Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru by Mrs. Premakala Prabhakara Reddy and Mr. B.N. Adarsh, who purchased various parcels of land in Amani Bellandur Khane Village, Bengaluru East Taluk, between 2007 and 2008. The lands were subject to acquisition proceedings under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act) initiated by a preliminary notification dated 06.02.2006 under Section 28(1) and a final declaration dated 17.12.2007 under Section 28(4). The acquisition was for the benefit of the fourth respondent, Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board (BWSSB), to set up a Sewerage Treatment Plant (STP) as a public purpose to mitigate pollution around Varthur lake. The petitioners, having purchased the lands after the preliminary notification but mostly before the final notification, challenged the acquisition notifications in W.P.No.5650/2008, which was dismissed on 29.07.2011 after an initial interim stay of dispossession. They then filed writ appeals, which were dismissed on 16.04.2013, and Special Leave Petitions that were also dismissed on 12.11.2014. A review petition and subsequent SLP met similar fates. In the present petitions filed on 20.04.2016, the petitioners sought a declaration that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed due to the non-passing of an award for over a decade, contending that they remained in physical possession and that no valid award or notice under Section 28(6) of the KIAD Act had been issued. They relied on the principle under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which mandates an award within two years, and argued that even without an express provision in the KIAD Act, an unreasonable delay vitiates the acquisition. The respondents, including KIADB and BWSSB, opposed the petitions, asserting that the petitioners, as subsequent purchasers, lacked standing to challenge the acquisition and were only entitled to compensation. They argued that the awards could not be passed due to the continuous litigation and interim orders of stay/status quo obtained by the petitioners, thus the delay was attributable to the petitioners. BWSSB had deposited Rs.13.13 crores with KIADB in 2009 for compensation. The court heard the matter finally with consent of all parties, but the judgment text provided does not include the final decision or reasoning beyond the submission stage.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquisition proceedings under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 lapsed due to non-passing of the award within a reasonable time; whether the petitioners, as subsequent purchasers, are entitled to maintain the writ petitions seeking such declaration; whether the interim orders of stay/status quo obtained by the petitioners in earlier litigations prevented the respondents from passing the award.
Law Points
- Acquisition proceedings may lapse if award not passed within reasonable time
- Section 11-A of Land Acquisition Act
- 1894 provides two-year period for passing award
- KIAD Act does not prescribe time limit
- subsequent purchaser's right to challenge acquisition is limited to compensation
- interim orders of stay/status quo can prevent passing of award.
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (03) 24
W.P. No.23812/2016 & W.P. Nos.32798-32816/2016 (LA-KIADB)
Sri Krishnamurthy K.R. Advocate for M/s. Lawyers Inc (Petitioners), Sri B.J. Eswarappa, AGA (R1), Sri Basavaraj V. Sabarad, Adv. (R2 & R3), Sri Aditya Sondhi, Senior Advocate a/w Sri K.B. Monesh Kumar, Adv. (R4)
Mrs. Premakala Prabhakara Reddy, Mr. B.N. Adarsh
State of Karnataka (Department of Industries and Commerce), Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB), The Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board (BWSSB)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India seeking declaration that acquisition proceedings under KIAD Act have lapsed due to non-passing of award within reasonable time.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought declaration that notifications dated 06.02.2006 under Section 28(1) and 17.12.2007 under Section 28(4) of KIAD Act are unenforceable and that acquisition has lapsed; also sought to restrain respondents from interfering with their possession and to direct payment of compensation if acquisition is valid.
Filing Reason
Petitioners contended that despite acquisition initiated in 2006-2007, no award was passed for their lands; they had challenged acquisition earlier but remained unsuccessful; they filed this petition after realizing no award existed and thus the acquisition should be deemed lapsed.
Previous Decisions
Earlier writ petition (W.P.No.5650/2008) dismissed on 29.07.2011; writ appeals (W.A.Nos.16026-16027/2011) dismissed on 16.04.2013; Special Leave Petition (SLP Nos.26738-26739/2013) dismissed on 12.11.2014; Review Petition (R.P.No.1401/2014) dismissed on 16.04.2015; SLP against review order withdrawn on 16.12.2015.
Issues
Whether acquisition proceedings under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 lapse if the award is not passed within a reasonable time despite the absence of a statutory time limit.
Whether interim orders of stay/status quo obtained by the petitioners in prior proceedings can be held against them to deny the relief of lapse.
Whether the petitioners, being subsequent purchasers, have locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings and seek a declaration of lapse.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners: argued that under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, there is a mandatory two-year period for passing an award, and though KIAD Act has no such stipulation, an unreasonable delay of over a decade renders the acquisition lapsed; they are in physical possession as no valid possession was taken; no notice under Section 28(6) was issued; the public notice is illegal.
Respondents: contended that petitioners are subsequent purchasers who can only claim compensation and cannot challenge the acquisition; the awards were not passed due to multiple litigations initiated by petitioners and interim orders operated against the respondents; the delay is attributable to petitioners; the purpose is for a public project (STP) and Rs.13.13 crores had been deposited for compensation as early as 2009.
Judgment Excerpts
the petitioners have averred that they were under an impression that the award had been passed, but the compensation was not deposited nor paid to them. ... they realized that no award had in fact been passed, either under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 nor under the 2013 Act; that there was no legal impediment for the acquiring authorities to pass an award and that the long delay and the ultimate failure in passing of the award was fatal to the acquisition proceedings insofar as lands in question are concerned.
the petitioners being subsequent purchasers, are at best entitled to seek compensation and that they cannot maintain these writ petitions seeking a declaration that the acquisition of the lands in question has lapsed.
the awards in respect of the lands in question have not been passed but it is contended that the reason is on account of the continuous and successive litigations being filed by the petitioners before this Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Procedural History
Early acquisition notifications in 2006-2007. Petitioners purchased lands during that period. They filed W.P.No.5650/2008 challenging acquisition; interim stay of dispossession granted on 09.04.2008. Writ petition dismissed on 29.07.2011. Petitioners preferred W.A.Nos.16026-16027/2011; interim status quo order on 10.08.2012. Writ appeals dismissed on 16.04.2013. Petitioners then filed SLP Nos.26738-26739/2013; interim status quo order on 02.09.2013. SLP dismissed on 12.11.2014. Review Petition R.P.No.1401/2014 dismissed on 16.04.2015. SLP No.20568/2015 against review order withdrawn on 16.12.2015. Current writ petitions filed on 20.04.2016. On 24.06.2016, interim order of status quo granted, extended subsequently. The petitions were listed for hearing on interlocutory applications but finally heard with consent.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966: 3(1), 3(2), 28(1), 28(2), 28(3), 28(4), 28(6)
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 11-A
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: 24(2)
- Constitution of India: 226, 227
