Karnataka High Court
Nandi Infrastructure Corridor ... vs State Of Karnataka on 15 June, 2011
Author: Manjula Chellur
Bench: Manjula Chellur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALOREZ___
£3A'TED'I'HiS'I'HE1 V:¢:"§?"% 13550? JUNE. 2@1:p~._f-.._ *~..
PRESENT
THE: HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJULA. .
AND '' " ' "V V
THE) HUMBLE MR. J_UsT1c4E..H ;.B1LLA1éPA:' * ' V
C W _ ._
WRIT PI3;mfi0N N0-.----:>,.1":23_3'_;_QF 200'<;-,,.
.. & .
WRI'I' p;:'H*m}>N r'€o.:2'1:.8é'3'§;»Ef'2--0o4 Lia W §a£é{E'>§>s
WRIT PETITION [email protected]"i?5o0 {im 2'o04_"v, V'
IN W.P.NO.1?600 .2004 .
BETWEEN
NANDE ENFRAS1TRLECTU'RE CQRRIBOR',
ENTERPR1_§E"':;r:3'«:.,__ _ " _ * "
A COM'?ANY"E2E'GISTE§RF2I3'LYNDER
THE cQMP,A1\I1E::" 1956 'AND .
HAVINGITS _RE<3_1s?:i::RE»D_ OFFICE AT
N01, MIEJEORD HOUSE, MZDFORD GARDEN,
OFF, MAHA1.'MA..GAND'H1
BANGALORE!5:§OOO1'* ' Pmnamgg
" * __ {B3,v-':s§'RL;__:).L;%N. RAEJ,' COUNSEL AND SR1 NAIF; ADV FOR
Mfg KING 3;}*AR'FR£DGE}
1. S'FAfi':'~EE QF KARNATAKA
'§>E1?*AR'rMBN';' 013' COMMERCE <3:
u\*§r;s?RiE:s, M.SBUH,D1NG
* s DRLAMBEDKAR ROAD,
"}3ANGALGRE»5€3€} GO E, ,
-AREPRESENTEZD BY ms
PRINCIPAL SECR.Ef1"ARY
SR1 SRIDRAR.
S/O DASARIMDRISRAMI RAIDU.
AGE: MAJOR.
RESIDING AT NO. 1.
1A CROSS, 2R» MAEN.
22:2» PHASE, 0.13. NAGAR,
RAN0AL0RD--560 O?8. ._
8. SR! G. JEEVAN KUMAR,
8/ O N. PU'ITASW'AMAlAH.
AGE: MAJOR, .
RESIDINT OF' GO'I'I'IGE',RE VH;i..AGE, A
RHANEERGHATTA RDAD, ' '
UITARAHMDLI HOBLI, _ _
BANGALORE SOUT_H"JfAL{§K. _ ..
9. SMT.A.N.SHYLAJA}** ._ 2
W/O ARAVIND KASHYAP,
ADRD ABOUT 01 YEARS;
R1«:sID1N0A.jm\:.0. 1;300;_:,
ADARsH?._RA1:;:é:c}3,. 4--7'm _c:R0$:s._ " '
5m BL.-0'c};._ J;A;';'";\Nz3;£;:§R:,.._
BANOA:,0:R1«}560 04 * , '
_ .... ~--:;,__, ...RESPONDE2NTS
{By SR1. sANDE;E:R...RAT1L«,..%SRL. Gem'. ADV FOR R1
SR1. R. 'R. 53R1NIVAs_A. .0'0WD_A' EOR R2
M /5. SUNDARASWAMY RAMDAS 0 SR}. ANAND, ADV. FOR R3
T05 ' _ , " .
