Case: Uma Shankar &amp; Others Vs. R. Hanumaiah Since Deceased Through His Lrs. &amp; Others

the land in terms of the decision rendered by the High Court in the impugned judgment i.e. Writ Appeal No.727 of 1989. Since we are setting aside the impugned judgment, the BDA as per directions issued by the Chief Minister cannot re-convey the land to the respondent in terms of the decision rendered by the High Court in the impugned judgment i.e. Writ Appeal No.727 of 1989.xxx xxx xxx55. It is not in dispute that Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act would apply to the acquisitions made under the 1976 Act and in that view of the matter the State could exercise its jurisdiction for re-conveyance of the property in favour of the owner thereof only in the event possession thereof had not been taken. Once such possession is taken even the State cannot direct re-convey the property. It has been accepted before us that Section 21 of the General Clauses Act has no application but reliance has been sought to be placed on Section 65 of the 1976 Act which empowers the Government to issue such directions to the authority as in its opinion are necessary or expedient for carrying out the purpose of the Act. The power of the State Government being circumscribed by the conditions precedent laid down therein and, thus, the directions can be issued only when the same are necessary or expedient for carrying out the purpose of the Act. In a case of this nature, the State Government did not have any such jurisdiction and, thus, the Bangalore Development Authority has rightly refused to comply therewith.xxx xxx xxx xxx58. Bangalore Development Authority has been constituted for specific purposes. It cannot take any action which would defeat such purpose. The State also ordinarily cannot interfere in the day to day functioning of a statutory authority. It can ordinarily exercise its power under Section 65 of the 1976 Act where a policy matter is involved. It has not been established that the Chief Minister had the requisite jurisdiction to issue such a direction. Section 65 of the 1976 Act contemplates an order by the State. Such an order must conform to the provisions of Article 166 of the Constitution of India.xxx xxx xxx xxxxxx xxx xxx xxx61. We accept this appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court as well as the directions issued by the State Government on the asking of the Chief Minister vide letter dated 12th July, 2005 to the BDA to re-convey the land measuring 6 acres, 20 guntas and 42 Sq. Yds. to the 1st Respondent. The judgment under appeal is set aside and that of the Single Judge is restored. The writ petition is dismissed except to the extent that the 1st respondent would be entitled to re-claim the amount of compensation along with interest as indicated in the earlier paragraphs. Parties shall bear their own costs."This Court concluded the matter by aforesaid decision which was binding on all concerned.6. Thereafter, as total misadventure, Writ Petition (C) No. 26826 of 2005 was filed by R. Hanumaiah in which ignoring the mandate of this Court, the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka passed an order on 10.06.2009 to give representation to the Government for de-acquiring 6 acres 20 guntas for which there was absolutely no room. The direction was in violation of decision of this Court in the same matter and such a petition ought not to have been entertained by the High Court for a moment. However, the direction was given to the Government to decide the representation. The said direction was stayed in the Writ Appeal filed by the BDA vide dated 12.06.2009.7. On 14.10.2009 in gross violation of the judgment rendered by this Court, notification for de-acquisition was issued by the Government of Karnataka. Consequently, the BDA as well as R. Hanumaiah withdrew the legal proceedings. In the meantime, land had already been allotted to Uma Shankar & Ors, appellants in the appeals before us. They questioned the de-acquisition made under Section 48 of the Act by way of WP(C) Nos. 32919-32922 of 2009. The Status quo was ordered on 12.11.2009. However, the Government realized its blatant mistake and withdrew the notification dated 14.10.2009 on 13.11.2009. The withdrawal of the notification on 13.11.2009 of de-acquisition was questioned by R. Hanumaiah by way of filing WP(C) No. 21186/2010. The Writ Petition was dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka vide order dated 20.04.2012 rightly and relying upon the judgment of this Court in 2005 directing that de-notification itself was not permission.8. The Division Bench of the High Court, set aside the judgment and order passed by the Learned Single Judge;quashed the notification dated 13.11.2009 and directed the State of Karnataka to reconsider the matter afresh by giving opportunity to R. Hanumaiah as well as the BDA.9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. We are of the considered opinion that it was total misadventure and rather contempt of this Court was committed by the State Government while issuing notification dated 14.10.2009 of de-acquisition of land in favour of R. Hanumaiah. It was not permissible exercise in view of the afore-mentioned dictum binding on all the parties. Even the conduct of the then Chief Minister was adversely commented upon by this Court in the decision rendered in 2005. In view of inter parties judgment of this Court, there was no scope left to de-acquire the property under the provisions of Section 48 of the Act. Thus, it was wholly impermissible exercise and notification issued on 14.10.2009 was totally void, illegal and conferred no right to R. Hanumaiah. Thus no hearing was required to be given to R. Hanumaiah in the matter and there was no scope left to issue such illegal notification which was in violation of the law laid down by this Court in the same case. The notification dated 13.11.2009 was rightly issued cancelling the previous notification dated 14.10.2009 as there could not be any de-acquisition of the land.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]We are of the considered opinion that it was total misadventure and rather contempt of this Court was committed by the State Government while issuing notification dated 14.10.2009 ofof land in favour of R. Hanumaiah. It was not permissible exercise in view of thedictum binding on all the parties. Even the conduct of the then Chief Minister was adversely commented upon by this Court in the decision rendered in 2005. In view of inter parties judgment of this Court, there was no scope left tothe property under the provisions of Section 48 of the Act. Thus, it was wholly impermissible exercise and notification issued on 14.10.2009 was totally void, illegal and conferred no right to R. Hanumaiah. Thus no hearing was required to be given to R. Hanumaiah in the matter and there was no scope left to issue such illegal notification which was in violation of the law laid down by this Court in the same case. The notification dated 13.11.2009 was rightly issued cancelling the previous notification dated 14.10.2009 as there could not be anyof the land.