BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS

Citation: [2010] 6 S.C.R. 29

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, R.V. RAVEENDRAN, D.K. JAIN

Case summary

BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.pdf

Judgment text

[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: Whether the Act repugnant to Land Acquisition Act - 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 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 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 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 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). 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 the lands - Decision of Division Be{/f;h of High Court is 0 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 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 ofDevelopment Authority to draw up schemes for development of metropolitan area - Whether became inoperative on coming into force of Parts IX and IXA 8 of the Constitution - Held: Provisions of the Act would not 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{ pr9ceed with the acquisition. (E) The BOA is directed to exclude the land bearing Sy. No. 9/1 measuring 0. 27, 10/2 measuring 1. 16 and 10/3 measuring 1. 02 of land which are the subject matter of WP Nos; 1353-54 of 2005 filed by University of Agricultural Science Employees House Building Cooperative Society from acquisition. (F) W. P. No. 28087 of 2004 is allowed and acquisition of land in respect of 53 acres of land in Nagavara villag~ :...

which is the subject matter of the aforesaid writ petition Is quashed. 7. The said judgment is challenged by the land-losers on several grounds. On the contentions urged, the following questions arise for consideration : (i) Whether 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 BOA Act, in particular section 15 read with section 2(c) dealing with the power of the Authority 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 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 jurisdiction to make development schemes or acquire lands in those villages. (iv) Whether the amendment to section 6 of the LA Act requiring the final declaration to be issued within one year from the date of publication of the preliminary notification is applicable to the acquisitions under the BOA Act; and whether the declaration under section 19(1) of BDA Act, having been issued after the expiry of one year from the . date of the preliminary notification under section 17(1) and (3) of BOA Act, is invalid. (v) Whether the provisions of sections 4, 5A, 6 of LA Act, would be applicable in regard to acquisitions under the DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [R. V. RAV~eNDRAN, J. ] BDA Act and whether non-compliance with those provisions, vitiate the acquisition proceedings.

(vi) Whether the development scheme and the acquisitions are invalid for non-compliance with the procedure prescribed under sections 15 to 19 of the BDA Act in 8 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 under section 18(1) read with section 16 of the BDA Act; and (c) absence of valid sanction by the government, under section 18(3) of the BDA Act. (vii) Whether the deletion of 1089 A. 12G. 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 acquisition. . ' Question (i) - Re : Invalidity on account of noncompliance with Article 31 (3) of the Constitution. 8. The contention of the appellants is as under : BOA Act was enacted by the Karnataka Legislature, received the assent of the Governor on 2. 3.

1976, was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 8. 3. 1976 and brought into force with retrospective effect from 20. 12. 1975. BDA Act provides for compulsory acquisition of property, vide provisions contained in Chapters Ill and IV. When the BDA Act was enacted and brought into effect, Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution were in force. Article 31(3) provided that no law providing for acquisition of property for public purposes, made by a State Legislature shall have effect unless such law has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent. BOA Act was not reserved for the consideration of the President; nor received his assent. Therefore, the BOA Act, in so far as it provides for acquisition of property, is still-born and ineffective. It is submitted that though Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 were omitted from the Constitution with effect from 20. 6. 1979, as such omission was not with retrospective effect, any law made prior to 20. 6.

1979 should be tested on the touchstone of the said articles. 9. Article 31 of the Constitution dealt with compulsory acquisition of property. Clauses (1) to (3) of the said Article relevant for our purpose are extracted blow: "(1) No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. (2) No property, movable or immovable, including any 0 interest in, or in any company owning any commercial or industrial undertaking, shall be taken possession of or acquired for public purposes under any law authorising the taking of such possession of such acquisition, unless the law provides for compensation for the property taken possession of or acquired and either fixes the amount of the compensation, or specifies the principles on which, and the manner in which, the compensation is to be determined and given.

(3) No such law as is referred to in clause (2) made by the Legislature of a State shall have effect unless such law, having been reserved for the consideration of the President, has received his assent. " By the Constitution (Forty Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, the right to property was deleted from the list of fundamental rights by omitting sub-clause (f) of clause (1) of Article 19. Simultaneously, Article 31 was also deleted with effect from 20. 6. 1979 by the Constitution (Forty Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978. It is no doubt true that the BOA Act received only the DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [R. V. RAVEENORAN, J. ] assent of the Governor and was neither reserved for the assent A of the President nor received the assent of the President.

As clause (3) of Article 31 provided that a law providing for · acquisition of property for public purposes, would not have effect unless such law received the assent of the President, it was open to a land owner to contend that the provisions relating B to acquisition in the BOA Act did not come into effect for want of President's assent. But once Article 31 was omitted from the Constitution on 20. 6. 1979, the need for such assent disappeared and the impediment for enforcement of the provisions in the BOA Act relating to acquisition also c . disappeared. Article 31 did not render the enactment a nullity, ·if there was no assent of the President. It only directed that a law relating to compulsory acquisition will not have effect unless the law received the assent of the President. As observed in Munithimmaiah v. State of Karnataka [2002 (4) SCC 326], O acquisition of property is only an incidental and not the main object and purpose of the BOA Act.

Once the requirement of assent stood deleted from the Constitution, there was absolutely no bar for enforcement of the provisions relating to acquisition in the BOA Act. The Karnataka Legislature had the legislative E competence to enact such a statute, under Entry 5 of List II of the Seventh Schedule 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. F 10. Our view is fortified by the following observations of a Constitution Bench of this Court in M. P. V. Sundararamier & Co. v. The State ofAndhra Pradesh & Anr.

[AIR 1958 SC 468] G "Now, in consiaering the question as to the effect of unconstitutionality of a statute, it is necessary to remember that unconstitutionality might arise either because the law is in respect of a matter not within the competence of the legislature, or because the matter itself being within its H A competence, its provisions offend some constitutional restrictions. In a Federal Constitution where legislature powers are distributed between different bodies, the competence of the legislature to enact a particular law must depend upon whether the topic of that legislation has B been assigned by the Constitution Act to that legislature. Thi. is, a law of the State on an Entry in List I, Schedule VII of the Constitution would be wholly incompetent and void.

But the law may be on a topic within its competence, as for example, an Entry in List II, but it might infringe restrictions imposed by the Constitution on the character c of the law to be passed, as for example, limitations enacted in Part Ill of the Constitution. Here also, the law to the extent of the repugnancy will be void. Thus, a legislation on a topic not within the competence of the legislature and a legislation within its competence but violative of D constitutional limitations have both the same reckoning in a court of law; they are both of them unenforceable. But does it follow from this that both the laws are of the same quality and character, and stand on the same footing for all purposes?