SRI._L... S. VENKAWESFINA, ADV. FOR R6
sR.L;.<:. SRANKARAREDDY, ADV. FOR R7
" V' ._ R8.SRI JEEVAN 'RD1v1AR SERVED
, R03 SMI". A. _K;~SHYLAJA SERVED}
. PE'{'ITEON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 220 AND
§;::27""OP' 'D~lIj§:.. CONS'F1TU'E'IO£\E OF' ENDLA PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WP<§.'F DR' €?T£iR'IYt3RARE QUASHENG TRE NO'E1F'Z£CA'I'ION DATED
3.2.2L77!O4j_BEZAR1NG N0. C1334 SPQ 2803 AND NOTIFECATION
':D;xf:*RD"*' 10.9.2003 BEARING N0. (:1: 132 S139 2003 AND
R0'D_R£0A'R0N D31 3.2.2004 BEARING R0. 0:: 1270 SP0 203
W
' < N ,
. "':RAsSE:D BY THE: RESP{}NDE:N'E' R01 VIDR ANXEXURES» E, R
__A_.RD 0 RR.sRR0':RfR;m<
W.,;"\ "
{By SR1. SANDER? PATEL, SPL. GOVI". ADV FOR R1,
SR1. B. R. SRINIVASA GOWDA FOR R2 AND " "
SR1. M. RAVINSON, ADV. FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PE'£'ITION IS FILED §}§§.D_ER A--*R*:*:'C'L:§:3 226' AND "
227 OF THE CONS'I'I'I'UTiON <3? 1N:s:>1A P:--L<;Y:rNcI:' '--:?<j'--§g${:§_AA
WRIT 05' CEERTIORARI QUASHINC? 'T c:t3:\x{?;x1V:jr~3:(;,A_;1?;C§:<::.
BEARING NO. (:1 31 S139 2094 :>'.m2--24:>;Q04 V:DT§7A:\INEXU'RE:;F
AND A WRIT OF' MANDAMUS 'I>:§iEf_c:T1NCi RZESPVGNVBENTE "
TO COMPLETE THE ACQUISITION<.PE{()CEEDENiZ}S INVRESPEZCT
OF SY.No22 or pAN'1HRA1§ALYA-V1:i5;\(j;E:__*:'<;> AN 'EXTE3N'I' OF' 1
ACRE AS MENTIONED 1N----A§m{E;:u:;;:»F';.._'»_ _
THESE) WRIT PETITIONS BEING_--fr:£vE;£\'1?2LT)'_':Al\ID RESERVED
FOR ORDERS, c<>M:NG Q'N1*'QR PR<:§'NCrUL'J(jEE\/IEN'Y OE' ORDERS
THIS DAY, MADIJUIACHELLUR JL'; THE FOLLOWING;
. L
j common in the writ
petitiofg ",?.\'_Ic>':;. ":v:'1f£3'§§*§:G2:/2004, 2123/2004 and
21883/2&1; ', the netifications dated
1G_*9L:2QQ3'X,xv3.2g2'GO.4,,¢.vi1.5.2004 and 12.2.2004 wherein
..Sta§€:M Cn§ve_rnment has proceeded to delete Certain
'~3:>*
'.1afid.3 V;é§tV'«--L ?tf$;f%2:ha11i Manavarthi Kaval, Kgmmaghatta,
Pilléiggfighéili and Pantharapalya vfliages bearing survey
" rzumbéfs detaflefi in the respective writ: petifiians.
7
2. According to the petitioners, the concerned
authorities having acquired the lands und.evi:_i"the
provisions of Karnataka Industrial Areas _
Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) for lptirposie
of implementation of Bangalo1*et;M§,{sore 'irlnfrastrtt<':--ttf1*e:
Corridor Project (hereinafter ii«¢fei~£eo to an
integrated Corridor project ..to'.h_ave§ deleted
those lands from hearing the
petitioner, the_be_nefie'iary'::V:for' lands were
acquired. it counsel for
the the-...fiioal notification under
issued, the right, title
and possessionof__ the 'Lands would Vest with the State
Gofjernirient, therefore there is no power to delete such
'l2.ind~s_ age-quisition, According to the petitioner,
ottiiiellerstanding between the State C}O'5E'.I'lfiI1'1€Ht
and tr:el';3etitioner that required extent of land will be
available to the petitioner, the State ought not to
have issued the notifications in question to delete said
lands. They rely upen the law declared
Court in the ease of STATE K"
HOUSELESS HARLJAN EMPLOYEES..E&SS§3C,IfKTlQ'N__'¥x5§{'
STATE: OF' KARNATAKA (AIR 2O{}11'._S'(L__437)"f;>:"the
said proposition.
