Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 1066
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Abhay S. Oka, Ashok S Kinagi, JJ.
K. Srinivas Murthy - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 3348 of 2018
Decided On : 17-08-2020
L.M. Chidanandayya, Advocate, Ashok N Nayak, Advocate, Shivaprasad Shantangoudar, Advocate
Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 11A – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act – Sections 3, 28, 29, 30 – Possession of acquired land – Petitioners claim to be owners of land bearing Sy.No.59/1 measuring to an extent of 0.04 guntas situated at Doddathoguru village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru – Held, Appellants/petitioners are not entitled to any declaration on premise that award has not been passed, no compensation is paid and that possession is not delivered under sub section (2) of Section 24 of 2013 Act. – Appellants are also not entitled to relief claimed in writ petition on ground of delay and latches as they have filed writ petition after more than 15 years from date of publication of final notification under Section 28(4) of KIAD Act. – In view of Section 28(5) of KIAD Act, on publication of a declaration under Section 28(4) of KIAD Act, land vested absolutely in State Government with effect from 30.5.2001. – Much water has already flown from date of final declaration till filing of writ petition. – Board has already created interest in favour of third parties – There is no provision under KIAD Act that if award is not passed, acquisition proceedings shall automatically lapse. – Contention of learned counsel for appellants/petitioners cannot be accepted that mere non passing of award in respect of acquisition proceedings initiated under KIAD Act, acquisition proceedings would lapse. – Court is of opinion that there is no substance in contention of appellants that acquisition under KIAD Act lapsed for alleged non compliance with provisions of Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 – There is a comparison between provisions of Land Acquisition Act and KIAD Act. – These two Acts were enacted to achieve different purposes. – KIAD Act is enacted for establishment and development of industries in suitable areas in State and acquisition of land under KIAD Act is not concerned solely with purpose of planned development of any City whereas, Land Acquisition Act has been enacted to acquire lands for public purpose for different purposes including acquisition for establishment of companies. – Writ Appeal Dismissed
JUDGMENT
Ashok S Kinagi, J. - The petitioners claim to be the owners of the land bearing Sy.No.59/1 measuring to an extent of 0.04 guntas situated at Doddathoguru village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the land in question' for the sake of convenience).
2. According to the petitioners, the land in question along with the surrounding lands were declared as industrial area under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act ('the KIAD Act' for short). Thereafter, the State Government issued a preliminary notification on 21.12.2000 under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act giving a notice of its intention to acquire such lands as they were required for the purpose of an industrial establishment by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'). In pursuance of it, a show cause notice was issued under Section 28(2) of the KIAD Act to the petitioners fixing the date of hearing and calling upon them to show cause why the said land should not be acquired. The petitioners filed detailed objection objecting for acquisition on the ground that their son is an Ayurvedic Doctor and they want to establish a hospital and requested to drop the acquisition proceedings. After enquiry and appropriate order was passed under Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act, a final declaration dated 30.5.2001 was issued under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act stating that the State Government was satisfied that the lands stated therein should be acquired for the purpose specified in the notification under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act.
3. The petitioners claim that they are in continuous possession of the acquired land. The petitioners claim that no award has been made after final notification and further claim that the acquiring authorities have not followed the provisions of Sections 28(1) to (8), 29 and 30 of the KIAD Act. The petitioners have therefore filed the writ petition in the year 2016 for a declaration that the entire acquisition proceedings relating to the aforesaid land has lapsed on account of no award being passed within two years from the date of final declaration.
4. The respondents filed statement of objections stating that the writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable either under law and facts and further pleaded that the respondents-KIADB has acquired the land after following the procedure prescribed under the KIAD Act and it is also further pleaded therein that since the acquired land are required for public purpose for the formation of industrial layout, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) has passed an order under Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act on 18.4.2001 and forwarded a copy of the same to the State Government. The State Government by its Commerce and Industry Department issued a final notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act on 30.5.2001 and the acquired land vests with the State Government under Section 28(5) of the KIAD Act. A notice was issued under Section 28(6) of the KIAD Act to the land owners on 24.12.2001 to hand over the possession. The land owner Smt. Muniyamma handed over the possession to the SLAO on 11.1.2002. Thereafter, SLAO has handed over the possession of the acquired land to the Board. A notice was issued to the land owner under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act to receive the consent compensation fixed by the Board. The General Award came to be passed on 31.12.2014.
The final notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act was issued on 30.5.2001 and the writ petition was filed in the year 2016. Thus, there is an inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. The learned Single Judge after hearing the arguments on both sides and after considering the material on record dismissed the writ petition on the ground that no material particulars as to how the grounds on which the alleged denotification of the said land has been made are furnished in the writ petiti
