Point of Law: Acquisition of Land – Non passing of award – Lapse of proceedings - provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, is not applicable to an acquisition proceeding initiated under the provisions of the KIAD Act

JUDGMENT :

NAGARATHNA, J.

The legality and correctness of the order dated 25.04.2018 passed in WP Nos.19348-349/2016 and 23686-696/2016 by the learned Single Judge is called in question in this intra-Court appeal.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are, appellant/petitioner had questioned the preliminary notifications bearing No.CI 196 SPQ 98 dated 19.12.1998, 29.01.2003 issued under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘KIAD Act’ for the sake of convenience) at Annexures-A & B respectively and the declaration and final notifications bearing No.CI 196 SPQ 98 dated 08.04.2003 and 05.07.2003 issued under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act at Annexures-C & D respectively to the writ petition. The petitioner sought for a declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the KIAD Act had lapsed as per Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2013 Act’ for the sake of brevity) in respect of the following lands:

3. According to the appellant/petitioner, the lands were acquired by late Patel Chikkahanumaiah under the respective inams abolition proceedings. Later, the lands were settled amongst the family members of the said Patel Chikkahanumaiah as per family settlement dated 26.12.1974. The aforesaid lands came to the share of the appellant herein, being one of the sons of late Patel Chikkahanumaiah. The aforesaid lands were notified under Sections 28(1) and 28(4) of the KIAD Act for the purpose of Bangalore – Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BMICP’ for the sake of convenience).

4. The appellant/petitioner contended that the acquisition process was not in accordance with law and therefore, the same was assailed in the said writ petition. He also contended that respondent No.4-project proponent has indulged in commercial exploitation of the lands acquired for the said purpose by selling them or entering into a Joint Development Agreement with third parties. Therefore, the aforesaid prayers were sought in the writ petition.

5. The learned Single Judge, after considering the prayers sought for in the writ petition, which are extracted from paragraph 2 of the order impugned and the statement of objections filed by respondent No.4 herein, held that the petitioner which was not entitled to any relief as per Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as the same was not applicable to any acquisition made under the provisions of the KIAD Act.

6. Learned Single Judge by referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Karnataka and Another vs. All India Manufacturers Organisation and Others, [(2006) 4 SCC 683], (All India Manufacturers Organisation), concerning the very same project, dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved, the appellant/petitioner has preferred this appeal.

7. We have heard Sri.B.V.Raman, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.P.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3, and Sri.R.V.S Naik, learned Senior counsel for Sri.T. Suryanarayana and Sri.Nitin Prasad, learned counsel for caveator/respondent No.4. and Smt. Vani H., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset submitted, the impugned order was passed without hearin