Delay and Procedural Irregularities – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision due to a violation of the principles of natural justice, holding that an affidavit filed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was relied upon without granting the appellant an opportunity to respond. (Para 15)

Quashing of Acquisition Proceedings – The appellant’s claim for exclusion of land was based on the High Court’s previous directions, which had been ignored by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). (Para 9)

Unilateral Reliance on Authority’s Affidavit – The Division Bench of the High Court wrongly relied on an affidavit dated 12th September 2019, without granting a hearing to the appellant. (Para 14)

High Court’s Duty in Judicial Review – The Supreme Court emphasized that courts must ensure fairness in acquisition proceedings and uphold procedural requirements. (Para 17)

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226
• Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4, Section 6

Subjects:

Land Acquisition – Natural Justice – Writ Petition – High Court’s Power – Spot Inspection – Public Authority Duty – Exclusion from Acquisition – Judicial Review

Facts:

a) The father of the appellant challenged land acquisition before the High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 45695-697 of 2004. The petition was allowed, and acquisition was quashed. (Para 5)
b) The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) challenged this order, leading to a Division Bench judgment upholding the acquisition but granting relief to certain categories of landowners. (Para 6)
c) The appellant sought exclusion of his land from acquisition, arguing that similar adjacent lands were exempted. The BDA rejected the application. (Para 8)
d) The appellant’s multiple writ petitions resulted in repeated directions for reconsideration by the authorities, which were not followed properly. (Para 10)
e) The learned Single Judge of the High Court ruled in the appellant’s favor, finding that the BDA failed to apply its mind to the case. However, the Division Bench reversed this decision based on an affidavit from the BDA without allowing the appellant to contest it. (Para 12)

Issues:

1. Whether the High Court Division Bench violated natural justice by deciding the case based on an affidavit without granting the appellant an opportunity to respond?
2. Whether the BDA’s rejection of the appellant’s claim for exclusion from acquisition was arbitrary?

Submissions/Arguments:

• Appellant:

  • The BDA arbitrarily denied exclusion of the appellant’s land despite similar adjacent lands being exempted.
  • The Division Bench failed to consider the earlier High Court order directing authorities to conduct a proper assessment before proceeding with acquisition.
  • The High Court relied on an affidavit without granting a hearing, violating the principle of audi alteram partem.

• Respondent (BDA):

  • The appellant’s land was legally acquired, and no procedural violation occurred.
  • The constructions on the land appeared to have been made after the preliminary notification.
  • The Division Bench’s decision was justified based on the affidavit confirming land acquisition.

Decision:

• The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the High Court’s impugned order for violation of natural justice. (Para 16)
• The matter was remitted back to the Division Bench for fresh adjudication, directing that the appellant be granted an opportunity to contest the affidavit. (Para 16)
• If necessary, the High Court may order a fresh spot inspection to ascertain facts. (Para 17)
• Status quo was directed to be maintained until the final decision by the High Court. (Para 17)

Ratio Decidendi:

• Natural Justice in Land Acquisition – The High Court must not decide a case based on fresh affidavits from public authorities without granting the affected party an opportunity to contest.
• Exclusion of Lands in Acquisition Proceedings – Similarity in circumstances must be examined carefully before rejecting an exclusion request.