Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, landowners in Belagola village, Srirangapattana taluk, Mandya district, challenged the preliminary notification dated 15.09.2000 issued under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act) and the final notification dated 13.05.2005 gazetted on 15.06.2005 issued under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act. They sought a declaration that these notifications had lapsed by virtue of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act, 2013). The petitioners were represented by Senior Counsel Sri Shashikiran Shetty. The respondents included the State of Karnataka, the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB), the Special Deputy Commissioner, and the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The court considered the sole issue of whether the acquisition under the KIAD Act could be deemed to have lapsed under the 2013 Act. The court noted that the acquisition under the KIAD Act is a separate and independent acquisition mechanism and is not subject to the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. Consequently, Section 24 of the 2013 Act, which provides for lapsing of acquisition proceedings if compensation is not paid or possession not taken, does not apply to notifications issued under the KIAD Act. The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the notifications under the KIAD Act remain valid and have not lapsed.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Applicability of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 to KIAD Act - Section 24 of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 - The petitioners challenged the preliminary notification dated 15.09.2000 under Section 3(1) of the KIAD Act and final notification dated 13.05.2005 under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act, contending that they had lapsed under Section 24 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. The Court held that the acquisition under the KIAD Act is an independent acquisition and is not governed by the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. Therefore, Section 24 of the 2013 Act has no application to the notifications issued under the KIAD Act. The petitions were dismissed. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the notifications issued under the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act) for acquisition of land have lapsed by virtue of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act, 2013).
Final Decision
The writ petitions are dismissed. The notifications under the KIAD Act are held not to have lapsed under Section 24 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
Law Points
- Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013 does not apply to acquisitions under the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act
- 1966
- Acquisition under KIAD Act is independent and not governed by the 2013 Act
- Preliminary notification under Section 3(1) of KIAD Act does not lapse under Section 24 of the 2013 Act
- Final notification under Section 28(4) of KIAD Act is not subject to the 2013 Act
