# 6 S.C.R. 29 BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS

- **Citation:** [2010] 6 S.C.R. 29
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2010-05-05
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 4097 of 2010
- **Bench:** K.G. Balakrishnan, R.V. Raveendran, D.K. Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/6-s-c-r-29-bondu-ramaswamy-v-bangalore-development-authority-ors-26832
- **Pages:** 132

## Headnote

Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976:
A
B
Whether the Act repugnant to Land Acquisition Act -
C
Held: The Act is not repugnant to Land Acquisition Act -
Repugnancy under Article 254 arises only when two laws
relate to subjects in List Ill - Article 254(1) will have no
application if the State law in pith and substance relates to a
matter in List II and incidentally touches upon some item in
D
List Ill - If the law covered by Entry in List If contains a
provision directly and substantially relating to the matter
enumerated in List Ill, the repugnant provision of List II might
be void unless it could co-exist and operate without
repugnancy to the provisions of the existing law - Bangalore E
Development Authority Act in pith and substance falls under
Entry 5 of List II and is not r.eferable to Entry 42 of List Ill -
The main object of the Act is development of the city and
acquisition for such development is incidental to the main
object - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 254; Seventh F
Schedule List II Entry 5 and List Ill Entry 42 -Land Acquisition
4.ct, 1894 - ss. 4 to 6 - Doctrine of pith and substance.
Enforcement of the Act- Validity of, in absence of assent
of President - Held: Article 31 (3) pf the Constitution did not G
render the Act invalid in absence of assent of the President
- Though the Act did not receive the assent of the President,
but once Article 31 (3) was omitted from the Constitution, need
for such assent disappeared -Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 31 (3).
29
H
30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 6 S.C.R.
A
ss. 15 to 19 - Acquisition of land - By Development
Authority - For planned development of city - Preliminary
notification proposing to acquire land - The objections of landholders considered - State Government granting sanction for
acquisition after noting that certain land was excluded from
B
the proposed extent of land - Final declaration issued - Writ
petitions challenging the acquisition - Entire acquisition
quashed by Single Judge of High Court - Writ appeals -
Division Bench of High Court upheld the acquisition -
However, finding that there was discrimination in acquisition
c of certain lands and in deletion of similar lands, gave liberty
to /and-owners to seek withdrawal of their lands from
acquisition - On appeal, held: Acquisition was in compliance
with the provisions of the Act - But there was arbitrariness and
discrimination in the matter of inclusions and exclusions of
0
the lands - Decision of Division Be{/f;h of High Court is
affirmed - However, the liberty granted to /and-owners would
lead to further litigations and complications - Therefore, it
would be equitable to uphold the directions issued by High
Court, subject to the condition that /he Development Authority
provides an option to land-losers to secure some additional
E benefits as an incentive to accept the acquisition - Direction
issued to provide preferential allotment of some plots at
prevailing market price in addition to compensation to the
/and"/osers - Such directions not in conflict with Allotment
Rules - Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of
F
Sites) Rules, 1984.
ss. 19(1) and 36 - Land acquisition - Final declaration
uls. 19(1) - Published beyond one year from the date of
publication of preliminary notification uls. 17(1) and (3) of the
G Act- Whether valid on account of delay in view of amendment
of s. 6 of Land Acquisition Act, providing a time limit for issue
of final declaration - Held: The final declaration does not
suffer from any infirmity - In view of limited application of Land
Acquisition Act in terms of s. 36, provisions of ss. 4 to 6 of
H Land Acquisition Act would not apply in respect of scheme
BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE
31
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
for acquisition u/s. 15 to 19 of the Act- Thus, amendment to A
s. 6 also not applicable - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 6.
s. 15 rlw s. 2(c) - Power of Development Authority to draw
up schemes for development of metropolitan area - Whether
be

## Text

_Characters 0–39,905 of 256,861. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39905 for what follows._

[2010) 6 S.C.R. 29
BONDU RAMASWAMY
v.