3. As an addil'iei"lal contend,
once the Division Berjehihgf quashed the
appointmene by its order
dated to enquire into
the seheliérx as excess land under
the aCq1li'$itiCHVV?3:€)tlfl'CE?lLt§§i'f1S, the State has no power to
denotify u£l1--eh as: izhle denotified lands were part of
v' V. the ' Redcly "C0.mm1ttee report.
V All45;'i"--'lfhef:fe'sp0ndeni/State Centends, large extent of
lands _we.:fe' netified for aequisitien mentiening the
eletailseél' the survey numbers, ezitent ef land, details of
"x.AAe'£1::3lAere,/ lghateclexe in the said netifieatiens for BMIC
gérejeeig the propertiee referred is is} the notifieaiiens
were not cone/lueive as it was only tentati\5e.._prgjp~%;sséil,.
ciepending on the proximate requirement Oil'-tl'1ef_p.rejeet.:ll' V'
the tend. required for the pr0jeCt;'ii?en'lé &:lepen:<i:l"t1pen«'tlie.
alignment drawing approved
Public Works Department (forjehort
of Karnataka. Till the date * fil'ing 0il'tl'ieV-ebjection
statement, such -not provided in
strict COHCul'If€:f'i(§€ agreement
between were far away
from the alignment and they
are net 'pfoject. The scyealled Cle-
notificatieti * made only after therough
enqggiiiyand 'verification of reeerds is the contention of
"it is contended that the contentions of the
ll§9;rei_1.perverse and illegal. According to them,
keening lniind the interest of the project as well as the
ptibli'<:, __A'1~the demetifieations Came to be issued by
e.:;§ei5s::ieing the pevvere under' Section 4 set the KIAD Act
Seetien 23 of the General Clansee eat. Contencling
10
that the State has ample power to alter the a:e~a;"to'~.he
notified as inciustria} area or industrial estate., A ~
has sought for dismissal of the writ petitionsfiij ' h
5. So far as the Board is Con'eerned',_"_,it 'eonten"ClS'--..
that it is the inetru:nenta1ity'vot"the State to the V'
goal of the State ancizwork fheierhthe difeetione issued
by the Is': respondentéhhnowhh' acquisition
proceedings xhvhlhjrojeot of the petitioners' ' atnendment to the KIAD t~o..sorve the public at large. The to eontend that all the survey were frozen and Could not be altefieet.'~AecoVfCEing"to, the Board, notification for deletion tftom the«.p3joj--eet was done only after holding necessary tfeigifieation being satisfied that the lands in queetion.we;re not required for any other activity of the petittonet Company. The peripheral road is already hteonzjolete where the iands in question are situated and V'. A ' .' xx' ' 'V W. A.' 11 no other activity is forthcoming in these lands, therefore, they eentend that there is no justifie:zti'Q_ii~.._iri the eiaim of the petitioners that they need V. the completion of the project.
6. The objection st»at_emeritA def the,.--".3?5" end. .Ziih"a respondents' private in W to 502/2004, indicate ptirehasers of portions of the lands Gazette de~ notifying the only after verificatiori required for the BMIC these lands and the Governtneiitwashfiiedeedxiitdth issue the notification under S€Ct§Oi1 31 of thejéxetdaltering the usage of the land as They aise contend that Respondent §?.Lftiave decided td aiter the usage of iand frefn thi.e'pi'irvieW ef the iriduetriai area much prior ta 3 .e,.:'thei_'iss{ieinee of the notification tmder Section 28(4) of it the' 'READ Act eriiy after being satisfied that the said 12 lands were not required for either alignment or any other purpose including the formation of They further contend that as per the ~ agreement, arbitration clause is _pr0Vjideti;"thereft5re'=th'eV only reeeurse open to the petitit)'i1er:§_' Arbitrator and not this Cdu_rt~r..t1r1derr_'ArtieieS"._;'22€"end" V 227 of the Constitution ef Indie'-seeking "any aetion for the alleged breach 0f eerxtraet.
