1. THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversus1. SMT. RATHNAMMA 2. SRI G ARVIND 3. SMT. RADHAMMA

                [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1683 : 2025 INSC 345

  1. The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority
           2. Bangalore Development Authority
                             v.
                   1. Smt. Rathnamma
                      2. Sri G Arvind
                   3. Smt. Radhamma
                      (Civil Appeal No. 3764 of 2025)
                               03 January 2025
     [Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Preliminary notification u/s.17(1) of the Bangalore Development
       Authority Act, 1976 was issued on 20.03.1999 proposing to
       acquire 4 acres and 15 guntas of land from the respondents/
       their ancestors-in-interest. The entire transaction with regard to
       acquisition and voluntary surrender of land under the Bangalore
       Development Authority (Incentive Scheme for Voluntary Surrender
       of Land) Rules, 1989 [the original Incentive Rules of 1989] as well
       as possession and also notification under Section 19(1) of the
       Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 and under Section 9
       of the Act stood completed much prior to coming into effect of
       the Amended Incentive Rules i.e., on 27.11.2002. On 10.03.2005,
       an application was filed by the respondents for allotment of the
       sites in terms of the Incentive Rules. Whether the Incentive Rules
       notified on 09.11.1989 which came into effect from 01.04.1989 or
       the Amended Incentive Rules notified on 09.08.2005 which came
       into effect from 27.11.2002, would be applicable in the facts of
       the present case.

                                  Headnotes†
       Bangalore Development Authority (Incentive Scheme for
       Voluntary Surrender of Land) Rules, 1989 – Bangalore
       Development Authority Act, 1976 – s.17(1) – Voluntary
       surrender of land under the Incentive Rules – Application
       for allotment of sites in terms of Incentive Rules – Whether
       Incentive Rules of 1989 or Amended Incentive Rules would
       be applicable:

* Author
1684                                                          [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


    Held: The benefit which the respondents sought to take was
    that since their application was made on 10.03.2005, the
    Amended Incentive Rules had already come into effect and thus
    the consideration should have been made under the Amended
    Incentive Rules which gave benefit of additional entitlement for
    allotment of land to the persons who voluntarily opted to surrender
    their land under the Incentive Rules – The respondents cannot
    claim any benefit which has to be reckoned from the day when
    the entire transaction of voluntary surrender of their land stood
    completed in terms of the acquisition under the relevant statute
    followed by the notification and handover of possession as also the
    compensation amount having been deposited; all of which having
    taken place much prior to 27.11.2002 – In fact, the respondents
    have been able to maintain their claim only for the reason that
    no time limit was fixed for the application under the Incentive
    Rules – However, this cannot be stretched to the limit that the
    respondents could have waited for a better claim to come in future
    to claim benefit in a completed transaction much prior to such
    further benefits being extended – In the present case, it cannot be
    said that just because the respondents had applied for allotment
    of sites on 10.03.2005 their case should be considered in terms
    of the Amended Incentive Rules which itself came into effect
    from 27.11.2002, especially in the background of all formalities
    relating to their acquisition of land having stood completed earlier
    – Further, the respondents never challenged the acquisition
    before any authority or even the amount of compensation which
    clearly indicates that they had chosen to voluntary surrender their
    lands on the basis of what they were aware of, i.e., the original
    Incentive Rules, and thus in that background they are bound by
    their conduct and acceptance and cannot later on agitate due to
    change in the rules at a later date which too came into effect much
    after things stood crystalized – The allotment already made and
    transferred through sale deed executed with regard to two sites
    of 40 ft. x 60 ft. and two sites of 40 ft. x 30 ft. to the respondents
    stands confirmed and they are held not entitled to any further
    allotment. [Paras 13, 15]

                                List of Acts
    Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976; Bangalore Development
    Authority (Incentive Scheme for Voluntary Surrender of Land)
    Rules, 1989.
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                        1685

1. The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority 2. Bangalore Development
        Authority v. 1. Smt. Rathnamma 2. Sri G Arvind 3. Smt. Radhamma

                             List of Keywords
     Incentive Scheme for Voluntary Surrender of Land; Incentive
     Rules; Amended Incentive Rules; Allotment of sites in terms of
     Incentive Rules.

                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3764 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 01.07.2019 of the High Court
     of Karnataka at Bengaluru in WA No. 1166 of 2012

                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellants:
     S. K. Kulkarni, M. Gireesh Kumar, Ankur S. Kulkarni, Ms. Uditha
     Chakravarthy, Tarun.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     Radhakrishna S Hegde, Rajeev Singh.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                   Order

     Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.

     Leave granted.
2.   The present appeal arises from the judgment and order dated
     01.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
     (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’) in Writ Appeal No. 1166
     of 2012 (LA-BDA) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’),
     whereby the appeal filed by the appellants was only partly allowed.