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4097 of 2010 etc.}
MAY 5, 2010
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI., R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND
D.K. JAIN, JJ.]
Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976:
A
B
Whether the Act repugnant to Land Acquisition Act -
C
Held: The Act is not repugnant to Land Acquisition Act -
Repugnancy under Article 254 arises only when two laws
relate to subjects in List Ill - Article 254(1) will have no
application if the State law in pith and substance relates to a
matter in List II and incidentally touches upon some item in
D
List Ill - If the law covered by Entry in List If contains a
provision directly and substantially relating to the matter
enumerated in List Ill, the repugnant provision of List II might
be void unless it could co-exist and operate without
repugnancy to the provisions of the existing law - Bangalore E
Development Authority Act in pith and substance falls under
Entry 5 of List II and is not r.eferable to Entry 42 of List Ill -
The main object of the Act is development of the city and
acquisition for such development is incidental to the main
object - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 254; Seventh F
Schedule List II Entry 5 and List Ill Entry 42 -Land Acquisition
4.ct, 1894 - ss. 4 to 6 - Doctrine of pith and substance.
Enforcement of the Act- Validity of, in absence of assent
of President - Held: Article 31 (3) pf the Constitution did not G
render the Act invalid in absence of assent of the President
- Though the Act did not receive the assent of the President,
but once Article 31 (3) was omitted from the Constitution, need
for such assent disappeared -Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 31 (3).
29
H
30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 6 S.C.R.
A
ss. 15 to 19 - Acquisition of land - By Development
Authority - For planned development of city - Preliminary
notification proposing to acquire land - The objections of landholders considered - State Government granting sanction for
acquisition after noting that certain land was excluded from
B
the proposed extent of land - Final declaration issued - Writ
petitions challenging the acquisition - Entire acquisition
quashed by Single Judge of High Court - Writ appeals -
Division Bench of High Court upheld the acquisition -
However, finding that there was discrimination in acquisition
c of certain lands and in deletion of similar lands, gave liberty
to /and-owners to seek withdrawal of their lands from
acquisition - On appeal, held: Acquisition was in compliance
with the provisions of the Act - But there was arbitrariness and
discrimination in the matter of inclusions and exclusions of
0
the lands - Decision of Division Be{/f;h of High Court is
affirmed - However, the liberty granted to /and-owners would
lead to further litigations and complications - Therefore, it
would be equitable to uphold the directions issued by High
Court, subject to the condition that /he Development Authority
provides an option to land-losers to secure some additional
E benefits as an incentive to accept the acquisition - Direction
issued to provide preferential allotment of some plots at
prevailing market price in addition to compensation to the
/and"/osers - Such directions not in conflict with Allotment
Rules - Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of
F
Sites) Rules, 1984.
ss. 19(1) and 36 - Land acquisition - Final declaration
uls. 19(1) - Published beyond one year from the date of
publication of preliminary notification uls. 17(1) and (3) of the
G Act- Whether valid on account of delay in view of amendment
of s. 6 of Land Acquisition Act, providing a time limit for issue
of final declaration - Held: The final declaration does not
suffer from any infirmity - In view of limited application of Land
Acquisition Act in terms of s. 36, provisions of ss. 4 to 6 of
H Land Acquisition Act would not apply in respect of scheme
BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE
31
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
for acquisition u/s. 15 to 19 of the Act- Thus, amendment to A
s. 6 also not applicable - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 6.
s. 15 rlw s. 2(c) - Power of Development Authority to draw
up schemes for development of metropolitan area - Whether
became inoperative on coming into force of Parts IX and IXA
of the Constitution - Held: Provisions of the Act would not 8
become inoperative on Parts IX and IXA coming into force -
Parts IX and IXA are applicable to the municipality and not
to development authority - Article 243ZF which provided for
giving opportunity to State Government to bring the existing
law relating to municipality in conformity with Parts IX and l{<A, C
is not applicable to the Act - Mere existence of Municipal
Corporation Act duly amended to bring it in conformity with
Part IXA would not nullify or render the Act redundant -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Parts IX and IXA -Karnataka
Municipal Corporation Act, 1976.