3?. the petitioners are SeI1ing€'the3::,AAi@_1¥.1nVt'i.e§ etarting of the project i.e., 3%; Tools Manufacturing Associatieni he intention of the petitioners is clear frond thteiitihat they are trying to divert the lands ;'i1iir_p0ses at the east Of the owners and the selling the same at a fancy price. The entire e~:§ere'ise of aequisitien done by resperident N03. 1 it VEti"'i.'j__ 2 ie not in aeeerdariee with law. When once the §;1ri:i*$ are taken Gut frern the purview ef inriigstrial area, 13 it can be used for the purpose fer which _ authority has planned. They else e0:1te»:1ef'~.V".. petitions are filed severe} n10nth=,3 }at,e1j3af:<;'1" Same dismissed on the ground ofe'd4e1ay«'an'& 1e.<:hee;V peripheral road is e0mp1etee'V..e11d iri aheenee of mentioning for what in question are needed, the petitionere 10'ev1i'e.I'V_';3te.ndi to file the writ petitions; ' "
8.. filed its objection on the same 'gre1;:nd1";Vae_'egntended by respondent Nos. 3 and 4VV".AstatihgVV ,.are the purchasers of the portions 'df. Sy.N0. 19, 20/1 and 20/3 atAMa1xia'\2-*a:*the Kaval of Uttarahafli in the year According to them, 01113,: after \%efi'fieati0fe'j_ that these lands were not required fer the pureoee: evf fermatioh of lVIysore»Benga10re Expressway e§fi1{i«,'O{1NtS§€i€ the peripherai read alignments they have "pe:'re'haeed the {ands and the Gevernment was pleased 14 to issue the netifieation under Sectien 4 altering the usage of the land as industrial 'T
9. The 8"} respondent acquisition of lands for thee't7(_>rn*1a'1';i_or: of reésidenteeiandt they distribute the same Stnee long time, this 6"' respondent thethtaequisition of some lands. It has members in the allotment. aferes 37 guntas Qf Komaghattfi a COI1V€I'1Z€d land. In itSe:1:t';--::vthe '--*L"».ovjVernrnent of Karnataka dropped the as it was not required for the projeetajn .,qneetiQn;.:_"..'The Government exercising the power eminent____§ioInain has properly denotified the »1e;ndV tn'«.qtrest_ien, as they are not required for the prejeetf ';I5he*j§3h respondent is alse indulging in wnrk in the.44"na:tnr'e".Vef public purpose? therefore the petitions de::_erve'"to be disrniesed.
'W 15
10. So far as the private respondent in though served has remained unrepresen"t.e'd.jsrid'h "
21888/O4. the private party thoiigh. has not filed an}; separate objectieh . «. V'
11. After hearing theL»V"'pe11*t_ies, Kare" haire gone through the catena VOf_h:51€Ci.SiCi;I1$héififiifsffsd to by afl the parties. '
12. SC t:hejT':-fi1*st_ v"fhi*eeV.--petiti0ns, apart from subsequemee;pufe:i%::asérs"*-of iihehvéproperty, the persons who {Vere or khatedars in the natificatiénshhufi€ief*Sec'fi0ns 28(1) and 28(4) of the Act are i_ifip1€aded'.A. V' 'V i: T. :32: case of SATENDRA PRASAD JAIN wvse simsys C>:%."s;;3','e§ {(19934) sec 349] it was an acquisition .V preeeedvi/hgshh under Section 1'?[1} of the Land Acquisition the possession of the iand was taken under Seetihsn E'? of :he said Act their Lerdships heki that She 16 Governrnent having invoked the provisions o_f;'S'e'etien". i.v7'= % for emergency purposes, has taken posses:siori--..::of the--«.. land prior to the passing of the :€iWa1*.C3iA. If of the iand Acquisition A«::t.»and 'EhV.'€i1'v.(3tLi};)()f1;'£h€t:'Qi.;K«'I"i';€'ILiSF3 divested of the title to the _ijvhieh-- Vvfjivith the Government. Therefofei when ianti {tests with the Government, there the Act by which it CaI1:{'(:"\i€f_°'€ toI_the ow°1iei".v"_j_'~. u H i;i_._ "i'etiort§ed in 1996(3) see i in the ease ;5tviieiéRgx'rAPe'v'A§in_ ANOTHER -vs~ STATE OF RAJASTHAN their Lordships again while deaiing xiifi-th' Acquisition Act and also Urhaii"**i--n1Vprove:nent Act, held that once the .of:..notifiCation under Section 52(1) of the 'itifhan improvement Act, 1959 happens, the land '~§te':3ts with the State Government free frorn all it eneninhranees and subsequent amendment brought to 'thefiand Acquisition Act, 1984 was of no consequence 17 to the vesting. Ultimately, their Lordships held that Qnce the possessien has been taken and the ia1':d.::'v.es--ts with the Gevernment, the Government eanmit uéitizfdregwd * from the acquisition under Seetidn Acquisition Act.
