Well-Reasoned Single Bench Judgment Reversed By Merely Relying On Affidavit By BDA: SC Sets Aside HC Division Bench Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of a landowner for the exclusion of his land from acquisition by the Bangalore Development Authority.
The Supreme Court set aside the Judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court which upheld the acquisition of the Appellant's land for a development project by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA).
The Single Bench had earlier quashed the acquisition Order.
A Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran held, “We find 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 as has been reproduced by us hereinabove 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.”
AOR Mahesh Thakur represented the Appellant, while Advocate Mayank Jain appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The father of the Appellant initially challenged the acquisition by the BDA by filing a Writ Petition. The Karnataka High Court’s Division Bench upheld the acquisition but allowed affected landowners to seek exemption based on specific criteria. The Appellant applied for exclusion, arguing that adjoining lands had been exempted and that constructions existed on his land before the preliminary notification.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court noted that the Division Bench had relied on an affidavit sworn by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, BDA to come to a finding that the land on the other side of the land of the Appellant already stood acquired.
“It is pertinent to note that 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,” the Bench remarked.
The Bench pointed out that the “well-reasoned findings” of the Single Bench were reversed based on the affidavit of the authority “without giving an opportunity to the appellant herein to meet the averments made therein.”
Consequently, the Court held, “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.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: D.M. Jagadish v. Bangalore Development Authority & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 157)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Mahesh Thakur; Advocate Geetanjali Bedi
Respondent: Advocates Mayank Jain, Uditha Chakravarthy, Tarun, Raghavendra M. Kulkarni, Mythili S, Md. Apzal Ansari, Shiv Kumar, Vaishnavi, Ravichandra Jadhav, Dhanesh Ieshdhan, Prakash Jadhav and Venkata Raghu Mannepalli; AOR Ankur S. Kulkarni and V.N. Raghupathy