D
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4, 5A and 6 -
Applicability of -
To acquisition under Bangalore
Development Authority Act - ss. 4 to 6 would not apply to
acquisition under BOA Act - In view of s. 36 of BOA Act, only E
such provisions of Land Acquisition Act are applicable to the
acquisition under BDA Act, for which a corresponding
provision is not found in the BOA Act - ss. 17 to 19 of the
BOA Act are the corresponding, provisions to ss. 4 to 6 -
Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 - ss. 17 to 19
and 36.
, F
Constitution of India, 1950:
Article 31(1), (2) and (3) - Acquisition of land under
Bangalore Development Authority Act - Whether violative of G
fundamental Right provided in Article 31 - Held: BOA Act
does not violate any provision of Article 31 - Since the State
had the legislative competence to enact the BOA Act, clause
(1) is not violated -
In view of s. 36 of BOA Act Land
Acquisition Act was applicable for determination of
H
32
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 6 S.C.R.
A
compensation, hence clause (2) is not violated - Since
Clause (3) does not specify any fundamental right and only
provides the procedure, it does not nullify any law - However,
once the requirement of assent of the President disappeared
on omission of Article 31, the provisions relating to acquisition
B
became enforceable - Bangalore Development Authority Act,
1976.
Article 14 - /llegal favours shown to land-owners by
acquisition authority, in deleting their lands from proposed
acquisition - Plea of other land-owners seeking deletion of
C
their lands on the ground of equality - Held: Article 14
guarantees equality before law and not equality in subverting
law nor equality in securing illegal benefits - Negative
equality cannot be enforced - Land owners not entitled to
seek deletion on the ground of equality -But where large
D
extent of land has been indiscriminately and arbitrarily
deleted, making the development scheme inexecutable, or
resulted in abandonment, relief can be granted on the
adoption of common factor - Land Acquisition.
E
Land Acquisition:
Acquisition of land for planned development of city -
Deletion from the proposed acquisition - Basis for - Held:
Deletion should be only with regard to areas which are already
well-developed in a planned manner -
Sporadic small
F
unauthorized constructions in unauthorized colonies are not
to be deleted ...,. If hardship is the reason for deletion,
appropriate course is to give preference to the land-owners
in allotment of developed plots and help them to resettle -
Development authority should either provide orderly
G
development or should stay away from development - Urban
Development.
Land acquisition governed by Land Acquisition Act -
Present system of - Held: Requires urgent attention of the
State Government and Development Authorities - It is
H
BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE
· 33
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
necessary to evolve tailor-made schemes to suit particular A
acquisitiorl to make it smooth, speedy, litigation free and
beneficial to all concerned - Acquisition should be for the
benefit of society and improve the city and not to benefit the
development authority - Need for the Law Commission and
the Parliament to revisit the Land Acquisition Act - Land
B
Acquisition Act, 1894.
Interpretation of Statutes -
Vague and ambiguous
provision - An interpretation that would avoid absurd results
should be adopted - When the object orpolicy of a statute
can be ascertained, imprecision in its language not to be C
allowed in the way of adopting a reasonable construction
which avoids absurdities and incongruities and carries out the
object or policy - A court cannot supply a real casus omis'sus
nor can it interpret a statute to create a casus omissus when
there is really none.
I
D
Doctrines:
Doctrine of casus omissus - Applicability of.
Doctrine of Pith and Substance - Applicability of.
E
Civic Agencies· -
'Municipal Corporation' and
'Development Authority' - Difference between - Discussed.
Writ petitions were filed challenging the acquisition
of land by Bangalore Development Authority (BOA)
under Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (BOA
f
Act). The same were allowed by Single Judge of High
Court quashing the entire acquisition. Writ appeals were
allowed by Division Bench of High Court. Hence the
present appeals.