     BRIEF FACTS:
3.   The Bangalore Development Authority (Incentive Scheme for
     Voluntary Surrender of Land) Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as
     the ‘Incentive Rules’) were framed under the Bangalore Development
     Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BDA Act’). On
     20.03.1999, a preliminary notification was issued under Section 17(1)
     of the Act proposing to acquire 4 Acres and 15 Guntas of land in
     survey number 71 at Anjanapura Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore
1686                                                         [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     South Taluk belonging to the respondents along with other lands for
     the formation of Anjanapura Township under a scheme prepared by
     the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the
     ‘BDA’). On 31.05.2001, the respondents opted for voluntary surrender
     of their land under the Incentive Rules and possession of the same
     was taken over under a mahazar dated 31.05.2001. Pursuant to this,
     a final notification was issued under Section 19(1) of the Act covering
     the lands of the respondents along with other lands.
4.   The notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
     (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was issued on 24.09.2001. On
     10.01.2002, the award was made in respect of the respondents’
     land and compensation amount was deposited in the Civil Court.
     Notification dated 09.08.2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Amended
     Incentive Rules’) was issued amending the Incentive Rules and
     increasing the entitlement area for voluntary surrender of land with
     effect from 27.11.2002. Thereafter, on 10.03.2005, an application was
     filed by the respondents for allotment of sites under the Incentive
     Rules. The appellants in 2006 allotted and executed sale deeds in
     respect of two 40 ft. x 60 ft. sites and two 40 ft. x 30 ft. sites to the
     respondents.
5.   Since the respondents were agitating and litigating for additional
     area under the amended Incentive Rules, the appellants issued
     an endorsement dated 21.04.2010 stating that the respondents’
     entitlement under the Incentive Rules is for allotment of land upto
     the extent of 5400 sq. ft. and allotment of sites to an extent of 7200
     sq. ft. has already been made in favour of the respondents, which is
     already in excess of the respondents’ entitlement under the Incentive
     Rules.
6.   Respondents filed Writ Petition No. 28680/2010 (LA-BDA) before
     the High Court challenging the endorsement dated 21.04.2010.
     Learned Single Judge of the High Court vide order dated 08.03.2011
     allowed the petition directing the writ petitioners to allot the sites to
     respondents as per the Amended Incentive Rules. The appellants
     filed Writ Appeal No. 1166 of 2012 (LA-BDA) against the order of
     the Learned Single Judge which has been partly allowed vide the
     impugned order. While doing so, the Division Bench of the High Court
     took note of the Circular dated 12.05.2004 issued by the Deputy
     Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka clarifying
     that compensation can be sanctioned to the ‘A’ kharab land if they
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                        1687

1. The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority 2. Bangalore Development
        Authority v. 1. Smt. Rathnamma 2. Sri G Arvind 3. Smt. Radhamma

     were granted prior to 4(1) notification under the Act. However, it was
     stated in the said circular that no compensation shall be payable to
     ‘B’ kharab lands. The impugned order taking note of the fact that
     out of 4 Acres 15 guntas of land belonging to the respondents, 24
     guntas are ‘A’ kharab and 8 guntas are ‘B’ kharab land, held that
     respondents are not entitled to receive any site as incentive towards
     that extent of land which is ‘B’ kharab and directed the appellants
     to allot another 40 ft. x 60 ft. site to the respondents.

     SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANTS:
7.   Learned counsel for the appellants argued that High Court in the
     impugned order failed to appreciate that the entitlement for allotment
     gets crystalized on the date of surrender and not on the date of
     making an application. As such, on the date of voluntary surrender
     of possession by the respondents, i.e., on 31.05.2001, the Incentive
     Rules were prevalent and applicable. It was contended that as per
     the Incentive Rules, the respondents were entitled to two 40 ft. x 60
     ft. sites and one 20 ft. x 30 ft. site for having surrendered an area
     more than 4 acres but not exceeding 4 ½ acres.
8.   It was further argued that the impugned order failed to notice that
     even though the maximum permissible area for allotment under the
     Incentive Rules was three sites of 40 ft. x 60 ft., totalling 7200 sq.
     feet., but having regard to the area surrendered, the respondents
     were entitled to just 5400 sq. ft., whereas they were actually allotted
     7200 sq. ft. It was lastly contended that the impugned order erred
     in not considering the entitlement under the Incentive Rules and
     applying the Amended Incentive Rules.

     SUBMISSIONS BY THE RESPONDENTS:
9.   Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the High Court vide
     its impugned order has appreciated the material before it in its correct
     perspective and the same does not require any interference by this
     Court. It was contended that the respondents voluntarily surrendered
     the lands without filing any objections and they did not seek any
     enhancement of compensation and only sought benefits under the
     Incentive Rules. It was argued that the appellants had earlier failed
     to take into consideration the Amended Incentive Rules while allotting
     the sites and calculating their entitlement. It was contended that
     the provisions of the Amended Incentive Rules have been effective
1688                                                        [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     from 27.11.2002 and therefore for the purpose of considering their
     application made on 10.03.2005, the entitlement has to be calculated
     according to the Amended Incentive Rules.