15. Reading of Secti0nu'vd428fi'efVthe Aegt makes it Clear that under Vd(1)V__Qif"«Secti0n 28 of the Act, the State Gevernmetiiti-byhrdv._t}t;ti§'ieetttt1f:'igives notice ef 139 iT1t€Y1tiQ1"5--.: ulatljd, if the State Governmerilt . that such land was required de_\/eldopment by the Board. of Section 28 of the KIAD Actegthere :5 *5:1i1,_V_VV<V)'1'31ig'21i::i0I1 en the State Government te VASCI'xV'€: ridoticeilpon the ewner er occupier or any person :'w_h'{">__Vis""E:$e~1ie'x25e'd" to be interested in the said notice, to shetzt ea:ttse""V'within 30 days why the land sheuld not be ~,V8;C€1L1iI'€Vd.
18 Sub~Secti0n (3) of Section 28 of the KIAD Act centernplatee an opperiumty of being heard to bVe'e'.§iven to the owner of the land or any person intere.é'ted.j_in:
Said land Whe replies to the said Show cause_i::.0t§ee«.an,gi 2 thereafter? the State may pass e»nch'~er:de':ie' "%ji'eerneAA fit. ' Sub~Sectic>n [<1] of ehf Act empowers issuance ef' in the official Gazette after begng required for the purpoee issued under Sub~Sg;:'€ioA1?:j;A~..{1)::'ef this Act and in other ur0rds ,"-._th§e¢. of acquisition. Sun+=S_Vec.tieI3_ Section 28 of the KIAD Act eon'13;:0ifeVS jphath"en.....pub1ication of the final notification uVndeAr" (4) ef this Section, the land shall vest ebee'1ute.I};5'i__in the State Government free frem afl ' encumbrances.
19
16. Taking possession of the Land is _ under Sub«--See'ii<:xr1 (6) after the iarjggi Stafre '* Government under Sub~Secti<:z:1 * Subsection (7) of Seetion47..'2.S..of A<~t"~.
contemplates the p1*oeedure'h;eV:i p0ss'essiQf1_: Jland V' has to be taken if the:"e.y\r1'1e1:e'ij1'A."pers0h"1I'1terested in the land refuses or an order made under Sub~Seeii0h (e}:%':5f 'V the KIAD Act contempiertes of the land to the Board1._r0r_Vt'he'»f};+L1_r£;e'se: rt has been acquired. s;c:c:;m Act refers to payment of e0mpc:nLsatien, anci reference.
j also weli settied that tifl the possession of '.the"-.EahdR--"_iLs vA:§.§§JV;{€I1$ the ewner Wifl not be entitled for ecerri';)e1:sa'i§{3n in respect of the notified Eands. x 18. In the present case we have to see whether :35 13116 in quest/ierz Vests with {he Stare free from 331 20 encumbrances by operation of Section 28(5) . Act as on the date of de--notifice.tion. Sufi; Section (4) of Section 28 of the publication of notification, the4"1.anr.:1 inTp'qxiestiot:c«'"aeV'=, notified in Sub~Section (1) 'o£rSection' Act, V would get Vested V in the 'Vc_:Stti.te ffee-A {tom aii encumbrances by opefationofifiectien»5) of the KIAD Act uniike the4.[j'1'<)_cec?:t_tii;e tinder the Land Acquisition'}X?;:t_. 7. i' Q V' Acquisition Act, Section 16 of the Act' of the land with the Government. Under the said Act, the lands under "."aCEi:_1'l.":SiE>'tEi;'01}'. get HV'est~eé:i with the Government when the an award under Section 11 of the Land Act and the Government takes possession Theéiieittiettion is entirely different under KEAD Act. After "'..:t»..the~~.fine{i notification under Section 28(4) of KIALD Act? 1 the 'iande get vesteo in the Government by virtue ef gW,+a. .--
