Karnataka High Court
The Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Sri Venugopal V R on 4 February, 2020
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ON THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT APPEAL No.6820 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
KIADB ZONAL OFFICE
METAGALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA
KRS ROAD (NEAR VIKRANTH TYRES)
MYSURU - 570 016
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR
KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001
3. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
NO.49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001 ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. SRI. VENUGOPAL V.R
SON OF V. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
ANAGAHALLI VILLAGE/POST
BELAGOLA HOBLI
SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK
MANDYA - 571 606
2. SMT. VARALAKSHMI
WIFE OF D. SUBBEGOWDA
AGED 61 YEARS
BELAGOLA VILLAGE
BELAGOLA POST
SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK
MANDYA - 571 606
3. SRI. PUTTARAJU @ PUTTARAMU
SON OF CHALUVEGOWDA BHATHKANI
AGED 52 YEARS
BELAGOLA VILLAGE
BELAGOLA POST
SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK
MANDYA - 571 606
4. SRI. VENKATESH BABU .V.R
SON OF V. RAMAIAH
ANAGAHALLI VILLAGE/POST
BELAGOLA HOBLI
SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK
MANDYA - 571 606
5. SRI. SHIVALINGEGOWDA
SON OF CHIKKALAINGEGOWDA
AGED 65 YEARS
ANAGAHALLI VILLAGE/POST
BELAGOLA HOBLI
SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK
MANDYA - 571 606
3
6. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI J.D. KASHINATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5
SRI. T.L. KIRAN KUMAR, AGA FOR R6)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4
OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.08.2017 PASSED BY
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION
NOS.34313-317 OF 2016 ALLOWING THE PETITIONS
OF RESPONDENT NO.1 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING,
THIS DAY, M.I.ARUN J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the order dated 17.08.2017 passed in W.P.Nos.34313-34317 of 2016 by the learned Single Judge, in allowing the writ petitions, respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 therein have preferred this appeal.
4
2. Respondent nos.1 to 5 herein are said to be the owners of certain lands situated in Anagahalli village, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District, the acquisition of which by the appellant-Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board ('KIADB' for short) is the subject matter of this writ appeal.
3. The appellants issued a preliminary notification dated 15.09.2000 under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (for short 'KIAD Act') and the final notification dated 13.05.2005 under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act acquiring the properties of respondent nos.1 to 5 herein.
4. The said notifications were challenged by respondent nos.1 to 5 by way of W.P.No.20195 of 2005. This Court vide order dated 15.10.2008 allowed the writ petition and quashed the notifications reserving liberty to the appellants herein to proceed with the acquisition afresh if they 5 intended to go ahead with it. This order was challenged by the KIADB in W.A.Nos.259-265 of 2009 and connected cases. By order dated 16.12.2010, the said writ appeals were allowed setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The acquisition was upheld. However, it was made clear that the land owners who had not received compensation during the pendency of the writ petition shall be paid compensation based on the market value as obtained on the date of final notification issued under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act on 13.05.2005. A Special Leave petition was preferred against the said order passed by the Division Bench of this Court and the same was dismissed on 18.01.2016 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. However, the appellant-KIADB did not pass any award. It is noticed after the disposal of the writ appeal, on 16.12.2010, there was no legal 6 impediment for the KIADB to proceed with passing of an award and thereby completing the process of acquisition. As there was inordinate delay in the process of acquisition, respondent nos.1 to 5 herein preferred the instant writ petitions contending that due to the inordinate delay in KIADB not passing the award, acquisition proceedings of the lands in question should be declared as lapsed.
6. The learned Single Judge, while considering the rival contentions of respondent nos.1 to 5 herein and the appellants herein, held that the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 has no application to the proceedings made under the KIAD Act and the challenge made to the acquisition proceedings on the said ground is not sustainable.
7. However, the learned Single Judge noted that there was no legal impediment for the KIADB to 7 proceed with the acquisition after disposal of W.A.Nos.259-265 of 2009 vide order dated 16.12.2010 and they have not done so and nearly 7 years had since lapsed. The learned Single Judge relying upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi and Others through Power of Attorney Holder vs. M.I.D.C and others reported in AIR 2013 SC 565 and Ramchand and Others vs. Union of India reported in (1994)1 SCC 44 came to the conclusion that there is an obligation on the part of the authorities to complete the acquisition proceedings and to make payment of requisite compensation within a reasonable period.
