Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Kar) 337

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ALOK ARADHE, HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, JJ.
SMT. S. JALAJA W/O N. MALLIKARJUNAIAH - APPELLANTS
Vs.
UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA KRISHI BHAVAN DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD - RESPONDENTS
W.A.No.1105 OF 2019 (LA-KIADB) IN W.P.Nos.11209-212 of 2019 (LA-KIADB) C/W W.A.No.2392 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN W.P.Nos.41641-642 OF 2015 (LA-KIADB), W.A.No.4053 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN W.P.Nos.2907/2015 & 46915/2016 (LA-KIADB), W.A.No.4054 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN W.P.Nos.59461-462 OF 2014 (LA-KIADB), W.A.No.4055 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN W.P.No.35461 OF 2014 (LA-KIADB), W.A.No.4056 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN W.P.Nos.58807-809 OF 2015 (LA-KIADB), W.A.No.4057 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN W.P.No.32416 OF 2015 (LA-KIADB), W.A.No.4058 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN W.P.Nos.49228 & 50925-936 OF 2013 (LA-KIADB), W.A.No.4059 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN W.P.No.30920 OF 2013 (LA-KIADB), W.A.No.4060 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN W.P.No.18861 OF 2013 (LA-KIADB), W.A.No.4061 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN W.P.Nos.20367-373/2013 & W.P.Nos.20375-380 & 20382/2013 & W.P.Nos.20384-388/2013 (LA-KIADB), W.A.No.4062 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN W.P.Nos.40473-474 OF 2015 (LA-KIADB), W.A.No.4063 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN W.P.Nos.51805-807 OF 2015 (LA-KIADB), .A.No.4064 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN W.P.No.859 OF 2016 (LA-KIADB), W.A.No.4065 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN W.P.Nos.48824-840/2015 & 7094-7109/2017 LA-KIADB), W.A.No.4066 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN W.P.Nos.44987-988 OF 2015 (LA-KIADB), W.A.No.4067 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN W.P.No.17272 OF 2014 (LA-KIADB), W.A.No.4068 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN W.P.Nos.18890 & 23750-752 OF 2013 (LA-KIADB), IN W.A. No.1105 OF 2019 IN W.P.Nos.11209-212 of 2019
Decided On : 24-08-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For The Appellant : SRI. P.N. RAJESWARA, ADV.,
For The Respondent: SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, B.B. PATIL, SRI. SHIVAKUMAR, SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH

Point of Law: provisions of 1966 Act are neither repugnant to 2013 Act nor have been impliedly repealed on commencement of 2013 Act. The 1966 Act is a special Act whereas, 2013 Act is a general law. The provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2019 are neither arbitrary nor voilative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:
Constitution Of India, 1950 - Article 254(1), 31, 374, 21 and 17 and 300-A - Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 - Maharashtra Industrial Act, 1961 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894. - Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 - Orissa Mining Areas Development Fund Act, 1952 - Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 405 - petitioners have assailed the validity of the notifications issued under the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act, 1966 and have also sought the relief that provisions of 1966 Act have been impliedly repealed on commencement of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Finding of the Court:
Section 24(2) of the are applicable to an acquisition initiated under the 1966 Act and the proceeding under the 1966 Act shall lapse if conditions mentioned therein are satisfied. It was further held that the scheme insofar as it pertains to acquisition of land is inconsistent with the mandatory provisions of the 2013 Act in terms of Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India and is no longer valid as an independent Act- finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that since, the State Government has adopted the National Manufacturing Policy, and therefore, the provisions of 1966 Act would be redundant unless al the provisions of 2013 Act are introduced to safeguard the interest of the land owners cannot be sustained. Similarly, the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that since, acquisition of land for industrial and manufacturing purposes is now declared a primary public purpose under 2013 Act, the 1966 Act which is silent with regard to feasibility of acquisition of particular land for industrial purposes should conform to provisions of 2013 Act, otherwise must perish is sans substance - Similarly, the finding that State Government cannot be permitted to over write provisions of 2013 Act by resorting to unbridled powers under 1966 Act and that entire field of establishment of industrial areas is covered by 2013 Act, also does not deserve acceptance.
Result: Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

In these intra Court appeals, the appellant namely Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board', for short) has assailed the validity of the interim order dated 19.04.2017 by which learned Single Judge has held as follows:

“POINT NO. (i) : The State Government cannot any longer exercise power under Section 3 of the KIAD Act without conforming to the pre-requisites as prescribed under the 2013 Act, nor work the other provisions of the Act without also adhering to other mandatory provisions of the 2013 Act and the Rules there under. The Scheme under the KIAD Act as it prevails is inconsistent with the provisions of the 2013 Act in terms of Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India and is hence no longer valid as an independent enactment.

POINT NO. (ii) : Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is applicable to an acquisition initiated under the provisions of the KIAD Act.

POINT NO. (iii) : By virtue of Section 24(2) at whatever point of time the vesting of land may have taken place, there is a divesting, in terms thereof, as it provides for a ‘lapsing’ of the acquisition proceedings, if the conditions specified therein are satisfied.

POINT NO. (iv) : The recent decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 353/2017, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, Mysore vs. Anasuya Bai, dated 25.01.2017 did not involve a challenge to the constitutional validity of the provisions of the KIAD Act and hence does not advance the case of the respondents.

The petitions to be posted for hearing on facts and the merits of each case for final disposal.”

In the writ petitions, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the notifications issued under the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1966 Act' for short) and have also sought the relief that provisions of 1966 Act have been impliedly repealed on commencement of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2013 Act' for short).

2. When the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the parties jointly requested the Court to answer the legal issues. In view of aforesaid joint request made by learned counsel for the parties, we proceed to deal with the legal issues involved in this batch of appeals and writ petitions, however, before adverting to same, it is apposite to refer to the factual backdrop, in which the issues arise for our consideration. Facts leading to filing of the appeals and the writ petitions briefly stated are that respondents are the owners of the land situate in Jakkasandra, Achatanhalli, Malur Taluk, District Kolar, Adinarayana Hosahalli, Dodballa Taluk Bangalore Rural District, Madhugiri village, Sira Taluk District Tumkur, Konappana Agrahara Bangalore South Taluk, Archakarahalli, Balveeranna Halli villages, Ramnagara Taluk Bangalore, Madihelli East Bangalore Taluk, Arebinnamangala Bangalore North (Addl.) Taluk. The lands of the respondent are required by the Board for a public purpose and were notified for acquisition under the provisions of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1966 Act') and preliminary notifications under Section 28(1) of the 1966 Act dated 15.04.1997, 06.07.2001, 07.08.2006, 27.02.2007, 13.03.2012, 27.10.2012, 14.06.2013, 07.12.2015, 09.12.2016 were issued. The respondents filed the objections and after consideration of the objections, final notifications under Section 28(4) of the 1966 Act dated 15.07.1997, 27.08.2003, 18.06.2007, 28.06.2008, 15.09.2008, 19.08.2010, 04.12.2012, 04.01.2013, 30.01.2015, 20.07.2018 and 29.12.2018, were issued. The respondents challenged the validity of Section 3, Chapter II and provisions of Chapter VII of the 1966 Act as well as the validity of Notifications issued under 1966 Act and sou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(Kar) 337

Cases Referred (54)