2012 (11) TMI 1333 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

(a) Whether issuance of successive declarations is permissible under the Act?

(b) Whether delay in issuing notification u/s 28(4) of the Act and passing award, vitiates acquisition proceedings?

Summary:

POINT (a): SUCCESSIVE DECLARATIONS

The petitioners argued that successive notifications are not permissible under the law, relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Vishnu Prasad Sharma's case. The Supreme Court had interpreted Sections 4, 5A, and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to mean that once a declaration u/s 6 is made, the notification u/s 4(1) is exhausted. However, the Parliament amended the Land Acquisition Act in 1967 to allow for successive notifications. The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (the Act) does not have similar amendments. The Court noted that the provisions of the Act are not in pari materia with the Land Acquisition Act. The Act does not require submission of one report or consideration of all objections together. The Court held that successive declarations u/s 28(4) of the Act are permissible as the Act allows for consideration of objections from each owner separately and issuance of notifications accordingly. The learned Single Judge's decision upholding the issuance of successive declarations was justified.

POINT (b): DELAY IN ISSUING NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 28(4) OF THE ACT AND PASSING AWARD, VITIATES ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS

The petitioners contended that the delay in issuing the final notification and passing the award vitiates the acquisition proceedings. The Court acknowledged that compensation pegged to the date of the preliminary notification could be unjust due to market value escalation. However, the Court noted that the petitioners had sold their property shortly after the preliminary notification, thus losing their standing to challenge the acquisition on these grounds. The Court held that while the Act does not specify a time limit for issuing final notifications or passing awards, such actions must be completed within a reasonable time. The Court referred to the Parliament's intention in the Land Acquisition Act, which prescribes one year for final declarations and two years for awards as reasonable timeframes. The Court concluded that the delay in this case did not affect the petitioners' interests as they had already sold the land. The learned Single Judge's decision to dismiss the writ petitions was upheld, and the appeals were dismissed.

The Court also addressed the petitioners' contention that possession of the land was not taken and no developmental activity had occurred. The Court found no justification to quash the acquisition proceedings on this basis, given that the petitioners had alienated the property and received consideration.