The questions which arose for consideration in the G
present appeals were: (i) Whether the BOA Act, in so far
as it provides for compulsory acquisition of property, is
still-born and ineffective as it did not receive the assent
of the President, as required by Article 31 (3) of the
Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the provisions of the
H
34
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 6 S.C.R.
A BOA Act, in particular Section 15 r/w Section 2(c) dealing
with the power of BOA to draw up schemes for
development for Bangalore Metropolitan Area became
inoperative, void or was impliedly repealed, by virtue of
Parts IX and IX(A) of the Constitution inserted by the 73rd
B and 74th Amendments to the Constitution. (iii) Whether
the sixteen villages where the lands have been acquired,
fall outside the Bangalore Metropolitan Area as defined
in Section 2(c) of the BOA Act and therefore, the
Bangalore Development Authority has no territorial
c jurisdiction to make development schemes or acquire
lands in those villages. (iv) Whether the amondment to
Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 requiring the
final declaration to be issued within one year from the
date of publication of the preliminary notification is
0 applicable to the acquisitions under the BOA Act; and
whether the declaration u/s. 19(1) of BOA Act, having been
issued after the expiry of one year from the date of the
preliminary notification u/s. 17(1) and (3) of BOA Act, is
invalid. (v) Whether the provisions of Sections 4, 5A, 6 of
E Land Acquisition Act, would be applicable in regard to
acquisitions under the BOA Act and whether noncompliance with those provisions, vitiate the acquisition
proceedings (vi) Whether the development scheme and
the acquisitions are invalid for non-compliance with the
procedure prescribed u/ss. 15 to 19 of the BOA Act in
F regard to: (a) absence of specificity and discrepancy in
extent of land to be acquired; (b) failure to furnish material
particulars to the Government as required u/s. 18(1) r/w
Section 16 of the BOA Act; and (c) absence of valid
sanction by the Government, u/s. 18(3) of the BOA Act.
G (vii) Whether the deletion of 1089 Ac~s 12 Guntas from
the proposed acquisition, while proceeding with the
acquisition of similar contiguous lands of appellants
amounted to hostile discrimination and therefore the
lands of appellants also required to be withdrawn from
H acquisition.
BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD:
35
Question (i) -
Re : Invalidity on account of noncompliance with Article 31(3) of the Constitution:
A
1.1. It is true that the BOA Act received only the 8
assent of the Governor and was neither reserved for the
assent of the President nor received the assent of the
President. But once Article 31 was omitted from the
Constitution on 20.06.1979, the need for such assent
disappeared and the impediment for enforcement of the C
provisions in the BOA Act relating to acquisition also
disappeared. Article 31 (3) did not render the enactment a
nullity, if there was no assent of the President. Acquisition
of property is only an incidental and not the main object
and purpose of the BOA Act. Once the requirement of D
assent stood deleted from the Constitution, there was
absolutely no bar for enforcement of the provisions
relating to acquisition in the BOA Act. The State
Legislature had the legislative competence to enact such
a statute, under Entry 5 of List II of the Seventh Schedule E
to the Constitution. If any part of the Act did not come into
effect for non-compliance with any provision of the
Constitution that part of the Act may be unenforceable,
but not invalid. [Para 9) [72-~; 73-A-E]
1.2. Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, F
does not violate any provision of Article 31 in Part Ill of
the Constitution. As the BOA Act is made by the State
Legislature having competence to make such law, there
is no violation of Article 31 (1 ). Clause (2) of Article 31
provided that no law shall authorise acquisition unless it G
provided for compensation for such acquisition and
either fixed the amount of compensation, or specified the
principles on which, and the manner in which, the
compensation was to be determined and given. BOA Act
does not fix the amount of compensation, but Section 36
H
36
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 6 S.C.R.
