2015 Supreme(SC) 781

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.GOPALA GOWDA, C.NAGAPPAN, JJ.
PEERAPPA HANMANTHA HARIJAN (D) BY LRS. & ORS. – APPELLANTS
Vs.
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5804 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.19819 of 2013) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5806-5807 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.31624-31625 of 2014) AND CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5808-5810 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.3482-3484 of 2015)
Decided On : 30-07-2015

IMPORTANT POINTS
It is quite unfortunate and sorry state of affairs that the only source of livelihood of appellants, their land, was acquired three decades ago but compensation not paid so far.
Land acquired for industrial development for KIADB. KIADB in turn leasing it out to the Company. Company being only a lessee is neither a beneficiary nor an interested person. It is not entitled to participate in market value determination proceedings or passing of award. Therefore also not entitled to maintain an appeal against passing of award and filing a writ petition.
Definition of public purpose under Land Acquisition Act 1894 cannot be imported to acquisition of land under KIAD Act.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 21 – Only source of livelihood of appellants, their land acquired – Compensation not paid for the last three decades – Appellants entangled in labyrinth of litigation – Quite unfortunate state of affairs. (Para 5)

       (1985) 3 SCC 545 – Relied upon

       (b) Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 – Section 28(1) and (4) – Empower the State Government to acquire land for industrial development. (Para 41)

       (c) Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 – Section 29 and 30 r/w sections 11, 18 and 30, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – State Government and KIADB jointly or severally liable to pay compensation to land owners. (Para 42)

       (d) KIADB Regulations – Regulation 4, 7, 10 (a), (c), (d) and (e) r/w Sections 2(11) and 32(2), Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 and section 3 (b)r/w section 9, 11 and 20(b) read with Section 54, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Lease agreement between KIADB and the Company – Land allotted to the Company after following procedures – Vesting in the State – Beneficiary being KIADB – Company neither a beneficiary nor an interested person in terms of Section 2(11) of the KIAD Act or under Section 3 (b)r/w section 9 of the L.A. Act. (Para 47, 48, 49, 50, 52)

       (2009) 10 SCC 273; (2006) 4 SCC 78 – Referred

       (e) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 3(f) (viii) (as amended by Karnataka) – Claim of the Company being interested person in proceedings for determination of market value and passing of an award – Section 3(f) (viii) enacted for different purposes – Not applicable instantly. (Para 53)

       (f) Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 – Section 2(5), (6) and (7) – Public purpose – Definition under Land Acquisition Act 1894 – Cannot be imported to acquisition of land under KIAD Act. (Para 55)

       (g) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 3(b), 9, 20(b) and 50(1) and (2) – Not applicable in instant case – Company not an interested person – Writ Petition filed by the Company challenging the award passed by the Reference Court, affirmed by the High Court, not maintainable in law. (Para 56, 57, 58)

       (1995) 2 SCC 326; (1980) 3 SCC 223; (2006) 7 SCC 578 – Distinguished

       (h) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 54 – Right of appeal to land owners, or state government and beneficiaries of the acquired land – Not to lessee – Company a lessee – Does not have right to appeal and file writ petition. (Para 60)

       (i) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Judicial propriety – KIADB waiting for result of appellants’ appeal – Filing its appeal after disposal of appellants’ appeal – KIADB filing its appeal quite belatedly – Rightly rejected by High Court. (Para 60)

       (j) Land acquired in 1981 – Market value and compensation – Land having non-agricultural potentiality – Method for determining market value – Adopted in acquisition in 1988 – Should have been adopted – Both acquisitions similar having been acquired for the same Company – Deduction towards development charges and waiting period for every year and expenses for conversion by the Reference Court – On the higher side – Compensation determined at Rs.1,92,000/- per acre (Para 70, 71, 73)

       AIR 1939 Privy Council 98 – Relied upon

       (2012) 1 SCC 390 – Distinguished

       (ILR) 1987 KAR 3445; (2011) 2 SCC 54 – Referred

       Facts of the case:

       This is the most pathetic case of a land owner, and after his death his legal heirs, who have been made to litigate the case for more than three decades to get just and reasonable compensation, after having lost their land in the acquisition proceedings at the instance of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (‘KIADB’) which was their only source of income and livelihood. The matter has been pending before the courts for more than three decades.

       The appellant-landowners have been crying for justice for enforcement of their legitimate right of getting just and reasonable compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

       Finding of the Court:

       The Company is neither beneficiary of the acquisition nor an interested person under the 1894 Act.

       Result: (I) The appeals for setting aside the judgment and order of remand passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 100860 of 2013 (filed by the Company) and the Review Petition No. 2537 of 2013 (filed by KIADB) are allowed.

        (II) The appeals filed by the KIADB for setting aside the observations and findings recorded in the judgment and order of remand passed by the High Court at the instance of KIADB and the Company are dismissed.

        (III) The appeal filed by the landowners for enhancement of compensation in respect of their acquired land is allowed.

       (iv) I.A. No. 2 for impleadment of Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. is dismissed as not maintainable.