21 Section 28(5) of the Act by operation of law not depend upon passing of any Acquisition Officer, Therefore, and 28(4) of the KIAD Act eohteriipleiee final notifications for of once.' final notification ottvvthevvééket get published, the land Government as V eonternplateci Act. Therefore, now the State Government Ceuld have' after they Vested with the Steite'--by 4h--ent£fio:a:tion under Section 28(4) of the ' ' N "e:aVe_y_vreferenee, we make the following the details to understand the factual 'sift: atioii . __ = ""
RS356,' ' "Sy. Platte Date 31" Date of Date of riumbeij Nos. notification notifieatier: f10f;ifiCa'€iOI1 " issued uh/s issued u./'S. issued u/S 28(1) of 28(4) of 4 of KIAD READ Ac: KIAD Act, éiet at i '2 '?"6C}G to L'tta:'ai'iaiEi 3 185% M.2ihavarth£ 2.5.1999 8.42833 1Qi9.2G03 . F 22 17602 /04 21,/1 5;'?5/8
5X9 5/H} Kaval K0n1n1aghatLa Pfi1agana1'1a}ii
29.~1;2.<:>g33 :
g2.e;.199_9 L V * *:3f3;2e04 ZISSSXO4 22 Pa11thrapaIyé§ .1 9.:2.19é'e '.
:S.t'~'l.2CigO3 5 ; 7.7 .,'?.C103 32.2.2004 21233/O4 53.2003 11.5.2004 15/3 p:11ag;5na11;;i1: § :';e,__:.999_ * * _"JI:r ; V
21. Tt:e%':;§§%a11ei1gei:£ these' petitions is with regard to Section 4 of the 4 ( )ftne KIAD Act are relevant whichlvvread as mate to *3. "~Déi'ri1a,réttién of industrial areas:
Government may by ' .
notification, declare any area in the E'; f' 1r-'r1. r%4 :.~,.:--~;..,.-M1 ,.._.A UK: 6.1 IIIUUSLEIHJ CLICCE genfposes of this Act.
{2} Every such notifieatien shed} define the limits of the area to which it relates.
4.. Alteration ef induetrial area: The State GOV€£'§1II1€f1f may at any time, 23 by notifieatioxl, exclude frem-A4'':'any:''~~t:''' "
industrial area, any area, ex""'ine3.i';=de"V. ' therein any additional area,'Ka's:_rn_ay..'~.__ f be specified in such netifi.eatienV._'f " "
Reading of Section 4 :nanifes"Ltiy'V'1nakee"itelearvgthat the State Government has "pow-er exelnde or inckude any additional area at a.n}2i._ 'time V.,Lbj}"'.n<':{tifieation as an industrial ii::3?!.0\x.€: "qU..eetien is whether the notifieatiens "of the Act which are under ehallengeazzere in-_ae:;eer§i~ance with the provisions of the t" aaaaa \.&$,m.j§, ,' , of the judgments in SATENDRA PRASAD and PRATAP eases stated supra clarifies vVL""thee_peS'iti0n. As already stated. above, under Section 16 Land acquisition Act, the lands vest with the
-State Government only after the authority concerned makes an award under Seetien E} ef the Sazié Aet and 24 the Govezmmemt takes passessian. Seciiien 48 of the Land Acquisiiion Act empowers the Siate C}0ve:*;z;:§.{3.§1{.._te withéraw fmm acquisitien ef any Iazad . possessisan has not been iakan. Si;:'::;i1a.r_=£:ii:"S'e§::':§s'i3 V4.8 31f" "
the said Act} them is no prciérisicéfi :1I*i{is:* except Section 4 Where ti:¢ "':;bs{>1i1te pg{;;:ef.i_';3.. y.;§g1;gd'». with the Government Jcithergxslugje %§.i:y"--::a,;'eVA2vEfron1 an industrial area or incvlfiséfi
24. T116 table indicate that mud'; under Section 4 of the Section 28(4) of the KIAD such notification, vesting of fi%35::-viandu 1:>1é. <T:e Qperation of Section 28(5) of jvflanding over possession of tha land has I Eéith vesting 0f the land as contemplated unéétr Sfisjfiien 18 9f the Laaé Acquisiiian Act. .V "'Fh,i::refd1*<éi§ when 23:21:33 the vesting of the land takes piace at hétiéifig zmiifieé the lanés far acquisiiign under Seitiiazz '.