A thereof clearly provides that the acquisition will be
regulated by the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 so far as they are applicable. Thus the principles
on which the compensation is to be determined and the
manner in which the compensation is to be determined
8 set out in the Land Acquisition Act become applicable to
acquisitions under BOA Act. Thus there is no violation
I
of Article 31(2). Article 31(3) merely provides that no law
providing for acquisition shall have effect unless such
law has received the assent of the President. Article 31 (3)
C does not specify any fundamental right, but relates to the
procedure for making a law providing for acquisition. It
does not nullify any law, but postpones the enforcement
of a law relating to acquisition, until it receives the assent
of the President. There is therefore no violation of Part
0 Ill of the Constitution that can lead to any part of the BOA
Act being treated as a nullity. The effect of Article 31(3)
was that enforcement of the provisions relating to
acquisition was not possible/permissible till the assent
of the President was received. Therefore, once the
requirement of assent disappeared, the provisions
E relating to acquisition became enforceable. [Para 11] [76A-H; 77-A]
F
M.P. V. Sundararamier and Co. v. 'The State of Andhra
Pradesh and Anr. AIR 1958 SC 468, followed
Munithimmaiah v. State of Kamataka 2002 (4) SCC 326,
relied on
Mahendra Lal Jain v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1963 Supp
(1) SCR 912, referred to
G Question (ii) - Re : Invalidity with reference to Parts IX
and IX-A of the Constitution :
2.1. Part IX-A of the Constitution seeks to strengthen
the democratic political governance at grass-root level in
H . urban areas by providing constitutional status to
BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE
37
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Municipalities, and by laying down minimum uniform A
norms and by ensuring regular and fair conduct of
elections. When Part IXA came into force, the provisions
of the existing laws relating to municipalities which were
inconsistent with or contrary to the provisions of Part IXA would have ceased to apply. To provide continuity for B
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 C
improvement trusts or 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. [Para 21] [94-H; 95-A-C]
o
2.2. The benefit of Article 243ZF is available only in
regard to laws relating to 'municipalities'. 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 E
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 a provision of law, as BOA Act is not a
law relating to Municipalities. [Para 20] [94-A-O]
F
2.3. The object and functions of a Municipal
Corporations are completely different from the object and
purpose of a development authority like BOA. BOA is not
a municipality. Therefore, it cannot be said that mere G
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. [Para 23]
[97-G-H]
2.4. The declaration of metropolitan area by the H
38
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 6 S.C.R.
A
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
B 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
c area Linder Article 243ZE has any relevance or bearing to
the Bangalore Metropolitan Area with reference to which
BOA has been constituted. [Para 24) [98-D-G]
2.5. The area in which the BOA Act operates is totally
different from the areas in which Part IX A of the
D Constitution and Municipal Corporation Act which relate
to local self-government operate. The development plan
to be drawn for a metropolitan area, by a Metropolitan
Planning Committee should not be confused with a
development scheme to be drawn by a development
E authority like BOA for a metropolitan area. Insofar as
Bangalore is concerned, the Bangalore Metropolitan Area
as defined in Section 2(c) of the BOA Act is the area
comprising the City of Bangalore p.s defined in the City
of Bangalore Municipal Corporatipn Act, 1949, the area
F
where the city of Bangalore lmprdvernent Act, 1945 was
immediately before the commencenient 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 Bangalore Metropolitan
G Area, referred to in Section 503-B of Municipal
Corporation 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
H . purpose of Municipal Corporation Act. Neither the
BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE
39
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Bangalore Metropolitan Area nor a Metropolitan Planning
A
Committee is in existence under the Karnataka Municipal
Corporation Act. In these circumstances, it is not correct
to say 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 acquir~ land to
B
form lay outs in pursuance of any development scheme
for Bangalore Metropolitan Area. [Para 25] [99-H; 100-AB; 102-B-C]
2.6. While it is true that BOA is not an elected body
like the municipality, it has several elected C
representatives as members. The 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
D
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
E
pattern is more suited to fulfil the requirements of a
specialist agency executing development schemes.
Therefore, it is not correct to say that the provisions of
BOA Act become inoperative, on Parts IX and IX-A of the
Constitution coming into force. [Para 27] [100--G;
F
101-E-G]
Question (iii) - Re : BOA lacking territorial jurisdiction to
draw up the development scheme:
3.1. It is not correct to say that Bangalore G
Development Authority does not have territorial
jurisdiction to form any development scheme in regard
to the 16 villages which are the subject matter of the final
declaration. [Para 41] [110-D]
3.2. Section 15 empowers the BOA to draw up H
40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
{2010] 6 S.C.R.
