by incorporation and clarifies the relationship between the BDA Act and the Land Acquisition Acts.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Bangalore Development Authority vs. State of Karnataka clarifies that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, does not apply to land acquisitions made under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. The Court held that the BDA Act incorporates the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by incorporation, and therefore, the 2013 Act does not affect the acquisition process under the BDA Act. This decision provides much-needed clarity for land acquisition proceedings under the BDA Act and has significant implications for ongoing and future development projects in Bangalore.