Supreme Court Quashes Division Bench Order For Want Of Natural Justice, Remands Acquisition Dispute To High Court

A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran heard an appeal by D.M. Jagadish challenging a Division Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court which had allowed the Bangalore Development Authority's (BDA) writ appeal and reversed a Single Judge's direction in a land acquisition dispute connected with notifications issued between 2003 and 2014.

The Court allowed the appeal, held that the Division Bench's reliance on a late-filed affidavit without affording the appellant an opportunity to meet the averments violated the principles of natural justice, quashed the impugned Division Bench order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The Court noted that the Division Bench "relied on the affidavit of the authority and closing the matter on the same day, without giving an opportunity to the appellant herein to meet the averments made in the said affidavit" and found that such conduct amounted to procedural unfairness. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "We find that on this short ground alone, the appeal deserves to be allowed and, therefore, is allowed. The impugned judgment and order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Division Bench of the High Court to consider it afresh in accordance with law." The Supreme Court directed that the parties maintain status quo as on the date of the Single Judge's order until the remand decision and permitted the High Court to order further spot inspection if necessary.

Background

The dispute arose from a preliminary notification dated 3 February 2003 in respect of 380 acres 4 guntas, a final notification dated 23 February 2004 which excluded 154 acres 26 guntas (leaving 225 acres 18 guntas), and a revised notification dated 18 June 2014 which excluded a further 66 acres 3 guntas. The appellant's father filed writ petitions in 2004 challenging acquisition; a Division Bench disposed of writ appeals on 25 November 2005 issuing directions that owners whose lands fell within green belt, were already built up, housed charitable/educational/religious institutions, nurseries, factories, or adjoined excluded lands could apply for exclusion and that BDA should consider such applications on the basis of the land's status as on the date of preliminary notification. The Division Bench directed that "possession shall not be disturbed and the existing construction shall not be demolished" pending consideration.

Pursuant to those directions the appellant applied to the BDA within the prescribed period asserting that adjacent lands had been excluded and that constructions pre-dated the preliminary notification. The BDA rejected the claim by endorsement dated 17 June 2006. The appellant secured relief from the High Court on earlier occasions directing spot inspection, and a Single Judge in October 2017 partly allowed Writ Petition No. 33136 of 2015, recording that "the B.D.A. has not followed the directions of this Court and this action has resulted in serious prejudice to the interests of the petitioner" and that spot inspection had shown existing RCC constructions and a bore-well. The Single Judge declined to remand the matter in view of repeated litigation but excluded from relief 15 sites already allotted to third parties.

The BDA challenged that order in Writ Appeal No. 8 of 2018. The Division Bench allowed the appeal by an order dated 27 September 2019, observing that some constructions appeared recent or may have been made to frustrate acquisition, and relied on an affidavit sworn by the Special Land Acquisition Officer filed on 12 September 2019. The Supreme Court found that the Division Bench's reliance on that affidavit and closure of the hearing on the same day without affording the appellant an opportunity to respond contravened natural justice. On this short ground the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the matter to the Division Bench for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The Court directed maintenance of status quo as on the Single Judge's order and noted that the High Court could order further spot inspection; pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 157 (Diary No. 7824/2020) Case Title: D.M. JAGADISH v BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not specified in the judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Not specified in the judgment]