Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.
B. Ravi Prakash Etc. – Appellants
VERSUS
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board & Ors. Etc. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 621-700 /2023 [@ SLP [C] NOS.14772-14851/2018] With Civil Appeal Nos.701-715 /2023 [@ SLP(C) Nos.3193-3207/2019]
Decided On : 31-01-2023
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18 – Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 – Sections 28 and 31 – Acquisition of land – Quantum of compensation – Acquisition is not for benefit of State Government – Acquisition was only for benefit of beneficiary Company and liability to pay compensation as well as enhanced compensation was only of beneficiary Company – It is beneficiary Company which was liable to pay compensation and enhanced compensation to owners – There was no occasion for High Court to come to conclusion that notice was required to be issued to Board as well as to Company – There was no requirement of issuing notice to Board in the facts of the case – Impugned judgment of High Court set aside and Awards made under Section 18 of 1894 Act by Reference Court restored. (Paras 14, 16 and 20)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals arise out of acquisition proceedings under the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966. Submission of the appellants is that the Board was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the Reference proceedings as the beneficiary Company was the person for whose benefit the acquisition was made. Secondly, it is pointed out that on behalf of the Board, the Special Land Acquisition Officer stepped into the witness box and adduced evidence. Thirdly, it is pointed out that though the beneficiary Company was a party to the Reference under Section 18, the Award of the Reference Court was never challenged by the beneficiary Company.
Findings of Court:
Finding of the High Court that the Award of the Reference Court is bad on account of failure to issue notice to the Board is completely erroneous and is required to be set aside. Hence, there was no warrant for passing an order of remand.
Result : Appeals allowed.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. Delay in filing substitution is condoned.
3. Application for brining the legal representatives on record is allowed.
4. These appeals arise out of acquisition proceedings under the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1966 Act”]. The first respondent-Board was constituted under the 1966 Act. On 05.02.2010, a Notification under sub-Section (1) of Section 28 of the 1966 Act notifying lands totally admeasuring 4993.65 acres specifically for acquisition for the purposes of development of respondent No.3 Company [Arcelor Mittal India Pvt. Ltd.]/beneficiary Company. The Final Notification under sub-Section (4) of Section 28 of the 1966 Act was issued on 04.05.2010 which again specifically mentions that the lands subject matter of the Notification are being acquired for the benefit of the beneficiary Company. As a result of the Notification under sub-Section (4) of Section 28, the total land admeasuring 4864.64 acres vested in the State Government by virtue of sub-Section (5) of Section 28.
5. The second respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer made an Award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1894 Act”) determining market value at Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. Even the Award specifically mentions that the acquisition was for the project of the beneficiary Company.
6. The owners invoked Section 18 of the 1894 Act and accordingly, a Reference was made to the Civil Court. On the application made by the owners, the beneficiary Company was impleaded in the Reference proceedings under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. The Land Acquisition Officer was already a party to the Reference.
7. In exercise of the powers under Section 31 of the 1966 Act, the State Government appointed an Officer of the Board to exercise the powers of a Deputy Commissioner for determination of the compensation payable. The Officer was designated as the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Evidence was adduced before the Reference Court by the owners as well as by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. After completion of the recording of evidence, an application was made by the beneficiary Company contending that the Board was a necessary party. The Reference Court rejected the said application and proceeded to pass an Award granting enhancement in compensation.
8. Separate appeals were preferred by the Board before the High Court. The main contention raised by the Board in the appeals was that by virtue of Clause [c] of Section 20 of the 1894 Act as amended for the State of Karnataka, it was entitled to receive a notice of the Reference under Section 18. By accepting the said contention, the Division Bench of the High Court proceeded to set aside the Award made under Section 18 of the 1894 Act and remanded the References back to the Reference Court for deciding afresh after notifying the Board in accordance Clause [c] of Section 20(2) of the 1894 Act.
9. The submission of the appellants is that the Board was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the Reference proceedings as the beneficiary Company was the person for whose benefit the acquisition was made. Secondly, it is pointed out that on behalf of the Board, the Special Land Acquisition Officer stepped into the witness box and adduced evidence. Thirdly, it is pointed out that though the beneficiary Company was a party to the Reference under Section 18, the Award of the Reference Court was never challenged by the beneficiary Company.
10. The contention of the first respondent-Board before us is that it being a authority within the meaning of Clause [c] of Section 20 of the 1894 Act, it was entitled to a notice of the Reference proceedings along with the beneficiary Company.
11. On a query made by us, the learned counsel appearing for the Board did not dispute that the entire compensation in this case will be payable by the beneficiary Company. The learned counsel also pointed out that after the acquisition was complet
Acquisition of land – It is beneficiary Company which was liable to pay compensation and enhanced compensation to owners.
A subsequent allottee, MRPL, cannot be considered a 'person interested' for the purpose of determination of compensation under the KIAD Act, 1966, and the decisions in UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (su....
The limitation period for filing a reference petition under the Land Acquisition Act begins when the landowner has actual knowledge of the award's contents, not merely from the award's passing date.
The limitation period for filing a reference petition under the Land Acquisition Act begins from the date of knowledge of the award's contents, and the burden of proving notice issuance lies with the....
An occupier who surrenders his right to compensation under the Act 1894 cannot claim compensation or alternative accommodation from the State-respondents.
The beneficiary of land acquisition is entitled to be heard before enhancing compensation, and the availability of an appeal remedy does not preclude invoking the writ jurisdiction.
Once land is vested in the government after acquisition, it cannot be returned to the original owners, even if not utilized for the intended purpose.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