This question has been the subject of E consideration in numerous decisions in the American Courts, and the preponderance of authority is in favour of the view that while a law on a matter not within the competence of the legislature is a nullity, a law on a topic within the competence but repugnant to the constitutional F prohibitions is only unenforceable. This distinction has a material bearing on the present discussion. If a law is on a field not within the domain of the legislature, it is absolutely null and void, and a subsequent cession of that field to the legislature will not have the effect of breathing G life into what was a still-born piece of legislation and a fresh legislation on the subject would be requisite.

But if the law is in respect of a matter assigned to the legislature but its provisions disregard constitutional prohibitions, though the law would be unenforceable by reason of those H prohibitions, when once they are removed, the law will become effective without re-enactment. " A (emphasis supplied) 11. The appellants relied upon the following observations in Mahendra Lal Jain v. State of UP & Ors. [1963 Supp (1) SCR 912] :- B "Parliament and the Legislatures of States have power to make laws in respect of any of the matters enumerated in the relevant Lists in the Seventh Schedule and that power to make laws is subject to the provisions of the c Constitution, including Art. 13, i. e. , the power is made subject to the limitations imposed by Part Ill of the Constitution. The general power to that extent is limited. The Legislature, therefore, has no power to make any law in derogation of the injunction contained in Art. 13. Art.

o 13(1) deals with laws in force in the territory of India before the commencement of the Constitution and such laws insofar as they are inconsistent with the provisions of Part, Ill st:iall to the extent of such inconsistency be void. The clause, therefore, recognises the validity of the pre- E Constitution laws and only declares that said· laws would be void thereafter to the extent of their inconsistency with Part Ill; whereas clause (2) of that Article imposes a prohibition· on the State making laws taking away or abridging the rights conferred by Part Ill, and declares that F laws made in contravention of this clause shall to the extent of the contravention be void. There is a clear distinction between the two clauses.

Under clause (1) a pre- Constitution law subsists except to the extent of its inconsistency with the provisions of part Ill, whereas no post-Constitution law can be made contravening the G provisions of Part Ill and therefore the law to that extent, though made, is a nullity from its inception". (emphasis supplied) H A On a careful consideration of the aforesaid observations, we are of the view that the said decision does not in any way express any view contrary to the clear enunciation of law in Sundaramier. In MafJendra Lal Jain, this court explained the difference between pre-constitutional laws governed by Article B 13(1) and post-constitutional laws which are governed by Article 13(2) and held that any post-constitutional law made in contravention of provisions of Part Ill, to the extent of contravention is a nullity from its inception. Let us now examine whether any provision of the BOA Act violated any provisions c of Article 31 in part Ill of the Constitution.

Clause (1) of Article 31 provided that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. As we are examining the validity of a law 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 0 unless it 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 thereof clearly E 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 set out in the LA Act, become applicable to F acquisitions under BOA Act.

Thus there is no violation of Article 31(~). 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) does not specify any fundamental right, but relates to the procedure for making a law G providing for acquisition. As noticed above, it does not nullify any laws, 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 Ill of the Constitution that can lead to any part of the BOA Act being treated as a nullity. As H stated above, 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 relating to acquisition beccime enforceable.

Question (ii) - Re : Invalidity with reference to Parts IX and 8 IX-A of the Constitution 12. Part IX and IX-A of the Constitution, relating to Panchayats and Municipalities were inserted by the Constitution (Seventy-third Amendment) Act, 1992 and Constitution (Seventy-fourth Amendment) Act, 1992. Part IX and IX-A came into force on 24. 4. 1993 and 1. 6. 1993 respectively. The object of Part-IX was to introduce the Panchayat system at grass root level. As Panchayat systems were based on state legislations and their functioning was unsatisfactory, the amendment to the Constitution sought to strengthen the Panchayat system by giving a uniform constitutional base so that the Panchayats become vibrant units of administration in the rural area by establishing strong, effective and democratic local administration so that there can be rapid implementation of rural development programmes.

The object of Part-IX as stated in the Statement of Objects & Reasons is extracted below:- "ln many States, local bodies have become weak and ineffective on account of variety of reasons, including the failure to hold regular elections, prolonged supersessions and inadequate devolution of powers and functions. As a result, urban local bodies are not able to perform effectively as vibrant democratic units of self-Government. Having regard to these inadequacies, it is considered necessary that provisions relating to urban local bodies are incorporated in the Constitution, particularly for - (i) putting on a firmer footing the relationship between the State Government and the Urban Local Bodies with respect to: (a) the functions and taxation powers, and (b) arrangements for revenue sharing. (ii) ensuring regular conduct of elections.

(iii) ensuring timely elections in the case of supersession; and (iv) providing adequate representation for the weaker sections like Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women". 13. We may first refer to the provisions of Part IX in brief. Clause (d) and (e) of Article 243 define 'Panchayat' and 'Panchayat area'. Article 2438 deals with constitution of Panchayats, Article 243C deals with composition of Panchayats. Article 2430 relates to reservation of seats. Article 243E stipulates the duration of Panchayats. Article 243F prescribes the disqualification for membership. 243G refers to powers, authorities and responsibilities of Panchayats. Article 243H refers to power to impose taxes by Panchayats and funds of the Panchayats. Article 2431 directs the constitution of Finance Commissions to review the financial position. Article 243J relates to audit of accounts ofPanchayats. Article 243K relates to election to Panchyats.

Article 243M enumerates the areas to which the part will notapply. Article 243N provides for continuance of existing laws and Panchayats. 14. Similarly, in Part IX-A relating to Municipalities, the terms 'Metropolitan Area', 'Municipal Area', and 'Municipality' are defined by Clauses (c), (d) and (e) of Article 243P. Article 2430 and Article 243R deals with the constitution and composition of Municipalities. Article 243S deals with constitution and composition of Ward Committees. Article 243T deals with reservation of seats. Article 243U deals with duration of Municipalities. Article 243V prescribes the disqualifications for membership. Article 243W enumerates the powers, authority and responsibilities of Municipalities. Article 243X empowers the legislature by law authorise municipalities to levy, collect A and appropriate taxes, duties, tolls and fees.

Article 243Y ·requires the Finance Commission constituted under Article 2431 to review the financial position of Municipalities and make recommendations, Article 243Z requires audit of accounts of Municipalities. Article 243ZA relates to elections. Article 243ZC B refers to the areas to which the part will not apply. Article 243ZD requires the constitution of Committees for district planning. Article 243ZE requires the constitution of Metropolitan Planning Committees for every Metropolitan Area arid preparation of a draft development plan for the. Metropolitan Area as a whole. c Article 243ZF provides for the continuance of existing laws and Municipalities for a period of one year. ·. 15. We may now extract some of the Articles in Part-IXA with reference to Municipalities, relevant for our purpose:- D "243P. Definitions.