25 28(4) of the KIAD Act, after completing the proeedore as contemplated under Section 28(3) of the hearing the beneficiaries for whose benefits. the~.11:ant'ie't-- were acquired, was the State_,j.t1s3tifie:_:?. iii V' notification under Section 4 of the of the land in question frorrih.theV_indtistria,1u
25. F FOII1 seriegtit. of pertathittg to the acquisition anctthe 1,;-"1;t°)tieed that the BMIC project3__.:vieA:et§PFf:iVe€t_ f':'xSo:1"1etshekhar Reddye case and Section 28(1) and Seetioh {tot have reached finality, So also the'DtVisior1.. this Court in the case of J.C. AND OTHERS quashed the under which KC. Reddy Committee and even the reports submitted by the eaitft Co-tmttittee indieating excess of land were set aside. stood taken by the State Government in the said . Zagohtieet was similar to the stand taken by the State in 26 the present petitions that the tartds were for the project. The judgment in the....e:e;~ee' MadhL1swa;my was confirmed by theEj£Cm'hIe.__S1;pfeme' Court by its judgment dated is relevant to note that in a eaee'v.t§?ertaintf;~g zgxppeal No. 1215/2011 pertedn_ing«'Ah'tet Netgahhushan, their Lordships Qf the referring to the judgment of length dealt with the prQVistQn$"_"'et gs'-'t-"st é,spéc1a11y Sections 28(4) and :?§a:c1 he question raised before the «Couttmtnttt"!?t"at5;p's case was Whether the aequieitioti"vnetifie-atiorié'gets invalidated for not making an':t.jei~sxr:,gt~d ..,.\fvitht't:"e--' period of 2 years from the date of netifiAe'atiet1'e:a;'Their Lerdshipe heid that once the land {tests in 'tEI€.t:GOV€Fflm€flt§ provisions of Section 11A of the EQADV Act are not attracted which is a settled peesttiett as held in the ease ef PRATAP referred te '--
27
25. In the case of M. NAGABHUSHAE\§.2§-.._ {%7_S. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in <§:;m:.:
190.1215/2O1e1, the Hozibie Supren:.e--..,.A4_CQu;f£ . t:3a:S--« observed as under in paragraphfie 4' '
40. In Munithimifigéth Karnataka and _Q_the_1:'~:+__ rehportedli in (2002):; held that the pr0visi0r}e_ 11A of thé, to the " {jf Ba1ft'g:§1_'01fe. ' WDeve1opmer1t (EDA Act). In 335 of the report 'this a distinction between xthe vp;1'r'pds»_e's«;§f the two enactments and 'V he1ei"t.hf;1t 3.1; the provisions of said Act do «V «' appijfmfe BDA Act.
3 "S ubsequent}y§ the Constitutian Bench of 'V ' fij:.ie:T:=.Ciourt in Offshore Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Bangalere Deveiopment Authority "and Ora, reported in 201} {1} SCALE 538 ~ 5752, held that Seetien 11 A of the , <"""%;:w. 'g_ said Act does 1:10': appiy to the acquisitian 28 urxda-1* Efifi Act
42. The $am€: prirzeipia is attracted j -1- prassnt case alse.
cemparison between 1 '€1AiVé' ' };.~3ioé5'is§V0f:$ p« .{_}f_ V "
said Act ants} KIAD -f.ha,t" "
those two Acts v.?eré:..}en3.t:%;eci to T'§':.1(:.£':¥j'e':¥:%?:. substantiaily diffeféfif p§1rpxgs-e:§:;' '' {H150 far as ~~,/{act _c§:{>:'i§.:«*::"1';2_eCi, frfirriy its Statement ofJObjecf'fS;'an§'-Reésgnsfi it is cleaz" that 1 ' Hie -- _}v€;s 'énacted to afi-hiefké .316" foilevvingf V-pi1r pi5é5e$:
"'.I:i:::,_ is "--.C§OIiSi{i€*rii{f necessary to V' "":ns;ke>j"p:"c'x-risidn for the orderly and development '' of 'lEZnz:i':1s£i*:es in suiiabie areas in "{1:e...$tate. To achieve this object, it is proposed to specify suitable far Inéusiriai Devalepment TV and establish a Bssard to deveiep such areas and maki-3 avaiiabia lands therein for esiabiishme:-at sf indusiries."
