Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.
Sri. A.A. Attar, Since Died His Lrs Riyazahmed A. Attar & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Its Secretary, Revenue Department & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 147109 of 2020 c/w W.P. No. 147214 of 2020, W.P. No. 147400 of 2020, W.P. No. 102798 of 2021 & W.P. No. 102805 of 2021 (LA-RES)
Decided On : 19-10-2022
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 109, 111 and 112 - Land Acquisition - Claim - Respondents – State issued a Notification exempting social impact assessment and determination in relation to proposed acquisition for State Highway – 136 including lands of petitioners and other land owners - In this context, it is relevant to state that said Notification bearing No.RD 84 AQD 2020 dated issued by State has not been published in official gazette or gazetted by State Government as required under Section 10-A of the said Act of 2013 (Karnataka Amendment) - Petitioners submitted their objections to aforesaid Notification dated 16.05.2020 issued by State Government - Respondents issued the preliminary notification under Section 11(1) of said Act of 2013 - A perusal of the said amendment to Rule 34 will clearly indicate that provisions of Rules 21 to 27 and Rules 30 to 34 shall not apply while implementing Government projects and public private partnership projects, which are in public interest notified under Section 10-A - It is sought to be contended by respondents – State that said amendment is retrospective in nature and operation and would apply to the subject acquisition, thereby dispensing with compliance of the requirements of Sections 16 to 18 of the said Act of 2013 r/w Rules 21 to 27 of said Rules of 2015 (Karnataka) - In Court considered opinion, said contention cannot be accepted - Whether impugned notification dated 16.05.2020 issued by State under Section 10-A of said Act of 2013 (Karnataka Amendment) is legal, valid and proper?
Finding of Court : Insofar judgments relied upon by the respondents – State, including the judgments in relation to contention with regard to amendment to Rule 34 of the said Rules of 2015 (Karnataka) being retrospective is concerned, having regard to the special / peculiar facts and circumstances obtaining in instant case, which are different and distinguishable from facts obtaining in said judgments, same are not applicable to facts of case on hand and no reliance can be placed upon the same by respondents in support of their contention - Impugned notification dated is hereby declared and held to be illegal, invalid, inoperative, void, unlawful and non-est in the eye of law and consequently, subject acquisition proceedings in relation to the subject lands of the petitioners which were initiated pursuant to impugned notification are also clearly illegal, invalid and unenforceable in law.
Result : Petitions are hereby allowed.
ORDER :
The petitioners in all the petitions claim to be the residents residing at Byadagi Taluk, Haveri district, and have been carrying on business in the market area in the said town. Pursuant to the request dated 20.02.2019 made by the Deputy Commissioner, Haveri, the State of Karnataka granted approval on 18.09.2019 for acquisition of lands including the lands of the petitioners for the purpose of widening Gajendragad – Sorab State Highway 136 between Kilometres 237.05 to 237.90 in Byadagi town. Aggrieved by the same, some of the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.No.116151/2019 and W.P.No.108344/2020. By final order dated 12.03.2020, this Court disposed of the said petitions that the respondents – authorities shall initiate acquisition proceedings for acquisition of the land of petitioners and other land owners by providing an opportunity to them and proceeding further in accordance with law.
2. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the said Act of 2013’) came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2014. Section 109 of the said Act of 2013 empowers the Central Government and State Governments to frame Rules. The procedure empowering the respective State Government to frame Rules is provided under Sections 111 and 112 of the said Act of 2013. Exercising powers under the aforesaid provisions, the respondents – State of Karnataka framed the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Karnataka) Rules, 2015, which came into force w.e.f. 17.10.2015. On 16.07.2019, the respondents – State amended the said Act of 2013 by enacting the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2019 vide Karnataka Act No.16 of 2019 w.e.f. 16.07.2019 (for short ‘the said Amendment Act, 2019’). As per the said amendment, sub-clause(u) was inserted to sub-section (2) of Section 109 of the said Act of 2013 empowering the State Government to frame Rules to give effect to the said Amendment Act of 2019.
3. Sections 4 to 9 contained in Chapter – II of the said Act of 2013 provides for Determination of Social Impact and Public Purpose of the acquisition by preparation of a social impact assessment study and necessary steps in this regard to be taken by the appropriate Government. Under the said Amendment Act of 2019, the State of Karnataka inserted Section 10-A under Chapter III-A, whereby the State Government was empowered to exempt certain projects from the application of Chapter – II of the said Act of 2013 in relation to social impact determination and from Chapter – III of the said Act of 2013, which provides for safeguard of food security. Section 10-A which came into force from 16.07.2019 as stated supra, empowers the State Government to issue notification in the official gazette exempting the application of social impact determination in respect of various types of projects including infrastructure projects as provided under Section 10-A (b) of the said Act of 2013.
4. On 16.05.2020, the respondents – State issued a Notification exempting social impact assessment and determination in relation to the proposed acquisition for State Highway – 136 including the lands of the petitioners and other land owners. In this context, it is relevant to state that the said Notification bearing No.RD 84 AQD 2020 dated 16.05.2020 issued by the State has not been published in the official gazette or gazetted by the State Government as required under Section 10-A of the said Act of 2013 (Karnataka Amendment). The petitioners submitted their objections to the aforesaid Notification dated 16.05.2020 issued by the State Government. On 05.06.2020, the respondents issued the preliminary notification under Section 11(1) of the said Act of 2013.
5. W.P.No.147109/2020, W.P.No.147214/2020 and W.P.no.147400/2020 have been filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned N
SupremeToday
Point of Law : Point No.4 is also answered in favour of the petitioners by holding that the amendment to Rule 34 of the said Rules of 2015 (Karnataka) is not applicable to the subject acquisition pro....
Mandatory procedures for acquisition under the Act of 2013 must be strictly followed
The court established that proper authority and adherence to statutory procedures are essential in land acquisition processes to ensure fairness and legality.
Compliance with statutory requirements for land acquisition is critical, but national interest may override individual objections when procedures are followed. The court upheld the legality of the ac....
Point of law : In cases where facts can be said to be admitted or undisputable, and only one conclusion is possible, the court does not pass futile orders of setting aside or remand when there is, in....
The government must demonstrate clear, specific public interest and compliance with proviso mandates to invoke section 10A exemptions. Without satisfying these jurisdictional facts, the exclusion of ....
The court ruled that the 15-day objection period in land acquisition rules is invalid, emphasizing adherence to statutory procedures and the need for a comprehensive Social Impact Assessment.
The acquisition process must comply with statutory provisions of timely final notification and personal hearing, failure of which undermines legal validity.
The court emphasized the importance of providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and considering all contentions and documents in accordance with law.
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
