1. Special leave granted.
2. The land owned by the appellants was acquired by Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) for a development scheme called "Rajamahal Vilas II Stage". BDA passed a resolution dated 26-6-1984 whereunder it was decided that each of the appellants would be given a site measuring 40 x 60 free of cost. BDA did not implement the decision on the ground that the resolution was not approved by the State Government. The appellants challenged the decision of the State Government by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Karnataka High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court by the judgment dated 8-2-1991 dismissed the writ petition. These appeals are directed against the judgment of the High Court.
3. We, may briefly state the facts:
Land bearing various survey numbers measuring 1134 acres and 12 guntas owned by the appellants and other landowners was acquired by BDA for the development scheme as stated above. Under the scheme 558 high income group houses were to be constructed. The appellants and other landowners (all farmers) did not allow the layout work to be carried out by BDA primarily on the ground that adequate compensation had not been awarded. The farmers physically obstructed the execution of the scheme. BDA failed to execute the scheme even with the help of police. As stated above, the resistance on the part of the farmers was primarily because of the low compensation offered to them. They were agitating for higher compensation. They also made representations before the State Government. As BDA was keen to execute the scheme, without any further delay it initiated discussion with the farmers to amicably settle the dispute. The settlement reached between the farmers and BDA was finally incorporated in the resolution dated 26-6-1984. The relevant part of the resolution is as under:
"(i) The farmers will physically hand over about 95 acres of lands to BDA in the area for the said self financing scheme.
(ii) The compensation already fixed by BDA will be accepted by the landowners.
(iii) BDA shall give a site of 40 x 60 size free of cost to the landowners of the land or their representatives."
4. As a result of the settlement between the farmers and BDA and consequent upon the passing of the above quoted resolution BDA was handed over the possession of the land. It is not disputed that the scheme has already been executed.
5. Pursuant to the abovementioned resolution of BDA, allotment letters were issued to the appellants whereunder sites measuring 40 x 60 were allotted to each of the appellants. Meanwhile, the Government by its order dated 6-1-1989 stayed the implementation of the resolution dated 26-6-1984. The allotments to the appellants were made in the year 1984-85 and since the possession certificates were not given till 1989 they challenged the action of BDA as well as of the State Government by way of a writ petition before the High Court. As mentioned above, the writ petition was dismissed.
6. Before the High Court, the following contentions were raised on behalf of BDA:
(i) it is not within its power to convey any site to any person by reason only of the fact that his land was acquired;
(ii) there is no provision in the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (the Act) and the Rules to give any site free of cost;
(iii) the allotment of sites could be made only in terms of the allotment rules and not in contravention thereof.
7. The High Court after noticing the contentions raised by the learned counsel for BDA referred to various judgments of the Karnataka High Court and finally came to the conclusion that the contract between BDA and the appellants was void and as such could not be implemented. The High Court reached the said conclusion without giving any reasons to support the same.
8. It is not necessary for us to go into the merits of the High Court judgment. Learned counsel for the appellants has invited our attention to the Bangalore Development Authority (Third Amendment) Act, 1993 (for short "the Amendment Act") which came into force with effect from 31-3-1994.
9. S.5 of the Amendment Act has introduced S.38-C in the Act and S.9 of the Amendment Act validates certain allotments. These two sections are as under:
"38-C. Power of Authority to make allotment in certain cases.--Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law or any development scheme sanctioned under this Act, or City Improvement Trust Board Act, 1985 where the Authority or the erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore has already passed a resolution in favour of any persons any site formed in the land which belong to them or vested in or acquired by them for the purpose of any development scheme and on the ground that it is not practicable to include such site for the purpose of the development scheme, the Authority may allot such site by way of sale or lease in favour of such person subject to the following conditions, --
(a) the allottee shall be liable to pay any charges as the Authority may levy from time to time; and
(b) the total extent of the site allotted under this section together with the land already held by the allottee shall not exceed the ceiling limit specified under S.4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976."
"9. Validation of certain allotment.--Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or any judgment, decree or order of any court where in pursuance to any resolution passed by the Authority or the erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore to reconvey in favour of any person any site out of the land which belonged to them or vested in or acquired by them for the purpose of any development scheme, the Authority has made allotment of such site by way of sale, lease or otherwise in favour of such person after the twentieth day of December, 1973 and before eight day of May, 1986, such allotment shall be deemed to have been validly made and shall have effect for all purpose as if, it had been made under S.38C of the Principle Act as amended by this Act and accordingly--
(a) all acts, proceedings and things done or allotment made or action taken by the Authority shall for all purpose be deemed to be and to have always been done or taken in accordance with law;
(b) no suit or other proceedings shall be instituted, maintained or continued in any court for cancellation of such allotment or for questioning the validity of any action or things taken or done under S.38-C of the Principal Act as amended by this Act, and no court shall enforce or recognise any decree or order declaring such allotment made or any action taken or things done under the Principal Act as invalid. "
10. We are of the view that the provisions of S.9 of the Act are fully applicable to the allotments made to the appellants during the period 1984-1985. The allotments were made pursuant to the resolution of BDA dated 26-6-1984. The resolution reconveyed in favour of the appellants one site each measuring 40 x 60 out of the land which belonged to them. The land was acquired for the purpose of a development scheme. It is not disputed that the allotments were made to all the appellants by the Authority during the period after December 1983 and before May 1986. These conditions having been satisfied the allotments are deemed to have been validly made and shall have effect for all purposes as if the said allotments had been made under S.38-C of the Principal Act. Even if it is assumed that the basis for the allotment of sites to the appellants was not the same as has been provided by the Amendment Act under S.38C, but that would not invalidate the allotments because the deeming fiction created by S.9 of the Amendment Act would bring the allotments within the purview of S.38-C. The effect of the deeming fiction is that even though these allotments may not have been made under S.38C they would be saved by S.9 of the Amendment Act by virtue of the deeming fiction.
11. Even otherwise we are of the view that the resolution of BDA did substantial justice to the appellants. A situation was created where it may not have been possible for BDA to implement the scheme. The BDA entered into a settlement with the farmers and took a conscious decision to allot plots to them. It was neither fair nor just on the part of BDA and the State Government to have gone back on their decision which was taken with an open mind and after discussion with the farmers. BDA by passing the resolution, in a way, accepted the demand of the farmers for enhanced compensation. The allotment of plots to them was to further compensate them for acquiring their land for the development scheme.
12. We, therefore, allow the appeals; set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and direct BDA to deliver the possession of the sites to the appellants and all others who are similarly situated. The learned counsel for BDA has informed us that pursuant to this Courts interim order, 90 sites have been kept reserved. We, therefore, direct BDA to hand over possession of the sites to the appellants within two months. Although the sites are to be given to the appellants free of cost, if any development and other incidental charges are payable, the appellants shall pay the same. No costs. Contempt Petitions Nos. 196-215 of 1992
13. The contempt petitions are disposed of.
