Case Note & Summary
The writ petitioners, subsequent purchasers of lands measuring 16 acres 4.25 guntas in Amani Bellandur Khane Village, challenged the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act) by preliminary notification dated 06.02.2006 under Section 28(1) and final notification dated 17.12.2007 under Section 28(4). The lands were acquired for the purpose of setting up a Sewerage Treatment Plant (STP) by the Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board (BWSSB). The petitioners had previously filed WP 5650/2008 challenging the notifications, which was dismissed on 29.07.2011; writ appeals W.A.Nos.16026-16027/2011 were dismissed on 16.04.2013; Special Leave Petitions Nos.26738-26739/2013 were dismissed on 12.11.2014; a review petition was dismissed on 16.04.2015; and a subsequent Special Leave Petition No.20568/2015 was withdrawn on 16.12.2015. In the present writ petitions filed on 20.04.2016, the petitioners sought a declaration that the acquisition had lapsed because no award had been passed despite the passage of more than ten years. They contended that while the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 prescribes a two-year period for making an award under Section 11-A, the KIAD Act contains no such timeline, but a reasonable time must be implied, and the failure to pass an award renders the acquisition void. The respondents argued that the delay was attributable to the continuous litigation and interim orders obtained by the petitioners, and that as subsequent purchasers, they had no locus standi to challenge the acquisition and were only entitled to compensation. The KIADB claimed possession was taken on 28.02.2008 and transferred on 06.03.2008, while the petitioners maintained they were in physical possession. The BWSSB stated it had deposited Rs.13,13,70,390 with KIADB in 2009 for compensation and that the public purpose of setting up the STP was being frustrated by the prolonged litigation. The court heard the matter finally but the judgment text is incomplete and does not record a final decision.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquisition proceedings under the KIAD Act lapse due to non-passing of an award within a reasonable time, and whether subsequent purchasers of notified land can challenge such acquisition on that ground.
Law Points
- No time limit for passing award under KIAD Act unlike Section 11-A of Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- subsequent purchasers may only claim compensation
- delay due to interim orders does not vitiate acquisition
- Section 24(2) of 2013 Act does not apply if award not passed
- laches and res judicata issues
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (03) 70
Writ Petition No.23812/2016 & Writ Petition Nos.32798-32816/2016 (LA-KIADB)
Sri Krishnamurthy K.R. for M/s. Lawyers Inc (petitioners); Sri B.J. Eswarappa, AGA for R1; Sri Basavaraj V. Sabarad for R2 & R3; Sri Aditya Sondhi, Senior Advocate a/w Sri K.B. Monesh Kumar for R4
Mrs. Premakala Prabhakara Reddy and Mr. B.N. Adarsh
State of Karnataka, Department of Industries and Commerce; Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board; The Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB; Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 seeking declaration that land acquisition proceedings under KIAD Act have lapsed due to non-passing of award.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought a declaration that notifications under Sections 28(1) and 28(4) of KIAD Act are unenforceable and acquisition has lapsed.
Filing Reason
Despite final notification in 2007, no award was passed; prior challenge dismissed; petitioners filed again contending lapse due to unreasonable delay.
Previous Decisions
WP 5650/2008 dismissed on 29.07.2011; WA 16026-16027/2011 dismissed on 16.04.2013; SLP 26738-26739/2013 dismissed on 12.11.2014; Review Petition 1401/2014 dismissed on 16.04.2015; SLP 20568/2015 withdrawn on 16.12.2015.
Issues
Whether the acquisition proceedings under the KIAD Act lapse due to non-passing of award within reasonable time.
Whether subsequent purchasers of notified land can challenge acquisition on ground of lapse.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners: KIAD Act has no time limit for award, but unreasonable delay vitiates acquisition; no award passed for over 10 years; possession not taken; no notice under Section 28(6); lapsed under Section 24(2) of 2013 Act.
Respondents: Delay caused by petitioners' own litigation and interim orders; subsequent purchasers cannot challenge acquisition, only entitled to compensation; possession taken in 2008; compensation deposited in 2009; public purpose being frustrated.
Judgment Excerpts
the petitioners realized that no award had in fact been passed, either under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 nor under the 2013 Act
the possession of the lands in question were taken on 28.02.2008 by the Land Acquisition Officer and transferred to the Board on 06.03.2008
Respondent No.4 had deposited Rs.13,13,70,390/- with Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board way back in the year 2009
Procedural History
Preliminary notification on 06.02.2006; final notification on 17.12.2007. Petitioners filed WP 5650/2008, dismissed on 29.07.2011. WA 16026-16027/2011 dismissed on 16.04.2013. SLP 26738-26739/2013 dismissed on 12.11.2014. RP 1401/2014 dismissed on 16.04.2015. SLP 20568/2015 withdrawn on 16.12.2015. Present writ petitions filed on 20.04.2016.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966: Section 3(1), Section 3(2), Section 28(1), Section 28(2), Section 28(3), Section 28(4), Section 28(6)
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Section 24(2)
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 11-A
- Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227
