S A JALALUDDIN Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeal has been filed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dated 26th September, 1995 in RFA No. 232 of 1984 whereunder a challenge made to the Notification dated 5-11-1971 issued under Section 18(1)(a) of The City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as barred by limitation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition (Karnataka Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as "the Karnataka Act") which by an amendment to the Central Land Acquisition Act prescribed a period of two years of limitation for issuance of a declaration under Section 6 of the Acquisition Act and consequently without the authority of law came to be repelled. To be more specific, as could be seen from the judgment under appeal the contention of the appellant was that by virtue of Section 27 of the Act the proceedings initiated thereunder for acquisition of land are to be regulated by the provisions under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and having regard to the said amendment to the Land Acquisition Act by the Karnataka Act and the proviso introduced to Section 6 to the effect that no declaration could be made or issued in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4, after the expiry of two years from the notification under Section 4(1) or from the commencement of the Amendment Act. Hence, the plea was that the Board should not have issued the final notification dated 5-11-1971 and consequently acquisition proceedings, particularly, the declarations under Section 18 have been rendered invalid and unenforceable. The Division Bench of the High Court after adverting to the catena of cases including the one reported in (1977) 1 SCR 178 (The Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah etc.etc. has chosen to reject the challenge. Not satisfied, the appellants have come before this Court.

(2.) Mr. S. Ravindra Bhat, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant tried to contend that having regard to the provisions of the Act which by virtue of stipulation contained in Sections 18(1)(c) and 27(2) deemed the declaration under Section 18 of the Act to be a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the amendments incorporated to the Central Land Acquisition Act imposing a limitation on the exercise of power of acquisition itself would enure to the benefit of land owner. Argued the learned counsel further that the Bangalore Act under consideration, by means of reference refers and adopts the provisions of the Acquisition Act and, therefore, the principles laid down in the line of cases pertaining to legislation by incorporation will have no relevance in adjudging the challenge by the appellant in this case. Accordingly, the learned counsel tried to distinguish the earlier decision noticed by the Division Bench as well as the decision reported in (2002) 4 SCC 326 (Munithimmaiah vs. The State of Karnataka and others) and (2002) 7 SCC 657 (Nagpur Improvement Trust vs. Vasantrao and others) etc. etc. A submission was also made placing reliance upon the decision of this Court in (1973) 1 SCC 500 (Nagpur Improvement Trust and another vs. Vithal Rao and others) that so far as the citizen/land owner is concerned, it is immaterial whether the acquisition is under one Act or the other or what purpose and that the safeguards available under the Central Land Acquisition Act, should be equally rendered available to all kinds of acquisition irrespective of the purpose or the special law concerned for acquisition of the land of a citizen.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. Altaf Ahmed, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents placed strong reliance upon the decision of this Court reported in (2002) 4 SCC 326 (Munithimmaiah vs. The State of Karnataka and others) and (2002) 7 SCC 657 (Nagpur Improvement Trust vs. Vasant Rao and others) etc.etc. as also the decision in (1977) 1 SCR 178 (The Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah etc. etc.). In our view, it is unnecessary for us to undertake an extensive consideration of the relevant principles which should guide a decision in this case since we find such principles to have been stated and re-stated in a series of decisions, including the two latest pronouncements as noticed above.