- In this part, unless the context otherwise requires- · · xxx xxx 'xxx (c) "Metropolitan area" means an area having a population E of ten lakhs or more, comprised in orte oi"rnore districts and consisting of two or more Municipalities or Panchayats or other contiguous areas, specified by the Governor by public notification to be a Metropolitan area for the purposes of this Part; F (d) "Municipal area" means the territorial area of a Municipality as is notified by the Governor; (e) "Municipality" means an institution of self-government G constituted under article 2430; xxx xxx xxx "2430. Constitution of Municipalities.

- (1) There shall be constituted in every State,- H (a) a Nagar Panchayat (by whatever name callled) for a transitional area, that is to say, an area in transition from a rural area to an urban area; (b) a Municipal Council for a smaller urban area; and (c) a Municipal Corporation for a larger urban area, in accordance with the provisions of this Part:" xxx xxx xxx "243W. Powers, authority and responsibilities of Municipalities, etc. - Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Legislature of a State may, by law, endow- (a) the Municipalities with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self-government and such law may contain provisions for the devolution of powers and responsibilities upon Municipalities, subject to such conditions as may be specified therein, with respect to- .

(i) the preparation of plans for economic development and social justice; (ii) the performance of functions and the implementation of schemes as may be entrusted to them including those in relation to the matters listed in the Twelfth Schedule; (b) the Committees with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to carry out the responsibilities conferred upon them including those in relation to the matters listed in the Twelfth Schedule". xxx xxx xxx "243ZD. Committee for district planning. -(1) There shall be constituted in every State at the district level a District Planning Committee to consolidate the plans prepared by A the Panchayats and the Municipalities in the district and to prepare a draft development plan for the district as a whole. " xxx xxx xxx B '"243ZE. Committee for Metropolitan p/anning. -(1) There .

shall be constituted in every Metropolitan area a Metropolitan Planning Committee to prepare a draft development plan for the Metropolitan area as a whole. c (2) The Legislature of a State may, by law, make provision with respect to- (a) the composition of the Metropolitan Planning Committees; D (b) the manner in which the seats in such Committees shall be filled: Provided that not less than two-thirds of the members of such Committee shall be elected by, and from amongst, E the elected members of the Municipalities and Chairpersons of the Panchayats in the Metropolitan area in proportion to the ratio between the population of the Municipalities and of the Panchayats in that area; (c) the representation in such Committees of the F Government of India and the Government of the State and .

of such organisations and institutions as may be deemed necessary for carrying out the functions assigned to such Committees; G (d) the functions relating to planning and coordination for the Metropolitan area whfoh may be assigned to such Committees; H A (e} the manner in which the Chairpersons of such Committees shall be chosen.

(3) Every Metropolitan Planning Committee shall, in preparing the draft development plan,- B (a} have regard to- (i} the plans prepared by the Municipalities and the Panchayats in the Metropolitan area; (ii} matters of common interest between the c Municipalities and the Panchayats, including coordinated spatial planning of the area, sharing of water and other physical and natural resources, the integrated development of infrastructure and environmental conservation; D (iii} the overall objectives and priorities set by the Government of India and the Government of the State; (iv} the extent and nature of investments likely to be E made in the Metropolitan area by agencies of the Government of India and of the Government of the State and other available resources whether financial or otherwise; F (b} consult such institutions and organisations as the Governor may, by order, specify.

(4) The Chairperson of every Metropolitan Planning Committee shall forward the development plan, as recommended by such Committee, to the Government of G the State. "243ZF. Continuance of existing laws and Municipalities.

- Notwithstanding anything in this Part, any provision of any law relating to Municipalities in force in a State H immediately before the commencement of the Constitution (Seventy-fourth Amendment) Act, 1992, which is inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall continue to be in force until amended or repealed by a competent Legislature or other competent authority or until the expiration of one year from such commencement, whichever is earlier: Provided that all the Municipalities existing immediately before such commencement shall continue till the expiration of their duration, unless sooner dissolved by a resolution passed to that effect by the Legislative Assembly of that State or, ih the case of a State having a Legislative Council, by each House of the Legislature of that State".

In Karnataka, the Municipal Corporations for larger urban areas are constituted and governed by the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 ('KMC Act' for short) and the Municipal Councils for smaller urban areas are constituted and governed by the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 ('KM Act' for short). Regulation of planned growth of land use and development and making and execution of town planning schemes in the State · of Karnataka is governed by the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 ('Town Planning Act' for short). 16. The KMC Act was exhaustively amended by Amendment Act 35 of 1994 to bring the said Act in conformity with Chapter IXA of the Constitution o'f India. Section 3 empowers the Governor to specify by notification larger urban areas, having regard to the factors mentioned in Clauses (a) to (f) of Sub-section (1) and the requirements of Clause (a) to (d) of the proviso to that Sub-Section.

Sub-seCtion (1A) provides that any area specified as a larger urban area by the Governor under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be a-· City and a Corporation shall be established for the said city. Section 503- A relating to preparation of a development plan and Section 503-B relating to constitution of Metropolitan Planning Committees, inserted in KMC Act by Amendment Act 35 of 1994 are extracted below: "503-A. Preparation of development plan: Every Corpo. ration shall prepare every year a development plan and submit to the District Planning Committee constituted under Section 310 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, or as the case may be the Metropolitan Planning Cort1mittee constituted ·under Section 503B of this Act. ". "503-B. Metropolitan Planning Committee: (1) The Government shall constitute a Metropolitan Planning Committee for the Bangalore Metropolitan Area to prepare a draft development plan for such area as a whole.

Explanation: For the purpose of this section "Bangalore Metropolitan Area" means an area specified by the Governor to be a metropolitan area under clause (c) of Article 243-P of the Constitution of India.