8. The learned Single Judge also relied upon the decision of this Court in H.N.Shivanna and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Another reported in (2013)4 KCCR 2793 (DB) to come to the conclusion that the acquisition proceedings should be completed within a reasonable period and passing of the award within 8 two years after final notification would be reasonable. He further noted that there is a delay of nearly 7 years in passing the award. It was not passed even on the date of hearing of the writ petition. On the said ground, the learned Single Judge has held that the acquisition proceedings of the lands in question have been declared as lapsed.
9. Aggrieved by the same, respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 therein KIADB have preferred this writ appeal. They have contended that there is no time limitation prescribed under the KIAD Act for passing of successive notification and also the award. The appellants have further contended that once final notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act is issued, the lands stand vested in the State free of all encumbrances by operation of law. According to them, once the lands vest with the State, the acquisition is complete and if there is a delay in passing of the award, the land losers can seek for 9 passing of the award but the acquisition will not lapse. In support of their contentions, they have relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.Nagabhushana vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in AIR 2011 SC 1113, Grinar Traders vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2011)3 SCC 1, Pratap and Another vs. State of Rajasthan and Others reported in (1996)3 SCC 1, Munithimmaiah v. State of Karnataka and Others reported in (2002)4 SCC 326, Offshore Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bangalore Development Authority and Others reported in MANU/SC/0060/2011, Delhi Development Authority vs. Sukhbir Singh and Others reported in 2016 SCC Online SC 929 and P.Narayanappa and Another vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in (2006)7 SCC 578.
10. None of the above cases pertain to the time limit within which the award needs to be passed. They all pertain to the KIAD Act or similar 10 enactments not being in pari materia with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, inapplicability of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, to acquisition made under the KIAD Act or similarly placed enactments or vesting of the land upon issuance of final notification.
11. The proposition of law that though the KIAD Act is silent on the time limit within which the award needs to be passed and compensation be disbursed to the land losers under the KIAD Act has been examined in the case of H.N.Shivanna and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Another reported in (2013)4 KCCR 2793 (DB). It has been observed at paragraph 39 as follows:
"39. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear if a period is prescribed under the Act for issue of a final declaration as well as for passing of the award, if the final declaration is not issued and the award is not passed within the stipulated period, the entire acquisition lapses, unless it is shown by virtue of any order of stay or injunction issued by any 11 Court, the authorities were precluded from completing the acquisition proceedings. It is by operation of law as contained in the statute. Merely because such a provision is not found in an enactment, it does not mean limitation is not a bar at all. If such a prescription is not there expressly in any enactment it is not possible to hold that such an acquisition has lapsed relying on the provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act. In other words, the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be read into the Act or such similar statutes. But nonetheless in order to decide what is the reasonable time within which authorities have to exercise their power either for issue of a final notification or for passing of the award is concerned, certainly the Parliament intendment as contained in this provision cannot be completely lost sight of. On the contrary, it acts as a guide. It expresses the will of the Parliament. It has to be given due weight. When this acquisition proceedings were delayed endlessly and land owners were deprived of just compensation under law and consequently the constitutional right was violated, the Parliament amended the Land Acquisition Act prescribing the time limit. According to the Parliament, one year is the reasonable time for passing of a final declaration and two years is the time for passing of an award. If within those periods the final declaration is not issued, the award is not passed, the whole acquisition lapses. The Act is enacted for industrial development which has to be done expeditiously."
Thus, as per the above decision, around two years would be a reasonable period for passing the award. 12 There was no legal impediment for the KIADB to pass the award in the instant case. But as observed by the learned Single Judge, in spite of delay of nearly 7 years, the award was not yet passed. Based on the said ground, the learned Single Judge held that the acquisition as lapsed in respect of the lands concerned.
The appellants have not made out any good ground to interfere with the well reasoned order of the learned Single Judge. Hence, the writ appeal is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE hkh.