IMPORTANT POINTS
1. The scheme of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act does not show that at the time of acquisition of the land and issuing a preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the Act, the complete details of the nature of the industry or infrastructural facility proposed to be set up should also be mentioned.
2. The acquisition of the appellants’ land cannot be struck down on the ground that some of the land which was initially included in the notifications issued under Section 28 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act, was de-notified.

Headnote:(i) Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act, 1966 - Sections 28(1) and 28(4) - Acquisition of land - Notifications challenged on ground that purpose of acquisition was not mentioned and landowners were kept in dark and did not get an adequate opportunity to make an effective objection against the proposed acquisition - Landowners submitted that the notifications were vague and cryptic, therefore, liable to be struck down - Whether at the time of acquisition of land and while issuing a preliminary notification u/s 28(1) of the Act, complete details of nature of industry proposed to be set up should also be mentioned - (No) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -
       Held : The necessary precondition for a valid notification under sub-section (4) of Section 28 is that the State Government should be satisfied that the land is required for the purpose specified in the notification issued under sub-section (1), viz., for the purpose of (i) development by the Board, or (ii) for any other purpose in furtherance of the objects of the Act. Therefore, in order to judge the validity of the notification what is to be seen is whether the acquisition of land is being made for securing the establishment of industrial areas or to promote the establishment or orderly development of industries in such areas. In view of wide definition of the words "industrial infrastructural facilities" as contained in Section 2 (7a) of the Act, making of a technology park, research and development centre, townships, trade and tourism centres or making provisions for marketing and banking which would contribute to the development of industries will meet the objectives of the Act and acquisition of land for such a purpose would be perfectly valid.(Para 9)
       Sub-section (1) of Section 28 clearly shows that the land can be acquired for (i) development by the Board; or (ii) for any other purpose in furtherance of the objects of the Act. Under sub-section (8) of Section 28, the State Government is empowered, after it has taken possession of land, to transfer the same to the Board for the purpose for which the land has been acquired.(Para 10)
       The scheme of the Act does not show that at the time of acquisition of the land and issuing a preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the Act, the complete details of the nature of the industry or infrastructural facility proposed to be set up should also be mentioned. At that stage what is to be seen is whether the land is acquired for development by the Board or for any other purpose in furtherance of the objects of the Act, as mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the Act. In fact, if the contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellants is accepted, it would mean that even at the stage of preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the Act, the nature of the activity which may be done by some entrepreneur or a company which may give a proposal for setting up an industry or infrastructural facility much after land has been acquired should also be taken note of and specifically mentioned in the notification, which is well nigh impossible. While interpreting the provisions of the Act, the Court should not only take into consideration the facts of the present case but should also have in mind all possible contingencies. Therefore, on a plain reading of the language used in the Act, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellants that the impugned notification is vague or cryptic as the complete details of the project which was proposed to be established by Vikas Telecom (P) Ltd. (respondent no.9) were not mentioned and on account of the aforesaid lacuna, the landowners were deprived of their right to make a proper representation or to show cause against the proposed acquisition.(Para 10)
       It cannot be held that the impugned notifications are vague or cryptic or that they suffer from any infirmity. The challenge raised to the notifications on the aforesaid grounds must fail.(Para 12)
       (ii) Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act, 1966 - Sections 28(1) and 28(4) - Notification u/s 28(1) published on 10-12-2001 - Notification u/s 28(4) was published on 23-10-2003 - Delay of more than 1 year and 10 months in publication of second notification - Whether notification u/s 28(4) can be held as invalid - (No) - There is no provision in the Act which lays down a period of limitation for making a declaration - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4 and 6.
       Held : The Scheme of the present Act is different and there is no similar provision like the one contained in proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act which lays down a period of limitation of one year for making a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act. In absence of any specific provision to that effect in the Act, and the time gap being not very long, it is not possible to hold that the notification under Section 28(4) of the Act is invalid.(Para 13)

JUDGMENT

G.P. Mathur, J. - Leave granted.

2. These appeals, by special leave, have been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 6.4.2004 of a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court by which writ appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed and the judgment and order dated 28.1.2004 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions was affirmed. The subject matter of challenge in the writ petitions were two notifications issued under Section 28(1) and 28(4) of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

3. The impugned notifications were issued for acquisition of land for establishment and development of industries by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board. Before adverting to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it will be convenient to reproduce the impugned notifications. The first notification bears No. CI:289:SPQ:2001 and was issued on 10.12.2001, relevant part whereof, is reproduced below :

"INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE SECRETARIAT

NOTIFICATION

NO:CI:289:SPQ:2001, Bangalore, Dated 10th Dec 2001

The below mentioned lands specified are required for the State government for establishment and development of industries by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board.

With an intention of acquiring the lands notification is hereby published according to Section 28(1) (Act No.18 of 1966) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966.

According to Section 25 of the Act ......................... .................... .... ...................... (Omitted as not relevant)

From the date of publication of this notification..................................... ................... (Omitted as not relevant)

The map of the lands comprised therein is kept in the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB."

The second notification under Section 28(4) of the Act bears No.CPMG/KA/BG-GPO/13/2003-05 and was issued on 23.10.2003. The relevant part of the notification is being reproduced below:

Notification under Section 28(4)

Where as it appears, to the State Government that the Lands are to be acquired specified in the schedule here to likely to be needed for the purpose stated in the notification No. CI-289 SPQ 2001 dated 10.12.2001 published in Karnataka Gazette part 3-1 page 4 to 11 in exercise of powers conferred according to section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (Karnataka Act No. 18 of 1966).

The State Government is satisfied that Lands specified in the schedule of Notification be acquired for the purpose specified as such orders are passed according to section (3). In exercise of the powers conferred according to section 28(4) (Act No. 18 of 1966) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 the Karnataka Government is acquiring said Lands below for the purpose specified in the notification as such a declaration is made."

By the notification under Section 28(1) of the Act 110.30 acres of land was proposed to be acquired but by the notification under Section 28(4) of the Act, the acquisition was restricted to an extent of 106 acres 12.3/4 guntas of land. Some of the land owners had challenged the preliminary notification by filing writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Karnataka High Court after orders had been passed under Section 28(3) of the Act. The writ petitions were allowed and the orders passed under Section 28(3) of the Act were quashed giving liberty to proceed with the acquisition from the stage of preliminary notification. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the landowners on the objections filed by them, passed a detailed order and then the notification under Section 28(4) of the Act was issued.

4. Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the appellants, has challenged the impugned notifications on several grounds and the principal ground is that the land has been acquired in order to benefit a comp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 735

Cases Referred (6)