(2) The Metropolitan Planning Committee shall consist of thirty persons of which - (a) such number of persons, not being less tnan two-thirds of the members of the committee, as may be specified by the Government shall be elected in the prescribed manner by, and from amongst, the elected members of the Corporations, the Municipal Councils and Town Panchayats, and the Adhyakshas and Upadhyakshas of Zila Panchayats, Taluk Pachayats and Grama Panchayats in the metropolitan area in proportion to the ratio between the population of the city and other municipal area and that of the areas in the jurisdiction of Zilla Panchayat, Taluk Panchayat and Grama Pachayat; (b) such number of representatives of - (i) The Government of India and the State Government as may be determined by the State Government, and A nominated by the Government of India or as the case may be, the State Government; (ii) such organisations and institutions as may be deemed necessary for carrying out of functions assigned to the 6 committee, nominated by the State Government; (3) All the members of the House of the People and the State Legislative Assembly whose constituencies lie within the Metropolitan area and the members of the Council of State and the State Legislative Council who are C registered as electors in such area shall be permanent invitees of the committee.

(4) The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority shall be the Secretary of the Committee. D (5) The Chairman of the Metropolitan Planning Committee shall be chosen in such manner as may be prescribed. (6) The Metropolitan Planning Committee shall prepare a draft development plan for the Bangalore Development E Area as a whole.

(7) Metropolitan Planning Committee shall, in preparing the draft development plan - (a) have regard to- F (i) the plans prepared by the local authorities in the Metropolitan Area; (ii) matters of common interest between the local authorities including co-ordinated spatial planning G of the area, sharing of water and other physical and natural resources, the integrated development of infrastructure and environmental conservation; (iii) the overall objectives and priorities set by the H Government of India and the State Government; (iv) the extent and nature of the investments likely to be made in the Metropolitan area by agencies of the '3overnment of India and of the State Government and the available resources whether financial or otherwise; (a) Consult such institutions and organisations as the Governor may, by order, specify. (8) The Chairman of the Metropolitan Planning Committee shall forward the development plan, as recommended by such committee, to the State Government". 17.

The BOA Act was enacted to establish a development authority for the development of city of Bangalore and areas adjacent thereto and for matters connected therewith. The statement of objects and reasons of the said Act reads thus: "Bangalore City with its population (as per last census) is a Metropolitan City. Different Authorities like the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation, the City Improvement Trust Board, the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, the Housing Board and the Bangalore City Planning Authority are exercising jurisdiction over the area. Some of the functions of these bodies like development, planning etc. , are overlapping creating thereby avoidable confusion, besides hampering co-ordinated development. It is, therefore, considered necessary to set up a single authority like the Delhi Development Authority for the city areas adjacent to it which in course of time will become part of the city.

For the speedy implementation of the above said objects as also the 20-point programme and for establishing a cocoordinating Central Authority, urgent action was called for. Moreover, the haphazard and irregular growth would continue unless checked by the Development Authority and it may not be possible to rectify or correct mistakes in the future. " Section 3 of BDA Act relates to constitution and incorporation of the Bangalore Development Authority. It provides for the State Government, by notification, constituting an Authority for the Bangalore Metropolitan Area, to be called as Bangalore Development Authority.

Section 2(c) of the BDA Act defines 'Bangalore Metropolitan Area' as follows: "Bangalore Metropolitan Area" means the area comprising · the City of Bangalore as defined in the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (Karnataka Act 69 of ·1949), the areas where the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 (Karnataka Act 5 of 1945) was immediately before the commencement of this Act in force and such other areas adjacent to the aforesaid as the Government may from time to time by notification specify. Clause 0) of Section 2 of the BDA Act defines "development" as follows: "Development" with its grammatical variations means the carrying out of building, engineering, or other operations in or over or under land or the making of any material change in any building or land and includes redevelopment. Section . 15 empowers Authority to undertake works and incur expenditure for development etc. The said section is extracted below:- "15.

Power of Authority to undertake works and incur expenditure for development, etc. - (1) The Authority may,- (a) draw up detailed schemes (hereinafter referred to as "development scheme") for the development of the Bangalore Metropolitan Area and (b) with the previous approval of the Government, undertake from time to time any works for ihe development of the Bangalore Metropolitan Area and incur expenditure therefor and also for the framing and execution of development schemes. (2) The Authority may also from time to time make and take up any new or additional development schemes,- (i) on its own initiative, if satisfied of the sufficiency of its resources, or (ii) on the recommendation of the local authority if the local authority places at the disposal of the Authority the necessary funds for framing and carrying out any scheme; or (iii) otherwise.

(3) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, the Government may, whenever it deems necessary require the Authority to take up any development scheme or work and execute it subject to such ter:11s and conditions as may be specified by the Government". Section 16 enumerates the particulars to be provided in a development scheme and the said section is extracted below:- "16. Particulars to be provided for in a development scheme. - E.

"very development scheme under section 15,- (1) shall, within the limits of the area comprised in the scheme, provide for,- (a) the acquisition of any land which, in the opinion of the Authority, will be necessary for or affected by the execution of the scheme ; (b) laying and re-laying out all or any land including the construction and reconstruction of buildings and formation and alteration of streets; (c) drainage, water supply and electricity; (d) the reservation of not less than fifteen percent of the 8 total area of the layout for public parks and playgrounds and an additional area of not less than ten percent of the total area of the layout for civic amenities.

(2) may, within the limits aforesaid, provide for,- (a) raising any land which the Authority may consider expedient to raise to facilitate better drainage ; (b) forming open spaces for the better ventilation of the area comprised in the scheme or any adjoining area ; (c) the sanitary arrangements required ; [(d) x x x [omitted by Act 17 of 1984). (3) may, within and without the limit~ aforesaid provide for the construction of houses". Section 17 lays down the procedure on completion of scheme and is extracted below:- "17. Procedure on completion of scheme .

- (1) When a development scheme has been prepared, the Authority shall draw up a notification stating the fact of a scheme having been made and the limits of the area comprised therein, and naming a place where particulars of the scheme, a map of the area comprised therein, a statement specifying the land which is proposed to be acquired and of the land in regard to which a betterment tax may be levied may be seen at all reasonable hours. (2) A copy of the said notification shall be sent to the Corporation which shall, within thirty days from the date of receipt thereof, forward to the Authority for transmission to the Government as hereinafter provided, any representation which the Corporation may think fit to make with regard to the scheme.

(3) The Authority shall also cause a copy of the said notification to be published in [ x x x ] the official Gazette and affixed in some conspicuous part of its own office, the Deputy Commissioner's Office, the office of the Corporation and in such other places as the Authority may consider necessary. (4) If no representation is received from the Corporation within the time specified in sub-section (2), the concurrence of the Corporation to the scheme shall be deemed to have been given.

(5) During the thirty days next following the day on which such notification is published in the official Gazette the Authority shall serve a notice on every person whose name appears in the assessment list of the local authority or in the land revenue register as being primarily liable to pay the property tax or land revenue assessment on any building or land which is proposed to be acquired in executing the scheme or in regard to which the Authority proposes to recover betterment tax requiring such person to show cause within thirty days from the date of the receipt of the notice why such acquisition of the building or land and the recovery of betterment tax should not be made.