Here a}.s:.0_A4_j ._
43. 29 KIAD Act is of course a self Contained code. The said Act is primarily a la\¥,_ll"»l. regulating acquisition of land fer purpose and for compensation. Aeq:,,1.isition--'Mefvilnntl under the said Act not} solely with the purpeeev. of planned development of ahfeiity. "lt--.h'€:tef:i:§) it to different sit}1at,ieI1S--..._ Whi(":h-_ eetne within the"«--e§:pandedv of public purpose. the' ' 'Cjetistitution B§enf3hZ'~0f 'thie C§0u«rt"if1..(}i1fnar Traders & others, iepoggdig zeitjn SCALE 223 had 1A.. the said Act does l«nl0t ..a(:quisiti0n under the Maharashtra Regional anci-Tfewnv Planning Act, 1968.
:v'q":fie..iearned Counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of this . '*'lC0urt in the ease of Mariyappa and others IVS. State ef Karnataka and others reported in (1998]3 SCC 2'?6e The said éeeisien was eitecl for the pewm€fi5'e§fl'¢ 30 purpoee of contending that Section is applicable to an acquisition KIAD Act. in Mariyappa {supi'a)'«'.};:):ef::§reVt' coming to hold that»--..p1'Qv'isieiiI," df._j_ Sectieri 11A of the fentrai to Karriataka ACqt1iSitiO_i'1"'{)f Grant of HoueVe,T'tSites (hereihaitee "19:?-:2 this-+c<:urt held that a se1f~ containedV_cet{e;V V-Tize else held that 15372, A;ct"arid"' -t.he_7Centra1 Acts _ are ejgpp1ern_entaJ.__«~tQ' each other to the V «exiteijt t':iat°5Tunieé.s 'tithe Central Act "~Sf;;ppIéA:iier1t,e"- the"""'K;arnataka Act, the * function. The Court "ftirther..f.h'e1c1"vthat both the Acts, ii"-.11ameiy,A'.1 Act and the Central Act (f'Ié«i3§i"Es'»'j5./'1"[A1Ti the same subject. But in the instant case the KIAD Act is a se1f~ Qtveiitained code and the Centred Act is fit supplemental to it. Therefore, the Vratic in Mariyappa (supra) is riot attracted te the facts of the present case.
31
27. As already stated abeve, once---..'ti1e ..1Va"a:d V' vested in the Government free freméall it even if the purpose for which It-.he1'_Ia~:'id 'iwae_."erigii1iaiiyf acquired is aborted for so':':_1e.._v;reasOn or t;hef§jth.er; the,"
land will net revert back to :Qwfi'1er Vests with the State GOV'€fHfn€f1'?_L..E:;'-Hd Sta_te""ean use the same for any other public purpQ'sc.."aefV»ion§ is for the use of the public;
_r_1o--tjhi::r:igV1jee0r«:i indicating that the petitiohers' ef the intention to exclude the landafijdm 'EVV}'"J:.(€4V1A1'."L¢:'i'ii1:_.$.'"'i",}Z'}'t21i area by virtue of Section 4 fuel} settled in the case of STATE _ "ee»aaR:wem HGUSELESS HARIJAN EMPLOYERS 1i3;s;s0ci.§;g'rfei§ivevsi STATE OF KARNATAKA {AIR 2001 Se 437). ~ Ifriview of the above Ciiscussieri. we are of the .AQpi._ni..e::, theee Writ petitions deserve te be allowed and U M aecerfiingi}; are ailewed squashing the netificatiene dated / 32 18.9203, 3.2.2804, 11.5.2004 and 12.2.20{}% 31:': \V.P. N93. 1780§~6Q2/29% 2:233,r2o@4 and 21883g€2'@§4 resgaeciively under Sectiozr: 4 of ths MAB ;%c:._. ' 3 §§EQE: Q\5