Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
N. Kumar and V. Suri Appa Rao, JJ.
H.N. Shivanna and Ors. —Appellant
Vs.
State of Karnataka, Department of Inustries and Commerce and Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board —Respondent
Writ Appeal Nos. 3189-3201 of 2010
Decided on : 20-11-2012
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966 - Section 28(4): [N. Kumar & V. S. Appa Rao, JJ] Acquisition of land - Issuance of successive declaration - Held, A comparison of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act prior to amendment with the provisions contained in Section 28 of the Karnataka Act show that they are not in pari materia with each other. Under the unamended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the Collector was expected to make a report in respect of the land after considering all objections made to the notification under Section 4(1), whereas under the Act, there is no requirement of making such a report. sub-section (3) of Section 28 makes it clear after considering the cause if any shown by the owner of the land and by any other person interested therein, the State Government may pass such order as it deems fit. Sub-section (4) makes it clear after orders are passed under Sub-section (3), whether the State Government is satisfied that any land should be acquired for the purpose specified in the notification issued under sub-section (1), a declaration shall by notification in the Official Gazette be made to that effect. Therefore, the obligation to consider all objections in respect of lands which are notified under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is conspicuously missing in sub-sections (3) and (4) of the Act. There is no submission of report under the Act. Similarly there is no obligation on the part of the Government to consider this report and then make up its mind whether all the lands which are notified under Section 4(1) is required to be notified under Section 6(1) or only a portion of it under the Act. The Act expects that objection of each owner in respect of his land is to be considered and if it is satisfied that the said land is required for the purpose specified in the notification, may issue a declaration by way of a notification under Section 28(4). The words used are "any land" and not all land notified. There is no provision in the Karnataka Act for considering all objections made to the notification under Section 28(1) of the Act. There is no provision for submission of one report to the Government. There is no provision for consideration of any such report by the Government before issuing a declaration under section 28(4) of the Act. On the contrary, the language of the Act makes it very clear the Government has to consider the cause shown by the owner of the land and may pass such order as it deems fit and if it is satisfied that any such land should be acquired for the purpose specified in the notification, it may issue a declaration. In the light of the marked difference in the language employed in Section 28, there is no scope for holding that successive notifications are not permissible in law.
N. Kumar, J.— In all these writ appeals, the order passed by the learned Single Judge upholding the acquisition proceedings and consequently dismissing the writ petitions are challenged. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the writ petitions. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 in W.P. No. 14391/2006 are the absolute owners of the land in Sy. No. 236 measuring 2 acres situated at Rajapura Village, Jigani Hobli Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Petitioner Nos. 6 and 7 in the said writ petition are the absolute owners in Sy. No. 68/1 measuring 3 acres 5 guntas situated in the same Village. Similarly, petitioner Nos. 8 to 10 in the writ petition are the absolute owners of the land bearing Sy. No. 236 measuring 1 acre 39 guntas as well as Sy. No. 237 measuring 30 guntas situated in the same Village. Petitioner Nos. 11 to 13 are the absolute owners of the land in Sy. No. 237 measuring 3 acres 18 guntas situated in the same Village. The petitioners in W.P. No. 12970/2006 are the absolute owners of the land in Sy. No. 235 measuring 4 acres 6 guntas in the said Village.
2. The Government of Karnataka issued a notification under Section 3(1) of the
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Act") declaring that the lands bearing various survey numbers in Villages Jigani, Bandenallasandra, Yarandahalli, Kyalasanahalli and Rajapura of Anekal Taluk, Jigani Hobli as "industrial area". In all an extent of 988 acres 6 guntas were notified. Subsequently by a notification dated 19.04.1997 one more notification came to be issued under Section 1(3) of the Act making Chapter 7 of the act applicable to the lands which are mentioned in the said notification. One more notification came to be issued under Section 28(1) of the Act notifying the lands which are proposed for acquisition by the Board for industrial development. The petitioners" lands as aforesaid were notified for acquisition under the aforesaid notifications.
3. After the issue of the said preliminary notification, the petitioners sold the land to one V. Lakshminarayana through several registered sale deeds dated 07.08.1997 etc. Thereafter a final notification came to be issued in respect of the lands notified under Section 28(4) of the Act on 20.07.1999 as per Annexure "D". However in the aforesaid notifications the petitioners" lands were not included. On the contrary on 04.07.2000 the second respondent Board issued an endorsement stating that the lands have not been acquired under Section 28(4) of the Act. All the petitioners sold the lands, which were notified for acquisition under different registered sale deeds on 7.8.1997 and thereafter. It is thereafter on 27.04.2002 one more notification came to be issued under Section 28(4) of the Act notifying the lands of the petitioners. The purchasers of the aforesaid lands applied for conversion of the agricultural lands for residential purpose. Conversion orders were issued vide orders as per Annexure-C on 1.9.1998, 29.11.2001, 21.1.2002 and 3.6.2002 in W.A. Nos.3189-3201/2010. The purchasers filed a writ petition in W.P.Nos.26821-26824/2003 challenging the second final notification dated 27.4.2002 on the ground that the Government had no power to issue a second notification. The said writ petitions came to be dismissed on 06.06.2003 on the ground that the purchasers of the land after preliminary notification have no locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings. The review petition was filed for reviewing the said order which also came to be dismissed by an order dated 23.08.2006. It is thereafter the petitioners have preferred these writ petitions challenging the acquisition on identical grounds. An ad interim order came to be issued directing the parties to maintain status-quo on 18.09.2006. On 31.03.2006 awards came to be passed and duly published in respect of the aforesaid lands. The same is approved on 31.12.2006. The main ground of attack i
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