(6) The notice shall be signed by or by the order of the (Commissioner} and shall be served,- (a} by personal delivery or if such person is absent or cannot be found, on his agent, or if no agent can be found, then by leaving the same on the land or the building ; or (b} by leaving the same at the usual or last known place of abode or business of such person ; or A (c) by registered post addressed to the usual or last known place of abode or business of such person. Section 18 requires sanction of the scheme by the Government and reads thus : B "18. Sanction of scheme .

- (1) After publication of the scheme and service of notices as provided in section 17 and after consideration of representations, if any, received in respect thereof, the Authority shall submit the scheme, c making such modifications therein as it may think fit, to the Government for sanction, furnishing,- (a) a description with full particulars of the scheme including the reasons for any modifications inserted therein 0 (b) complete plans and estimates of the cost of executing the scheme; (c) a statement specifying the land proposed to be E acquired ; (d) any representation received under sub-section (2) of section 17; (e) a schedule showing the rateable value, as entered in F the municipal assessment book on the date of the publication of a notification relating to the land under the section 17 or the land assessment of all land specified in the statement under clause(c) ; and G (f) such other particulars, if any, as may be prescribed.

(2) Where any development scheme provides for the construction of houses, the Authority shall also submit to the Government plans and estimates for the construction of the houses. H A (3) After considering the proposal submitted to it the Government may, by order, give sanction to the scheme". Section 19 requires declaration to be published giving particulars of the land to be acquired, upon sanction of the scheme by the Government. B 18. The contentions urged by learned counsel for appellants based on Parts IX and IX-A of the Constitution can be summarised thus : (i) BOA Act is a legislation relatable to Article 24~W and c some of the matters listed in the Twelfth Schedule. Therefore BOA Act is deemed to be a law relating to Municipalities. Having regard to Article 243 ZF, any provision inconsistent with the provisions of Part IXA of the Constitution, law relating to municipalities ceased to be in 0 force on the expiry of one year from 1. 6. 1993.

- the date of commencement of the Constitution 74th Amendment Act, 1992. (ii) After the insertion of Part IXA of-the Constitution, there E cannot be any 'metropolitan area' other than what is declared by the Governor as a metropolitan area, as provided under Article 243P(c). Only an area having a population of 10 lakhs or more in one or more districts and consisting of two or more municipalities or Panchayats or F other contiguous areas and specified by the Governor by a public notification to be a Metropolitan Area can be a 'Metropolitan Area'. Consequently, the 'Bangalore Metropolitan Area' as defined under section 2(c) of the BDA Act had ceased to exist and therefore BOA could not G draw up any development scheme for Bangalore Metropolitan Area.

(iii) A development scheme or an additional development scheme for Bangalore Metropolitan area which the BOA is required to draw up under Section 15 of the BOA Act H are conceptually and in effect same as the development plan with reference to a municipality referred to in Article 243W and a development plan for a metropolitan area referred to in Article 243ZE. After the insertion of Part IXA in the Constitution, a development plan for a metropolitan area can only be drawn up by a democratically elected representative body that is the Metropolitan Planning Committee by taking into account the factors mentioned in Clause (3) of Article 243ZE. Therefore on the expiry of one year from 1. 6. 1993 (the date on which Part IXA of the Constitution was inserted), BOA has no authority to draw up any development scheme. 19. Any statute or provision thereof which is inconsistent · with any constitutional provision will be struck down by courts.

Consequently, if BOA Act or any provision of the BOA Act is found to be inconsistent with any provision of Part IXA of the Constitution, it will be struck down by courts as violative of the constitution. In regard to any provision of any law relating to municipalities, Article 243ZF suspends such inva11dity or postpones the invalidity for a period of one year from 1. 6. 1993 to enable the competent Legislature to remove the inconsistency by amending or repealing such law relating to municipalitiPs to bring it in consonance with the provisions of Part IXA of the Constitution. Article 243ZF is a provision enabliny continuance of any provision of a law relating to municipalities in spite of such provision being inconsistent with the provisions of Part IXA of the Constitution for a specified period of one year.

It does not extend the benefit of continuance to any law other than laws relating to municipalities; it also does not provide for continuance of a law for one year, if the violation is in respect of any constitutional provision other than Part IXA; and it does not declare any provision of a statute to be inconsistent with it nor declare any statute to be invalid. The invalidity of a statute is declared by a court when it finds that a statute or its provision to be inconsistent with a constitutional provision. 20. The benefit of Article 243ZF is available only in regard to laws relating to 'municipalities'. The term 'municipality' has a specific meaning assigned to it under Part IX-A. Article 243P(c) defines the word as meaning an institution of selfgovernment constituted under Article 2430. Article 2430 refers specifically to three types of municipalities.

that is, a Nagar Panchayat for a transitional area, a municipal council for a smaller urban area and a municipal corporation for a larger urban area. Thus, neither any city improvement trust nor any development authority is a municipality, referred to in Article 243ZF. 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 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 0 a provision of law, as BOA Act is not a law relating to Municipalities. 21.

The Constitution (Seventy-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1992 inserting Part IX-A in the Constitution, seeks to strengthen the system of municipalities in urban areas, by placing these local self-governments on sound and effective footing and provide measures for regular and fair conduct of elections. Even before the insertion of the said Part IX-A, Municipalities existed all over the country but there were no uniform or strong foundations for these local self-governments to function effectively.

Provisions relating to composition of Municipalities, constitution and composition of Ward Committees, reservation of seats for weaker sections, duration of Municipalities, powers, authority, responsibilities of Municipalities, power to impose taxes, proper superintendence and centralised control of elections to Municipalities, constitution of Committees for District Planning and Metropolitan Planning, were either not in existence or were found to be inadequate or defective in the state laws relating to municipalities. Part IX-A seeks to strengthen the democratic political governance at grass root level in urban areas by providing constitutional status to Municipalities, and by laying down minimum uniform norms and by ensuring regular and fair conduct of elections. When Part IX-A came into force, the provisions of the existing laws relating to municipalities which were inconsistent with or contrary to the provisions of Part IX-A would have ceased to apply.

To provide continuity for 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 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. 22. To enable the municipalities (that is municipal corporations, municipal councils and Nagar Panchayats) to function as institutions of self-government, Article 243W authorises the legislature of a state to endow to the municipalities, such powers and authority as may be necessary, by law.

