The Supreme Court of India recently decided a case titled Bangalore Development Authority v. State of Karnataka, M.A. No. 1614-1616 of 2019 in M.A. 1346-1348 of 2019 in Civil Appeal Nos. 7661-7663 of 2018 whereby the applicability of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1894 Act) for the purposes of the acquisition by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) under Section 36 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act (BDA Act) in the light of the new Act for land acquisition titled Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act) was under challenge.
The BDA, being a statutory body established under the BDA Act had proposed the construction of a Peripheral Ring Road (PPR) encircling the Bangalore City for the length of 116 Kms. While the land acquisition was in the process for the said PPR, several writ petitions were filed before the Karnataka High Court.
The issues behind the Karnataka High Court were:
“(a) Whether the repeal of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, has the effect of frustrating any proceedings with reference to Section 36 of the BDA Act.
(b) Whether the acquisition proceedings can be said to have lapsed by virtue of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 having come into force.”
The High Court decided the case against the BDA and held that firstly the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the BDA Act is in the nature of a “legislation by reference” and hence observed that since the 1894 Act was repealed, the provisions of the new act i.e. the 2013 Act will be applicable and the payment of compensation should be as per the 2013 Act. Further, the High Court held that by virtue of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, it cannot be said the proceedings stood lased.
In an Appeal by the BDA before the Supreme Court, it was submitted that the High Court failed to consider the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Offshore Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Bangalore Development Authority & Ors., (2011) 3 SCC 139. The BDA further submitted that Section 36 of the BDA Act clearly mandates “legislation by incorporation.”
The Supreme Court after analysing the provisions of the BDA Act and Section 36 of the Act, observed that,
“12. The primary object of the BDA Act is to carry out a planned development and acquisition, is merely incident of such planned development. It is also clear that the provisions of the LA Act would be attracted only insofar as they are applicable to the BDA Act. Where there are specific provisions under the BDA Act, the provisions of the LA Act will not be attracted. The BDA Act has provided a complete process for determination of rights. For the purpose of the claims in regard to the matters which are not specifically dealt with in the BDA Act, reference to the LA Act in terms of Section 36 has been made. The intention of the Legislature is to take recourse for the provisions of the LA Act to a limited extent and subject to the supremacy of the provisions of the BDA Act. This is evident from the expression “so far as they are applicable” employed in sub-section (1) of Section 36. In Offshore Holdings Private Limited (supra), a Constitution Bench of this Court, after considering the scheme of the BDA Act and having regard to the language employed in Section 36, held that it is a legislation by incorporation.
13. Incorporation of an earlier Act into the later Act is a legislative device for the sake of convenience in order to avoid verbatim reproduction of the provisions of the earlier Act into the later Act. Once the incorporation is made, the provisions of incorporated statute become an integral part of the statute in which it is transferred and thereafter there is no need to refer to the statute from which incorporation is made and any subsequent amendment made in it has no effect on the incorporating statute. (See: C.N. Paramasivam and Another vs. Sunrise Plaza Through Partner and Others)” (Emphasis supplied)
The Supreme Court further referring to Section 24 of the 2013 Act, observed that the scope of Section 24 of the 2013 Act is such that it repeals only the 1894 Act and not any other central or state enactment dealing with acquisition. As per Section 24:
“24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1984 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases –
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,–
(a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or
(b) where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act:
Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of and holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.”
As such, the Supreme Court observed that, “The expression contained in Section 24 of the LA Act cannot be given extensive interpretation by adding words into the provision, in the absence of the provision itself giving rise to any such implication. We are of the view that 2013 Act would not regulate the acquisition proceedings made under the BDA Act.”
Further, the Supreme Court placed reliance over a Division Bench Judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Sri. L. Ramareddy vs. the State of Karnataka and Ors., W.A. No.1415/2018 (LA-BDA) disposed of on 1st December, 2020, whereby adjudicating an identical question, the High Court observed as:
“44. In the circumstances, it is concluded and held that Section 24 does not take within its scope nor does it apply to acquisitions which have been initiated under the provisions of any other enactment particularly, State enactment, such as, BDA Act. The said Section is restricted to only those acquisitions which have been initiated under the provisions of the LA Act, 1894 only. Subject to compliance of the conditions mentioned under subsection (2) of Section 24, the land owner would be entitled to the deeming provision regarding lapse of acquisition and not otherwise.”
Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while agreeing with the abovementioned judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Ramareddy and the abovementioned discussions on the scope of Section 24 of the 2013 Act held that the proceedings for land acquisition under the 1894 Act instituted by the BDA is good in law and the proceedings for land acquisition do not need to be repeated as per the 2013 Act and as such the High Court erred by holding that the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 that are made applicable to the BDA Act are in the nature of legislation by reference.
