Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Civil Property & InheritanceSupreme Court of India

Bangalore Development Authority & Anr. vs The State of Karnataka & Ors.

Not availableDecided 20 Jan 2022
Not available
S. Abdul Nazeer · Sanjiv Khanna

Background

The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) had been building a 116-km Peripheral Ring Road around Bangalore and had issued land acquisition notifications under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1959 (BDA Act). A Karnataka High Court Single Judge had ruled that once the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was repealed and replaced by the 2013 land acquisition law, the newer law's compensation provisions would govern BDA's pending acquisitions too. BDA challenged this, arguing it upset its project's budget and misread the law, and asked the Supreme Court to clarify the position.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that Section 36 of the BDA Act "incorporates" (rather than merely "refers to") the 1894 Land Acquisition Act's provisions, meaning those provisions became a permanent, frozen-in-time part of the BDA Act: unaffected by the 1894 Act's later repeal. Relying on its own earlier Constitution Bench ruling in Offshore Holdings and other precedents, the Court concluded that the 2013 Act's compensation regime does not apply to acquisitions carried out under the BDA Act, since the BDA Act is a self-contained code for land acquisition in Bangalore. It accordingly overruled the High Court Single Judge's contrary view and directed BDA to proceed with acquisition under the terms already settled in the Court's earlier 2018 judgment in the same matter.

Lesson Learnt

When one statute "incorporates by reference" provisions from another law, those borrowed provisions get frozen as they stood at the time of incorporation and are not automatically updated when the original law is later amended or repealed: a principle relevant whenever a special local law (like a development authority act) borrows procedures from a general central law.

Bangalore Development Authority & Anr. vs The State of Karnataka & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware