The case involves D.M. Jagadish, the appellant, challenging a judgment from the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) regarding the acquisition of his land. The core of the dispute revolves around whether the appellant’s land should have been excluded from acquisition, similar to neighboring properties and due to existing structures. The document details a series of legal challenges mounted by the appellant, including multiple writ petitions and appeals, highlighting the BDA’s failure to follow court directives to properly assess his claim for exclusion. Ultimately, the Supreme Court quashes the appellate court’s judgment, remanding the case for fresh consideration due to a violation of natural justice.
Constitution of India, Article 14 and 226 – Land acquisition – Exclusion of land from acquisition – Learned Single Judge came to a specific finding that the land adjoining the appellant’s land was excluded from the acquisition and as such, the appellant was also entitled to the benefit of exclusion – It was also found that there were structures existing on the land prior to the preliminary notification issued in 2003 – However, the learned Single Judge took notice of the fact that out of the land belonging to the appellant, 15 sites were already allotted to third parties – The learned Single Judge, therefore, directed that the benefit of the quashing of acquisition would not be applicable in the case of the 15 sites which were already allotted to third parties – Division Bench in writ appeal found that it appears that the constructions were either made after the preliminary notification was issued or just before the issuance of preliminary notification having gotten wind of the possible land acquisition proceedings – Insofar as the contention of the appellant herein that the adjoining lands were already excluded from acquisition, the Division Bench relied on an affidavit dated 12th September, 2019 sworn by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, B.D.A. to come to a finding that the land on the western side of the land of the appellants already stood acquired – Though the said affidavit was filed on 12th September, 2019 the Division Bench, without giving any opportunity to the appellant herein to respond to the said affidavit, closed the matter for hearing on the very same day, though the judgment was subsequently pronounced on 27th September, 2019 – Held that the approach of the Division Bench in relying 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 would be in violation of the principles of natural justice – The well-reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge has been reversed by the learned Division Bench based on the affidavit of the authority without giving an opportunity to the appellant herein to meet the averments made therein –On this short ground alone, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order liable to be 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.
(Para 10 to 17)
D.M. Jagadish V. Bangalore Development Authority
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 157: (DoJ 04-02-2025)