A de'telopment schemes or additional development
schemes for the development of the Bangalore
Metropolitan Area. Bangalore Metropolitan Area is defined
in Section 2(c). The areas in which the City of Bangalore
Improvement Act, 1945 was in force immediately before
B the commencement of BOA 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). [Para 29) (102-E-G]
3.3. The State Government issued a notification dated
C 1.11.1965, u/s. 4A (1) of the 'Town Planning Act' declaring
the area comprising the City of Bangalore and other areas
(218 villages) enumerated in Schedule I thereto to be the
'Local Planning Area' for the purposes of the said Act to
be called as the Bangalore City Planning Area and the
D limits of the said planning area were as described in
Schedule II thereto. All the 16 villages in which the lands
were acquired-for scheme in question fell within the said
Bangalore City Planning Area (that is within the 'other
areas' described in the I Schedule). The Government of
E Karnataka issued another notification dated 13.3.1984
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
F Schedule II thereto. 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
G dated 1.11.1965. Thereafter, the Government of Karnataka
issued a notification dated 6.4.1984 amalgamating the
'Local Planning Area of Bangalore' declared under
notification dated 1.11.1965 anCI the 'Local Planning Area'
declared for the environs of Bangalore by notification
H dated 13.3.1984. The Government of Karnataka issued a
BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE
41
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
notification dated 1.3.1988 in exercise of the power u/s. A
2(c) of 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. [Paras 30, 31, 32 and 33] [102-H; 103-A-H; B
104-A-C]
3.4. 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, C
together as the 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 D
/that the boundaries indicated in Schedule II to the
notification dated 13.3.1984 would include not only the
villages 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 E
because the areas declared JJnder notification dated
1.11.1965 are the core area (Bangalore City) and the area
surrounding the core area that is 218 villages forming the
first concentric circle; and the area declared under the
notification dated 13.3.1984 (32-5 villages) surrounding the F
area declared under the notification dated 1.11.1965
forms the second concentric circle. Therefore, the
boundaries of the lands declared under the notification
dated 13.3.1984, would also include the lands which are
declared under the notification dated 1.11.1965 and G
therefore, the 16 villages which are the subject matter of
the impugned acquisition, are part of the Bangalore
Metropolitan Area. [Para 34] [104-G-H; 105-A-C]
3.5. It cannot be said that the note at the end of II
Schedule to the notification dated 13.3.1984 excluded the H
42
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 6 S.C.R.
A 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
B 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
c 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
0
dated 13.3.1984, which 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 is
therefore no doubt that the in.tention of the State
E 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. [Para 35]
[105-D-H; 106-A-B]
F
3.6. It is true that the wording of the notification is
clumsy and ambiguous. When there is vagueness and
ambiguity, an interpretation that would avoid absurd
results should be adopted. The interpretation put forth by
G 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
H city would form part of Bangalore Metropolitan Area. This
BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE
43
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
is absurd and will be in direct violation of Section 2(c) of A
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. [Para 37] [106-0-H]
3.7. The doctrine of casus omissus is a general rule 8
that the court may not by construction insert words or
phrases in a statute or supply a casus omissus by giving
force and effect to the language of the statute when
applied to a subject about which nothing whatever is
said, and which, to all appearances, was not in the mind C
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 of the
State Government is clear and evident and it is reiterated D
by the State Government and the BOA. When the object
or policy of a statute can be ascertained, imprecision in
its language should not be readily allowed in the way of
adopting a reasonable construction which avoids
absurdities and incongruities and carries out the object E
or policy. A court cannot supply a real casus omissus,
nor can it interpret a statute to create a casus omissus
when there is really none. [Para 39] [107-G-H; 108-A-O]
Dr. Baliram Waman Hiray v. Justice 8. Lentin and Ors.
