Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2021 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 1448 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURTPrinciples of res judicata as well as constructive res judicata - Challenge to preliminary notifications bearing No. CI 196 SPQ 98 dated 19.12.1998, 29.01.2003 issued under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 and declaration and final notifications bearing No. CI 196 SPQ 98 dated 08.04.2003 and 05.07.2003 issued under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act - seeking declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the KIAD Act had lapsed as per Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Seeking quashing of the acquisition notifications - HELD THAT:- The filing of the writ petition seeking relief of quashing of acquisition notifications cannot be reconsidered and the writ petition has been rightly dismissed on the principles of res judicata as well as constructive res judicata. In this regard, it would be useful to note that this very appellant/petitioner had approached this Court in WP. Nos. 43358-59/2003. The said writ petition was partly allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 18.12.2003, inasmuch as 40% of the acquired lands i.e. the acquisition of the lands for township, construction of conventional centre are concerned was quashed. Insofar as 60% of the lands sought to be acquired for the formation of peripheral road, link road, service road and ramps are concerned were upheld. Seeking a declaration that the acquisition of the lands in question had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act - HELD THAT:- Section 24 of the 2013 Act creates a new right in the land owners. For the exercise of said right, certain conditions have to exist, the most significant of them being, the initiation of proceedings for acquisition under the provisions of the LA Act, 1894. Therefore, the said words must be given a natural interpretation and not an expansive or wide interpretation, so as to extend the right under Section 24 even in respect of and owners whose lands are subjected to acquisition under any State enactment, such as the KIAD Act or BDA Act or Karnataka Urban Development Act, 1987 (KUDA Act). In fact, the Parliament itself has been conscious of the fact that 2013 Act repeals and substitutes only LA Act, 1894, and not any other Central enactment or for that matter any other State enactment dealing with acquisition of lands. Section 24 does not take within its scope nor does it apply to, acquisitions which have been initiated under the provisions of any other enactment particularly, State enactment, such as, KIAD Act, BDA Act or KUDA Act. The said Section is restricted to only those acquisitions which have been initiated under the provisions of the LA Act, 1894 only. Subject to compliance of the conditions mentioned under sub-section (2) of Section 24, the land owner would be entitled to the deeming provision regarding lapse of acquisition and not otherwise. In view of the above catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Offshore Holdings (P) Limited, [2011 (1) TMI 1322 - SUPREME COURT] BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. [2018 (8) TMI 2149 - SUPREME COURT] and in Girnar Traders [2011 (1) TMI 1343 - SUPREME COURT], reliance cannot be placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in H.N. Shivanna [2012 (11) TMI 1333 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] to hold that in the absence of any time limit fixed under the provisions of KIAD Act for passing of an award, it would have to be made within a reasonable time, which is two years and if the award has not been passed within the said time, it would lead to grant of declaration that the acquisition has lapsed. Therefore, the petitioners herein cannot be granted relief on the basis of the dictum of the Division Bench in H.N. Shivanna and reliance placed on the said judgment by learned counsel for the petitioners is of no assistance to them. This is because the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Nagabhushana [2011 (2) TMI 1167 - SUPREME COURT] and Anasuya Bai [2017 (1) TMI 1828 - SUPREME COURT] rendered under the provisions of the KIAD Act hold the field. Similarly, the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Offshore Holdings (P) Limited [2011 (1) TMI 1322 - SUPREME COURT] and Bangalore Development Authority which are rendered under the provisions of the BDA Act, 1976 are binding on this Court. The learned Single Judge was right in holding that the provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, is not applicable to an acquisition proceeding initiated under the provisions of the KIAD Act. Hence, there are no merit in the appeal. Appeal dismissed.
|