Such law made by the state legislature may contain provision for the devolution of powers and responsibilities upon municipalities, with respect to the following: (i) The preparation of plans for economic development and social justice; and (ii) The performance of functions and implementation of schemes as may be entrusted to them including those in relation to the following matters (earmarked in the twelfth schedule): 1. Urban planning including town planning. 2. Regulation of land-use and construction of buildings. 3. Planning for economic and social development. 4. Roads and bridges. 5. Water supply for domestic, industrial and commercial purposes. 6. Public health, sanitation conservancy and solid waste management. 7. Fire services. 8. Urban forestry, protection of the environment and promotion of ecological aspects. 9. Safeguarding the interests of weaker sections of society, including the handicapped and mentally retarded. 10. Slum improvement and upgradation. 11.

Urban poverty alleviation. 12. Provision of urban amenities and facilities such as parks, gardens, playgrounds. 13. Promotion of cultural, educational and aesthetic aspects. 14. Burials and burial grounds; cremations, cremation grounds; and electric crematoriums. 15. Cattle pounds; prevention of cruelty to animals. 16. Vital statistics including registration of births and deaths. 17. Public amenities including street lighting, parking lots, bus stops and public conveniences. 18. Regulation of slaughter houses and tanneries. The aforesaid powers and authority (enumerated in the twelfth A Schedule) may also be endowed to the Ward Committees which are required to be constituted, by Article 243S. 23. On the other hand, the purpose and object of the BOA is to act as a development authority for the development of the . 8 city of Bangalore and areas adjacent thereto. The Preamble of BOA Act describes it as 'an Act to.

provide for the establishment of a Development Authority for the development of the city of Bangalore and areas adjacent thereto and for matters connected therewith. The development contemplated . by the BOA Act is "carrying out of building, engineering or other C operations in or over or under land or the making of any material change in any building or land and includes redevelopment" (vide Section 2(j) of BOA Act. Therefore, the purpose is to make lay outs, construct buildings or carry out other operations in regard to land. Municipalities are not concerned with nor 0 entrusted with functions similar to those entrusted to BOA under the BOA Act, that is building, engineering or other operations by forming layout of plots with all amenities, construction of houses and apartments, as a part of any scheme to develop a city.

Municipalities are concerned with the overall economic E development providing sodal justice (urban poverty alleviation and slum improvement) regulating land use and constructions, providing amenities (roads, bridges, water supply, fire services, street lighting, parking, bus stops, public conveniences), promoting education and culture etc. Neither urban town F planning nor regulation of land use and construction, is similar to the 'development' as contemplated in BDA Act, that is carrying out building, engineering operations in or over or under land. It would thus be seen that the object and functions of a Municipal Corporations are completely different from the object G and purpose of a development authority like BOA. BDA is not a municipality. Therefore, it cannot be said that mere 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. H A 24.

Article 243ZE no doubt provides that there .. sflall be constituted in every metropolitan area, a MetropolitEln Planning Committee to prepare a draft development plan for the metropolitan area as a whole. The metropolitan area is defined in clause (c} of Article 243P as an area having a population of B 10 lakhs or more comprised in one or more districts and consisting of two or more municipalities or panchayats or other contiguous areas specified by the Governor by a public notification to be a metropolitan area for the purpose of Part IXA. The Bangalore Development Authority is constituted inter c alia to draw up a detailed scheme for the Bangalore Metropolitan Area. The Bangalore Metropolitan Area is defined in Section 2(c) of the BOA Act and1be said definition need not necessarily be the same as or equivalent to any metropolitan area declared with reference to Bangalore under Article 243P(c) of the Constitution.

It was submitted before the High 0 Court that the Governor had not issued any public notification specifying any area as metropolitan area, with reference to Bangalore city. Further the declaration of metropolitan area by the Governor, as provided in clause (c} of Article 243P is E 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 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 F provision for constitution of a Metropolitan planning committee for preparing a draft development plan for such metropolitan area under Article 243ZE has any relevance or bearing to the Bangalore Metropolitan Area with reference to which BOA has been constituted. G 25.

Next contention urged by the appellant is that in pursuance of Article 243ZE, KMC Act has been amended inserting Section 503-B providing for constitution of a Metropolitan Planning Committee for preparing a draft H development plan for the Bangalore Metropolitan Area and therefore the Bangalore Development Authority can no longer function as an authority for development of metropolitan area, nor can it draw development schemes therefor. Development scheme to be drawn up by the BDA for development of Bangalore Metropolitan Area is specific i. e. acquisition of land, laying out or re-laying plots, formation of roads, construction of buildings, providing drainage, water supply and electricity and allot them to members of the public.

On the other hand, the development plan for the metropolitan area as a whole, to be prepared by Metropolitan Planning Committee constituted under the KMC Act involves making a plan for overall development with reference to the various functions enumerated in the twelfth Schedule, that is, plans for economic and social justice, planning for economic and social development, slum improvement and upgradation, urban poverty alleviation, and providing several urban amenities and facilities referred to in the twelfth Schedule. It would thus be seen that the 'development scheme' formulated for Bangalore Metropolitan Area by BDA has nothing to do with a 'development plan' that has to be drawn by a municipality or by Metropolitan Planning Committee. 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 authority like BOA for a metropolitan area.

It should also be noticed that insofar as Bangalore is concerned,·the Bangalore Metropolitan Area as defined in Section 2(c) of the BDA Act is the area comprising the City of Bangalore as defined in the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, the area where the city of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 was immediately before the commencement 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 Area, referred to in Section 503-B of KMC 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 purpose of KMC Act. Neither the Bangalore Metropolitan Area nor a Metropolitan Planning Committee is in existence under the KMC Act.

In these circumstances, the contentions 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 acquire land to form lay outs in pursuance of any development scheme for Bangalore Metropolitan Area, is wholly untenable. 26. The appellants submitted that the powers, authority and responsibilities, to be endowed by the State Legislatiure upon the Municipalities are enumerated in Article 243W read with Twelfth Schedule; that Articles 234ZD and 243ZE require the state government to constitute a District Planning Committee at District Level and a Metropolitan Planning Committee for every Metropolitan Area; that such Metropolitan Planning Committee is required to prepare a draft development plan for the Metropolitan Area as a whole.

It was contended that the BOA Act was a Legislation which related to some of the responsibilities and functions of Municipalities, enumerated in the Twelfth Schedule to the Constitution read with Article 243W and that its provisions, in particular, sections 15 to 19 were inconsistent with the provisions of Part IXA of the Constitution; that no law can entrust powers and responsibilities referred to in Article 243W including those relating to matters listed in Twelfth Schedule to an authority other than an authority having popular mandate; and that therefore the BOA Act entrusting such powers and responsibilities to a non-elected authority ceases to be in force. 27. While it is true that BDA is not an elected boqy like the municipality, it has several elected representatives as members. Section 3 relates to the Constitution of the Authority and provides that the Authority shall consist of 22 members and made up as follows : Six officers of the BOA viz.