F
1988 (4) SCC 419; S. R. Bommai and Ors. v. UOI and Ors.
1994 (3) SCC 1; Padma Sunder Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu
2002 (3) sec 533, referred to
American Jurisprudence, 2nd Series Vol. 73; Principles
of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G. P. Singh 2008 G
Edition - Page 65, referred to.
3.8. 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 H
44
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 6 S.C.R.
A Improvement Act, 1945 was in force, is also part of
Bangalore Metropolitan Area. It contemplates other areas
adjacent to the aforesaid areas being specified as part of
Bangalore Metropolitan Area by a notification. Therefore,
clearly, the area that is contemplated for being specified
B in a notification u/s. 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 the
areas specifically referred to in section 2(c), but purports
c 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 that only the villages included in
Schedule I to the notification dated 13.3.1984 would be
D
E
the Bangalore Metropolitan Area, would result In an
absurd situation. The notification dated 1.3.1988 made It
clear that the Bangalore Metropolitan Area would be the
area within the boundaries Indicated in II Schedule to the
notification dated 13.3.1984. It would mean that the three
areas, namely, the central core area, the adjoining 218
villages constituting the first concentric circle area and
the next adjoining 325 villages forming the second
concentric circle are all included within the Bangalore
Metropolitan Area. What ls already specifically included
F by 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
G 325 villages which are described in the First Schedule to
the notification dated 13.3.1984 to be added to the
existing met:nnolitan area and clarifying that the entire
areas within the boundaries of Second Schedule to the
notification dated 13.3.1984 would constitute the
H
BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE
45
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Bangalore Metropolitan Area. [Para 40) (108-G-H; 109-A- A
H; 110-A-C]
Question (iv) - Re : Invalidity of final declaration with
reference to time limit in Section 6 of Land Acquisition
Act:
4. 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
B
of BOA Act does not make the Land Acquisition Act
applicable in its entirety, but states that the acquisition
under BOA Act, shall be regulated by_ the provisions, so o
far as they are applicable, of Land Acquisition Act.
Therefore it follows that where there are already
provisions in the BOA Act regulating certain aspects or
stages of acquisition or the proceedings relating thereto,
the corresponding provisions of LA Act will not apply to E
the acquisitions under the BOA Act. Only those
provisions of LA Act, relating to the ~tages of acquisition,
for which there is no provision in the BOA Act, are applied
to the acquisitions under the BOA Act. The BOA Act
contains specific provisions relating to preliminary
notification and final declaration. In factthe procedure up
F
to final declaration under BOA Act is different from the
procedure under the Land Acquisitio11 Act relating to
acquisition proceedings up to the stage of final
notification. Therefore, having regard to the Scheme for
acquisition u/ss. 15 to 19 of the BDA Act and the limited
G
application of Land Acquisition Act in terms of Section
36 of BOA Act, the provisions of Sections 4 to 6 of Land
Acquisition Act will not apply to the acquisitions under
the BOA Act. If Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act is not
made applicable, the question of amendment to Section
H
46
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 6 S.C.R.
