Karnataka High Court
Bengaluru Development Authority vs Hemanth Kumar on 14 March, 2023
Bench: Alok Aradhe, Vijaykumar A Patil
-1-
WA No. 725 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO. 725 OF 2021 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
SANKEY ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
2. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
SANKEY ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 020
Digitally signed ...APPELLANTS
by VALLI M
Location: High
(BY SRI. MURUGESH V CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
Court of
Karnataka AND:
1. HEMANTH KUMAR
S/O LATE SHANKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
NO.8, 4TH MODEL HOUSE STREET,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU - 560 004
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
-2-
WA No. 725 of 2021
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.SHIVARAMA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. B.RAJENDRA PRASAD, HCGP FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO i) SET-ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 16/10/2020 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.7946/2014 (LA-BDA)
AND ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL BY DISMISSING THE WRIT
PETITION; ii) GRANT ANY SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS
HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra Court appeal has been filed against the order
dated 16.10.2020 passed by learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.7946/2014, by which the writ petition preferred by
respondent No.1 has been allowed and it has been held that
scheme for formation of Banashankari V stage layout has
lapsed insofar as it pertains to the land of respondent No.1.
WA No. 725 of 2021
2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal
briefly stated are that respondent No.1 is the owner of the
land bearing Sy.No.20 measuring 30 guntas and 1 acre 12
guntas of Uttarahalli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru. The
said land was acquired for formation of Banashankari V stage
layout. The preliminary Notification under Section 17(1) of
the Bangalore Development Authority was issued on
06.04.1989 and thereafter a Notification under Section 19(1)
of the Act was issued on 16.09.1997. The aforesaid
Notification was published in the Official Gazette on
17.11.1997.
3. Petitioner filed writ petition after a period of 17
years from the date of publication of Notification under
Section 19 (1) of the Act on or about 12.02.2014, in which a
prayer was made for quashing of preliminary as well as final
Notification in terms of Section 24 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The writ petition
was allowed. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal
has been filed.
WA No. 725 of 2021
4. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that
issue involved in this appeal is fairly covered by the decision
of Division Bench of this Court dated 03.06.2021 in
W.A.No.391/2019 (Madduramma & Ors Vs. State of
Karnataka & Ors.).
5. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent
No.1 has invited attention of this Court to para-16 of the
aforesaid judgment.
6. We have considered the submissions made on
behalf of both sides and perused the records.
8. Admittedly, writ petition preferred by respondent
No.1 seeking quashing of preliminary as well as final
Notification dated 06.04.1989 and 17.09.1997 was filed after
inordinate delay of 17 years. No explanation was offered for
inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. Learned Single
Judge ought to have appreciated the challenge to the effect
that preliminary as well as final Notification was belated.
Besides it is relevant to take note of para No.30 of the
WA No. 725 of 2021
judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.391/2019, which reads as under:
"30. Further, from the words of Section 24 of
the 2013 Act, what is significant to note is the fact
that the said Section expressly refers to land
acquisition proceedings initiated under the LA Act,
1894. The said Section does not incorporate the
words "or proceedings initiated under any other
enactment". Therefore, the expression "land
acquisition proceedings initiated under the LA Act,
1894" are significant and must be given its natural
and plain meaning and the said expression cannot be
given an expansive interpretation by adding words to
the provision, in the absence of the provision itself
giving rise to any such implication. In this regard,
the rules of interpretation of a statute would become
relevant and reliance could be placed on guiding
principles of interpretation of statute. One such
principle is that the Court is not entitled to read
words into a provision of an Act or Rule for, the
meaning is to be found within the four corners of the
provisions of an act or rule, as in the instant case.
Therefore, while it is not permissible to add words or
to fill in a gap or lacuna, on the other hand effort
should be made to give meaning to each and every
word used by the legislature. Thus, the golden rule
WA No. 725 of 2021
of construction is that the words of a provision of a
statute, or rule must be first understood in the
natural, ordinary or popular sense. Phrases and
sentences must be construed according to their
grammatical meaning, unless that leads to some
absurdity or unless there is something in the context,
or in the object of the statute to suggest the
contrary. In other words, the golden rule is that the
words of a statute prima facie be given an ordinary
meaning. Natural and ordinary meaning of words
should not be departed from "unless it can be shown
that the legal context in which the words are used
requires a different meaning". Such a meaning
cannot be departed from by the judges "in light of
their own views as to policy" unless it is shown to
adopt a purposive interpretation of the statute, which
does not arise in the instant case. [Source -
G.P.Singh Principles on Statutory Interpretation -
Fourteenth Edition]."
8. Thus, from the perusal of para No.30 of the
aforesaid judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court,
it is evident that categorical findings has been recorded that
the scheme of Banashankari V stage Layout has not lapsed,
but has been executed and is a full fledged residential
layout. However, in view of the aforesaid judgment dated
WA No. 725 of 2021
03.06.2021 passed by Division Bench of this Court, the order
dated 16.10.2020 passed by learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.7946/2014 is to be set aside.
9. For the aforementioned reasons, the order dated
16.10.2020 passed in W.P.No.7946/2014 is set aside.
In the result, appeal is allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RR
