BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus M/S VIJAYA LEASING LTD. & ORS.

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus M/S VIJAYA LEASING LTD. & ORS.

The Single Judge was justified in exercising power under Article 226 to correct a gross illegality by setting aside the de-notification, as possession had conclusively been taken by the State and the basis for de-notification was patently incorrect and unsupported by the record. The Division Bench failed to appreciate these facts and legal principles.

Parties
Appellant: Bangalore Development Authority; Respondent: M/s Vijaya Leasing Ltd.; Respondent: Muniswamappa; Respondent: A. Thimma Reddy; Respondent: Krishna Reddy
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From Division Bench Judgment
Outcome
Appeals allowed
Legal Topics
De Notification, Constitutional Powers Under Article 226, Land Acquisition Act, Section 48(1)
Land Acquisition De Notification Constitutional Powers Under Article 226 Land Acquisition Act, Section 48(1)

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bangalore Development Authority

Appellant

M/s Vijaya Leasing Ltd.

Respondent

Muniswamappa

Respondent

A. Thimma Reddy

Respondent

Krishna Reddy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From Division Bench Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Single Judge was justified in setting aside a de-notification under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act even absent a specific challenge
  2. 2 Whether extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 permits correcting errors apparent on the record

Ratio Decidendi

The Single Judge was justified in exercising power under Article 226 to correct a gross illegality by setting aside the de-notification, as possession had conclusively been taken by the State and the basis for de-notification was patently incorrect and unsupported by the record. The Division Bench failed to appreciate these facts and legal principles.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed

Orders

  • Order of Division Bench set aside
  • Order of Single Judge dated 26.8.2002 in WP No. 2565 of 2001 restored