A 6 of Land Acquisition Act providing a time limit for issue
of final declaration, will also not apply. The final
declaration dated 23.2.2004 does not suffer from any
infirmity on account of the same having been published
a few days beyond one year from the date of publication
B of the preliminary notification u/ss. 17 (1) and (3) of the
BOA Act. [Para 43 & 44] (111-C-H; 112-A; G-H; 113-A]
Munithimmaiah vs. State of Karnataka 2002 (4) SCC
326, relied on
c Question (v) - Re: Applicability of Sections 4, 5A & 6 of
Land Acquisition Act:
5.1. It is not correct to say that the BOA Act has to
yield to Land Acquisition Act and consequently, tile
provisions of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Land Acquisition Act
D will be applicable and have to be complied with fo1·
acquisitions under the BOA Act. [Para 51] [119-E]
5.2. The assumption by the appellant that Chapter Ill
of the BOA Act relating to development schemes does not
E 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
F includes the details of the lands to be acquired for
execution of the scheme. 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 Land Acquisition Act. In view of the categorical
G reference in Section 36 of the BOA Act, to acquisitions
under that Act, there cannot be any doubt that the
acquisitions for BOA is not under the Land Acquisition
Act, but under the BOA Act itself. It is also clear from
Section 36 that Land Acquisition Act, in its entirety, is not
applicable to the acquisition under the BOA Ace, but only
H such of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for
BON DU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE
4 7
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
which a corresponding provision is not found in the BOA A
Act, will apply to acquisitions under the BOA Act. In view
of Sections 17 to 19 of the BOA Act, the corresponding
provisions - Sections 4 to 6 of the Land Acquisition Act
will not apply to acquisitions under the BOA Act. [Para
47] [114-E-F; 115-E-G]
B
5.3. The question of repugnancy arises only when
both the legislatures are competent to legislate in the
same field, that is, when both the Union and State laws
relate to a subject in List Ill of Seventh Schedule of the
Constitution. Article 254 has no application except where C
the two laws relate to subjects in List Ill. But if the law
made by the State Legislature, covered by an Entry in the
State List, incidentally touches upon 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 D
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
E
to a matter in List II, even if it may incidentally trench upon
some item in List Ill. Where the law covered by an Entry
in the State List made by the State Legislature contains
a provision which direi:tly and substantially relates to a
matter enumerated in the Concurrent List and is F
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 repugnancy to the
provisions of the existing law. The BOA Act is an Act to G
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 incidental to the main object of the Act, that is H
48
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 6 S.C.R
A development of Bangalore Metropolitan area. 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 Land Acquisition Act,
traceable to Entry 42 of List Ill of the Seventh Schedule,
B the field in respect of which is already occupied by the
Central Act, as amended from time to time. If at all, BOA
Act, so far as acquisitfon of land for its developmental
activities is concerned, in substance and effect will
constitute a special law providing for acquisition for the
C special purposes of BOA and the same will not be
considered to be a part of the Land Acquisition Act. The
appellant have erroneously assumed 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
0
repugnancy and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act
prevailing over Section 19 of BOA Act would not at all
arise. [Para 49] [116-F-H; 117-A-H; 118-A]
Mis. Hoechst Pharmaceuticals vs. State of Bihar - 1983
(4) SCC 45; Megh Raj v. Allah Rakhia AIR 1947 PC 72;
E:
Lakhi Narayan v. Province of Bihar AIR 1950 FC 59, relied
on.
Munithimmaiah v. State of Karnataka 2002 (4) SCC 326,
referred to.
F
5.4. The assumption that a final declaration u/s. 19
has to be preceded by an inquiry, similar to what is
contemplated u/s. 5A of Land Acquisition Act, is without
any basis. The scheme of BOA Act also contemplates
consideration of objections but does not require any
G personal hearing or inquiry. While the scheme for
acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act and the BOA
Act contemplates notice to the landholders/persons
interested, the procedure thereafter is markedly different.
Therefore, it is impermissible to import the requirement
H of Section 5A of Land Acqusition Act in regard to
BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE
49
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
acquisitions under the BOA Act. [Para 50] [118-B, F-G; A
119-D]
Question (vi) - Re : Non-compliance with Sections 15 to
19 of the BOA Act:
(a) Absence of Specifying and Discrepancy in extract:
B
6.1. The mere fact that there were some modifications
from time to time between the date when the initial
proposal was mooted till the issue of the notification u/s.
17(1) and (3) or that some lands were omitted/deleted in
the declaration u/s. 19(1) will not affect the validity of the C
scheme. The changes and modifications are intact
contemplated in the process of making the scheme u/ss.
15 to 19 of BOA Act. [Para 56] [123-B-D]
(b) Non-furnishing of material particulars to the o
Government for the purpose of sanction:
6.2. It cannot be said that the material required for
seeking sanction had not been furnished by the BOA to
the Government.