, The Chairman, The Finance Member, The Engineering Member, The Town Planning Member, The Commissioner and Secretary of the Authority. (All of them are full-time A employees, three of them are specialists in finance,· engineering and town planning. Four elected representatives, that is, two members of state legislature assembly and two counsellors B of Bangalore Municipal Corporation. One representative of the state government and four representatives of statutory corporations, that is, the Commissioner of Bangalore Municipal Corporation and representatives of Bangalore Water Supply C Sewerage Board, Karnataka Electricity Board, and Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. Six members of the public (with minimum of one woman, one person belonging to SC/ST, and one 0 representing labour) One Architect. It would thus be seen that members of the BOA represent different interests and groups, technical persons and elected E representatives.

Further, no development scheme can be finalised or put into effect without the sanction of the State Government which in 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 F wholly elected body as in the case of a municipal corporation will make no difference. The membership pattern is more suited to fulfil the requirements of a specialist agency executing development schemes. We therefore find no merit in the contention that provisions of BOA Act become inoperative, on G Parts IX and IX-A of the Constitution coming into force. 28. The BDA Act empowers the Bangalore Development Authority to formulate schemes for the development of Bangalore Metropolitan Area. The word 'development' refers H to building, engineering or other operations in regard to land, that is making layouts and making available plots for allotment to members of the public.

It is authorised to acquire lands for execution of development schemes, prepare layouts and construct buildings, provide drainage, water supply and electricity, provide sanitary arrangements, form open spaces, lease, sell or transfer the plots/immovable properties. The area in which the BOA Act operates is totally different from the areas in which Part IX A of the Constitution and KMC Act which relate to local self-government operate. Question (iii) - Re : BOA lacking territorial ! urisdiction to draw up the development scheme 29. The contention of appellants is that the villages in which the acquired lands are situated do not fall within the Bangalore o Metropolitan Area as defined in section 2(c) of the BOA Act, and consequently the BOA has no jurisdiction to either acquire lands or make a development scheme in regard to those areas.

As noticed above, section 15 empowers the BOA to draw up development schemes or additional development schemes for the development of the Bangalore Metropolitan Area. Bangalore Metropolitan Area is defined in section 2(c) as the area comprising (i) the City of Bangalqre as defined in the City Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, 1949; (ii) the areas where the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 was immediately before the commencement of this Act was in force; (iii) such other areas adjacent to the aforesaid areas as the government may from time to time by notification specify. The areas in which the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 was in force immediately before 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). 30. The Government of Karnataka issued a notification dated 1. 11.

1965, under section 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 A be the 'Local Planning Area' for the purposes of the said Act to be called as the Bangalore City Planning Area and the limits of the said planning area were as described in Schedule II thereto. All the 16 villages in which the lands were acquired for Arkavathi Layout fell within the said Bangalore City Planning B Area (that is within the 'other areas' described in the I Schedule). 31. The Government of Karnataka is&iled another notification dated 13. 3. 1984 under section 4A (1) of the Town Planning Act declaring that the area comprising 325 peripheral C 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 Schedule II thereto.

It may be mentioned that the areas added by this notification were beyond the core area (Bangalore City) and D the first concentric circle area which were already notified as the Bangalore City planning area under the notification dated 1. 11. 1965. 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 E said notification but the original planning area described and declared in the notification dated 1. 11. 1965. The following note was added after the Schedule II to the notification dated 13. 3. 1984 : "This excludes the Bangalore city local planning area declared (by) government notification No. PLN/42/MNP/65/ F S0/3446 dated 1. 11. 1965. " 32. Thereafter, the Government of Karnataka issued a notification dated 6. 4. 1984 under section 4A (3) of the Town Planning Act, amalgamating the 'Local Planning Area of G Bangalore' declared under notification dated 1. 11.

1965 and the 'Local Planning Area' declared for the environs of Bangalore by notification dated 13. 3. 1984. The said notification called the amalgamated Local Planning Area as the 'Bangalore City Planning Area' with effect from 1. 4. 1984. Schedule I to the said H . 1·. : -· A notification consolidated the areas shown in Schedule I to the notification dated 1. 11. 1965 and the Schedule I to the notification dated 13. 3. 1984 and contained the names of 538 villages. It also confirmed that the limits of the planning area shall be as indicated in II Schedule to the notifications dated B 1. 11. 1965 and 13. 3. 1984. 33. The Government of Karnataka issued a notification 1 dated 1. 3. 1988 in exercise of the power under section 2(c) 0 the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 specifying the villages, indicated in I Schedule and within the boundaries C indicated in II Schedule to the notification dated 13. 3. 1984, to be the areas for the purpose of the said clause.

The contention of the petitioner is that the notification dated 1. 3. 1988 only specifies the villages indicated in the notification dated 13. 3. 1984 as Bangalore Metropolitan area; that therefore, the D areas that were earlier declared as a local planning area under the notification dated 1. 11. 1965, were not part of Bangalore Metropolitan area; and that as all the 16 villages which were the subject matter of the impugned acquisition, were part of the local planning area declared under notification dated 1. 11. 1965, E but not part of the local planning area declared under the notification dated 13. 3. 1984, the said 16 villages do not form part of the Bangalore Metropolitan Area for the purpose of section 2(c) of the BOA Act; and consequently, BOA cannot execute any development scheme in regard to the said 16 F villages under section 15 of the BOA Act. 34. A careful reading of 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, together as the G 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 that the boundaries indicated in Schedule II to the H 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 because the areas declared under 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 (325 villages) surrounding the ar~a 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 therefore, the 16 villages which are the subject matter of the impugned acquisition, are part of the Bangalore Metropolitan Area. 35. The learned counsel for the Appellants contended that the note at the end of II Schedule to the notification dated 13. 3. 1984 excluded the 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 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 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 dated 13. 3. 1984, which as noticed above 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 intention of the state 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. 36. In fact ever since 1988, everyone had proceeded on the basis that the Bangalore Metropolitan Area included the entire area within the boundaries mentioned in Schedule II to the notification dated 13. 3. 1984. Between 1988 and 2003, BOA had made several development schemes for the areas in the first concentric circle around Bangalore City (that is, in the 218 village described in I Schedule to the notification dated 1. 11. 1965) and the state government had sanctioned them. None of those were challenged on the ground that the area was not part of Bangalore Metropolitan Area. 0 37. It is true that the wording of the notification is clumsy and ambiguous.

