Summary
Clarifying the law governing Bangalore’s peripheral-ring-road acquisitions, the Court held that Section 36 of the BDA Act incorporates the applicable provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Repeal of the latter did not substitute the 2013 acquisition statute into the BDA Act. Section 24 of the 2013 Act concerns proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act, and did not govern these BDA acquisitions or require compensation under the 2013 Act. The contrary Single Judge ruling and connected decisions were overruled.
Issues
- Whether repeal of the 1894 Act made the 2013 acquisition and compensation provisions applicable to acquisitions under the BDA Act.
Provisions considered
- Section 36(1), Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976The applicable acquisition provisions of the 1894 Act were incorporated, subject to the BDA Act’s own scheme, rather than adopted by continuing reference. (¶¶ 10-17, 22-23)
- Section 24, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013The provision expressly concerns acquisitions initiated under the 1894 Act and did not extend to the BDA Act proceedings. (¶ 18-21)
Held
- The BDA Act is a self-contained enactment for planned development, with acquisition incidental to that purpose. Applicable provisions of the 1894 Act supply matters not specifically covered, subject to the BDA Act’s own provisions and time frames. The Constitution Bench ruling in Offshore Holdings established incorporation. (¶ 7-14)
- Incorporated provisions become part of the incorporating statute and ordinarily remain unaffected by repeal or amendment of the source enactment. The applicable 1894 provisions consequently continued to govern these BDA acquisitions despite repeal. (¶ 13-17)
- Section 24 expressly refers to proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act. Its scope could not be expanded by adding other statutory acquisitions; the 2013 Act did not regulate these BDA proceedings. Section 105 did not alter that result in this case. (¶ 18-21)
- The Single Judge erred in treating incorporation as legislation by reference and requiring the 2013 Act, including its compensation provisions, to govern. The contrary ruling in Sri Sudhakar Hegde and connected matters was overruled and the application disposed of with this clarification. (¶ 22-24)
Result
Application disposed of; 2013 Act held inapplicable to the BDA acquisitions; contrary Single Judge ruling and connected matters overruled.