     ANALYSIS, REASONING & CONCLUSION:
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that the issue
    is quite simple. The crux of the matter is as to whether the Incentive
    Rules notified on 09.11.1989 which came into effect from 01.04.1989
    or the Amended Incentive Rules notified on 09.08.2005 which came
    into effect from 27.11.2002, would be applicable in the facts of the
    present case.
11. The relevant sequence of events are re-stated as follows:
     a)   The preliminary notification under Section 17(1) of the Act was
          issued on 20.03.1999 proposing to acquire 4 acres and 15
          guntas of land from the respondents/their ancestors-in-interest;
     b)   In terms of the Incentive Rules, the respondents opted for
          voluntary surrender of their aforesaid land on 31.05.2001 and
          possession of the same was also taken on 31.05.2001;
     c)   This was followed by a final notification issued on 04.08.2001
          under Section 19(1) of the Act in relation to the lands of the
          respondents;
     d)   Accordingly, notice under Section 9 of the Act, was issued
          on 24.09.2001 followed by award being made on 10.01.2002
          pursuant to which the compensation amount was also deposited
          in the Civil Court;
     e)   Thereafter on 10.03.2005, an application was filed by the
          respondents for allotment of the sites in terms of the Incentive
          Rules; and
     f)   The appellants allotted and executed sale deeds in respect
          of two 40 ft. x 60 ft. sites and two 40 ft. x 30 ft. sites to the
          respondents in the year 2006.
12. From the aforesaid facts, it is crystal clear that the entire transaction
    with regard to acquisition and voluntary surrender of land under the
    Incentive Rules as well as possession and also notification under
    Section 19(1) of the BDA Act and under Section 9 of the Act stood
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                        1689

1. The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority 2. Bangalore Development
        Authority v. 1. Smt. Rathnamma 2. Sri G Arvind 3. Smt. Radhamma

     completed much prior to coming into effect of the Amended Incentive
     Rules i.e., on 27.11.2002.
13. The benefit which the respondents sought to take was that since
    their application was made on 10.03.2005, the Amended Incentive
    Rules had already come into effect and thus the consideration should
    have been made under the Amended Incentive Rules which gave
    benefit of additional entitlement for allotment of land to the persons
    who voluntarily opted to surrender their land under the Incentive
    Rules. Pausing here for a moment, we would observe that the
    respondents cannot claim any benefit which has to be reckoned from
    the day when the entire transaction of voluntary surrender of their
    land stood completed in terms of the acquisition under the relevant
    statute followed by the notification and handover of possession as
    also the compensation amount having been deposited; all of which
    having taken place much prior to 27.11.2002. In fact, the respondents
    have been able to maintain their claim only for the reason that no
    time limit was fixed for the application under the Incentive Rules.
    However, this cannot be stretched to the limit that the respondents
    could have waited for a better claim to come in future to claim benefit
    in a completed transaction much prior to such further benefits being
    extended. In the present case, we do not find any legal issue which
    can come to the aid of the respondents to claim that just because
    they had applied for allotment of sites on 10.03.2005 their case should
    be considered in terms of the Amended Incentive Rules which itself
    came into effect from 27.11.2002, especially in the background of all
    formalities relating to their acquisition of land having stood completed
    earlier. Another aspect which needs to be mentioned here is the
    fact that the respondents never challenged the acquisition before
    any authority or even the amount of compensation which clearly
    indicates that they had chosen to voluntary surrender their lands
    on the basis of what they were aware of, i.e., the original Incentive
    Rules, and thus in that background they are bound by their conduct
    and acceptance and cannot later on agitate due to change in the
    rules at a later date which too came into effect much after things
    stood crystalized.
14. The aforesaid aspect has completely been lost sight of by the learned
    Single Judge as well as the Division Bench. Having said that, we
    may also clarify the position with regard to the stand taken by the
    appellants that the respondents were entitled only to 5400 square
1690                                                         [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


     feet that is two plots of 40 ft. x 60 ft. and one plot of 20 ft. x 30 ft.,
     the total of which comes to 5400 square feet and the same is clearly
     borne from the annexure to the Incentive Rules. However, it has not
     been explained by the appellants as to how in such background 7200
     square feet has been allotted to the respondents. Be that as it may,
     since the appellants are not claiming for any return of land already
     given to the respondents, we refrain from going into that aspect.
15. For reasons aforesaid, we find that the order impugned of the
    Division Bench as well as the order of the learned Single Judge
    cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside. The allotment
    already made and transferred through sale deed executed with
    regard to two sites of 40 ft. x 60 ft. and two sites of 40 ft. x 30 ft. to
    the respondents stands confirmed and they are held not entitled to
    any further allotment.
16. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed. No order as to costs.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Bibhuti Bhushan Bose