It refers to the villages indicated in Schedule I and it also refers to villages within the boundaries of Schedule II. It also states that the area stated in the notification is the area for the purpose of section 2(c) of BOA Act. It is well settled that when there is vagueness and ambiguity, an interpretation that would avoid absurd results should be adopted. The interpretation put forth by 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 city would form part of Bangalore Metropolitan Area. This, to say the least, is absurd and will be in direct violation of section 2(c) of 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. 38.

Let us view it from another angle. Bangalore City forms the central corE. area or the innermost circle. The adjoining 218 villages enumerated in the notification dated 1. 11. 1965 surrounding Bangalore City form the first concentric circle. The A peripheral villages described in Schedule I to the notification dated 13. 3. 1984 form the second concentric circle which surrounds the central core area and the areas within the first concentric circle. To interpret Bangalore Metropolitan Area as referring only to the peripheral villages and not the core city area and its adjoining villages would be like saying the outer skin of a fruit is the fruit and the entire fruit inside does not form part of the fruit. 39. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that if the notification dated 1. 3.

1988 is interpreted as including the C inner areas, then it would amount to reading the words "Government of Karnataka hereby specifies the villages indicated in Schedule I and within the boundaries indicated in Schedule II to the notification dated 13. 3. 1984 to be the area for the purpose of the said Clause" as follows: "Government of Karnataka hereby specifies the villages indicated in Schedule I and the villages within the boundaries indicated in Schedule II to the notification dated 13. 3. 1984 to be the areas for the purpose of the said clause". It is submitted that a casus omissus cannot be supplied by courts where the language is clear and unambiguous and is capable of an intelligible interpretation. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this court in Dr. Baliram Waman Hiray v. Justice 8. Lentin & Ors. - 1988 (4) SCC 419, and S. R. Bommai & Ors. v.

UOf & Ors, - 1994 (3) sec 1 and several declsicms following them, to contend that the court cannot, in interpreting a provision, supply any casus omissus. The doctrine of casus omissf. Js was e)(pl;:iinec:f thus in American G Jwisprudf)nce, 2nd Sl3ri~s Vol, 73 ai pagf) 397 : '1t is a gener;:il rule that tile court r•. ay not by construction insert words or p! lrases in a statute or sμpply a cas(. Js omiss1. 1s by giving force and effect to the l;:inguage of the statute when applied to a subject about which nothing whatever is said, and which, to all appearances, was not in the mind 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 8 by the State Government and the BDA. Justice G. P.

Singh in his Principles of Statutory Interpretation (2008 Edition - Page 65) expresses the view that 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 or policy. This Court has also repeatedly emphasised that although a court cannot supply a real casus omissus, nor can it interpret a Statute to create a casus omissus when there is really none. In Padma Sunder Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu 2002 (3) SCC 533, a Constitution Bench of the this Court held : •.....

a casus omissus cannot be supplied by the court by judicial interpretative process, except in the case of clear necessity and when reason for it is found in the four corners of the statute itself, but at the same time a casus omissus should not be readily inferred and for that purpose all the parts of a Statute or section must be construed together and every clause of a section should be construed with reference to the context and other clauses thereof so that the construction to be put on a particular provision makes a consistent enactment of the whole Statute. " 40. Let us now refer to the wording and the ambiguity in the notification. 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 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 A notification. Therefore, clearly, the area that is contemplated for being specified in a notification under Section 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 B the areas specifically referred to in section 2(c), but purports 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 c that only the villages included in Schedule I to the notification · dated ii 3. 3. 1984 would be the Bangalore Metropolitan Area, would result in an absurd situation.

Q_~iously the city of Bangalore and the adjoining areas whic~ere notified under the city of Bangalore Improvement Act-4 945 are already 0 included in the Bangalore Metropolitan Area and the interpretation put forth by the appellants would have the effect of excluding those areas from the Bangalore Metropolitan Area. As stated above, the core area or the inner circle area, that is Bangalore City, is a part of Bangalore Metropolitan Area in view of the definition under Section 2(c). The 218 villages specified E . in the notification dated 1. 11. 1965 are the villages immediately surrounding and adjoining Bangalore city and it forms the first concentric circle area around core area of Bangalore city. The 325 villages listed in I Schedule to the notification dated F 13. 3. 1984 are situated beyond the 218 villages and form a wider second concentric circle around the central core area and the ·first concentric circle area of 218 villages. •That is why the notification dated 1. 3.

1988 made it clear that the Bangalore Metropclitan Acea would be the area within the boundaries indicated in II Schedule to the notification dated 13. 3. 1984. It G would mean that the three areas, namely, the central core area, the adjoining ·? 18 villages constituting the first concentric circle area and the 'hext adjoining 325 villages forming the second con·centric circle are all included within the Bangalore Metropolitan Area. What is already specifically included by H A 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 325 B villages which are described in the First Schedule to the notification dated 13. 3.

1984 to be added to the existing metropolitan area and clarifying that the entire areas within the boundaries of Second Schedule to the notification dated 13. 3. 1984 would constitute the Bangalore Metropolitan Area. c There is no dispute that the boundaries indicated in the notification dated 13. 3. 1984 would clearly include the 16 villages which are the subject mater of the acquisition. 41. We therefore, reject the contention of the appellant that Bangalore Development Authority does not have territorial D jurisdiction to form any development scheme in regard to the 16 villages which are th&subject matter of the final declaration dated 23. 2. 2004. Question Civl - Re : Invalidity of final declaration with E reference to time limit in section 6 of Land Acquisition Act. 42.

This question arises from the contention raised by one of the appellants that the provisions of section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('LA Act" for short) will apply to the acquisitions under the BOA Act and consequently if the final F declaration under section 19(1) is not issued within one year from the date of publication of the notification under sections 17 (1) and (3) of the BOA Act, such final declaration will be invalid. The appellants submissions are as under : The notification under sections 17(1) and (3) of the Act was issued G and gazetted on 3. 2. 2003 and the declaration under section 19(1) was issued and published on 23. 2. 2004. Section 36 of the Act provides that the acquisition of land under the BOA Act within or outside the Bangalore Metropolitan Area, shall be regulated by the provisions of the LA Act, so far as they are H applicable. Section 6 of LA Act requires that no declaration shall ,.. , BONPU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE 111 "' be mad~. :!!

J respect of any land covered by a notification under section 4 of the LA Act, after the expiry