Back
2017 Supreme(Kar) 1166
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B.S. Patil, J.
Sri. K.B. Lingaraju S/o Bairappa and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Karnataka By Its Secretary, Department Of Commerce And Industries And Ors. – Respondents
W.P.Nos.34318-322 of 2016 & W.P.Nos.34323-326 of 2016 (LA-KIADB)
Decided On : 17-08-2017
For the Petitioner: Sri. Shashikiran Shetty, Sr. Counsel for Smt. Farah Fathima, Adv.
For the Respondent: Sri. Vijayakumar A. Patil, AGA, Sri. B.B. Patil, Adv.
Headnote:KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACT, 1966 [K.A. No. 18/1966] - Sections 28 & 29 - Lapse of acquisition proceedings - Delay of seven years in passing award and paying compensation amount - Held, When power has been conferred on an authority, the same has to be exercised in a reasonable manner. Reasonable exercise of power includes exercise of the same within a reasonable period. The adverse consequence on the rights of the citizens, who have lost their valuable lands, cannot be forgotten. Generally, payment of compensation for the acquired land is pegged to the date of the Preliminary Notification and the market value has to be ascertained with reference to the said date. In this case, because of the order of the Division Bench, the said date was postponed to the date of Final Notification. Even if the date of Final Notification viz, 13.06.2005 is reckoned, there would be delay of 12 years as on date in passing the award. Therefore, compensation to be quantified now would be illusory, as it wil not reflect the realistic value of the land. However, if the KIADB had taken steps and had passed an award within a reasonable period after the disposal of the writ appeal, there would not have been any problem in repelling the contentin urged by the petitioners that acquisition proceedings stood lapsed. The conduct of the KIADB discloses that, it is neither interested in taking possession of the land and utilizing the same for the purpose for which it is acquired, nor in paying compensation to the land-loosers.
1. In these writ petitions, petitioners are calling in question the Preliminary Notification dated 15.09.2000 issued under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (for short, ‘KIAD Act’) and the Final Notification dated 13.05.2005 issued under Section 28(4) of the Act, acquiring various lands such as Sy. No.24/1 measuring 2 acres 14 guntas, Sy. No.94 measuring 4 acres 5 guntas, Sy. No.100 measuring 6 acres 18 guntas, Sy. No.23P measuring 3 acres 33 guntas, Sy. No.27/1b measuring 1 acre 14 guntas, Sy. No.27/2 measuring 1 acre 27 guntas, Sy. No.103/1 measuring 3 acres 26 guntas, Sy. No.103/2 measuring 3 acres 11 guntas and Sy. No.107/3P measuring 2 acres 30 guntas, all situated in Anagahalli village, Srirangapatna Taluk of Mandya District. Petitioners have also called in question the notices dated 26.05.2016 issued under Sections 9 & 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘LA Act’) calling upon the petitioners to appear before the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 21.06.2016 to give their statement in that connection.
2. It is relevant to notice at the outset that petitioners claim to be the absolute owners of all these lands. They had earlier challenged the acquisition of their lands by filing W.P.No.20195/2005 and connected cases. This Court vide order dated 15.10.2008 allowed the writ petition and quashed the notifications reserving liberty to the respondent-authorities to proceed with the acquisition afresh, if they intended to go ahead with the development of II phase of Industrial Area at Mysuru. This order was challenged by the KIADB and Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, by filing W.A.Nos.259-265/2009 and connected cases. By order dated 16.12.2010, the writ appeals were allowed setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The challenge made to the impugned notifications was dismissed. However, it was made clear that the land owners and the writ petitioners who had not received compensation during the pendency of the writ petition shall be paid compensation based on the market value as obtained on the date of final notification issued under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act on 13.05.2005. The Special Leave Petition filed against the said order passed by the Division Bench was dismissed as per order dated 18.01.2016. According to the petitioners, possession of the lands of the petitioners had not been taken. As on date, no award has been passed.
3. It is urged by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners Mr. Shashikiran Shetty, that as no award has been paid and no compensation has been paid, the entire acquisition proceedings have lapsed. He invites the attention of the Court to Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘New Act’) in this connection. It is his next contention that as per the well settled principle of law, in terms of decision of the Apex court in NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST & ANOHTER VS VITHAL RAO & OTHERS – 1973 AIR SC 689, irrespective of the lands being acquired under various statutes, compensation payable has to be similar. It is in this background, Counsel for the petitioners contends that notices issued under Sections 9 & 10 of the LA Act by the Land Acquisition Officer suffer from illegality. It is his submission that the proposed award to be passed under Section 11 of the LA Act would be invalid because compensation cannot be determined with reference to the Old Act which has been repealed.
4. In the statement of objections filed by respondents 2 to 4, it is contended that as per Section 28(5) of the Act, the lands stood vested in the State by operation of law once notification under Section 28(4) of the Act was issued. Reliance is placed on the judgments in the case of M.NAGABHUSHANA VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS – AIR 2011 SC 1113 and GRINAR TRADERS VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS – (2011) 3 SCC 1.
5. Having heard the learn
