Summary
The Supreme Court held that landowners who voluntarily surrendered land to the Bangalore Development Authority in 2001, when the whole acquisition was completed before the amended incentive rules took effect on 27.11.2002, could not claim the larger entitlement under the amended rules merely because their application for sites was made in 2005. The allotment already made was confirmed and no further allotment was due.
Issues
- Whether entitlement to incentive sites for voluntary surrender of land is governed by the Incentive Rules in force when the surrender and acquisition were completed, or by the Amended Incentive Rules in force on the date of the application for allotment.
- Whether the respondents were entitled to an additional site beyond the sites already allotted to them.
Provisions considered
- Incentive Rules and the amendment notified on 09.08.2005 with effect from 27.11.2002, Bangalore Development Authority (Incentive Scheme for Voluntary Surrender of Land) Rules, 1989The Court held that the original Incentive Rules governed the respondents' entitlement, since the surrender, possession, final notification, Section 9 notice, award and deposit of compensation were all completed before the amendment took effect; the absence of a time limit for applying did not let the respondents wait for better terms. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13)
- Sections 17(1) and 19(1), Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976The preliminary notification (20.03.1999) and the final notification for acquisition of the respondents' land formed part of the transaction found to have been completed before the amended rules came into force. (¶¶ 3, 11, 12)
- Section 9, Land Acquisition Act, 1894The Section 9 notice (24.09.2001) and the award (10.01.2002) were among the steps completed before 27.11.2002. (¶¶ 4, 11, 12)
Held
- Entitlement under the incentive scheme is to be assessed with reference to the date on which the transaction of voluntary surrender stood completed, through acquisition, handing over of possession and deposit of compensation; a later amendment enlarging the entitlement does not apply merely because the application for allotment was filed after it took effect. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- That no time limit was fixed for applying under the Incentive Rules allowed the respondents to keep their claim alive, but did not entitle them to wait for more favourable rules and claim their benefit in a transaction already completed. (¶ 13)
- Having surrendered their land without challenging the acquisition or the compensation, on the basis of the rules then known to them, the respondents were bound by that conduct and acceptance and could not later rely on a change in the rules. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- Although the appellants did not explain why 7200 sq. ft. was allotted when the Incentive Rules entitled the respondents to 5400 sq. ft., the Court did not examine this since the appellants sought no return of the land allotted. (¶ 14)
Result
Appeal allowed; orders of the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court set aside; the allotment of two 40 ft. x 60 ft. and two 40 ft. x 30 ft. sites already conveyed confirmed; respondents held not entitled to further allotment; no costs.