Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2017 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 1639 - HC - Indian LawsDoctrine of Repugnancy - Acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the KIAD Act - Section 3(1) and Sections 28 to 31 of the KIAD Act are repugnant to the provisions of the 2013 Act or not - applicability of Section 24 of the 2013 Act to an acquisition initiated under the provisions of the KIAD Act - deemed divesting of the acquired land in terms of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act - decision in the case of The Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, Mysore v. Anasuya Bai, [2017 (1) TMI 1828 - SUPREME COURT] would entail dismissal of these petitions? Whether Section 3(1) and Sections 28 to 31 of the KIAD Act are repugnant to the provisions of the 2013 Act - HELD THAT:- The State Government cannot any longer exercise power under Section 3 of the KIAD Act without conforming to the pre-requisites as prescribed under the 2013 Act, nor work the other provisions of the Act without also adhering to other mandatory provisions of the 2013 Act and the Rules thereunder. The Scheme under the KIAD Act as it prevails is inconsistent with the provisions of the 2013 Act in terms of Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India and is hence no longer valid as an independent enactment. Whether Section 24 of the 2013 Act is applicable to an acquisition initiated under the provisions of the KIAD Act? - HELD THAT:- Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is applicable to an acquisition initiated under the provisions of the KIAD Act. Whether there could be a deemed divesting of the acquired land in terms of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, which provides for a lapsing of the acquisition proceedings if the conditions specified therein are satisfied, notwithstanding the deemed vesting of the land in terms of Section 28(5) of the KIAD Act? - HELD THAT:- By virtue of Section 24(2) at whatever point of time the vesting of land may have taken place, there is a divesting, in terms thereof, as it provides for a 'lapsing' of the acquisition proceedings, if the conditions specified therein are satisfied. Whether the decision of the Apex Court in The Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, Mysore v. Anasuya Bai, [2017 (1) TMI 1828 - SUPREME COURT], would entail dismissal of these petitions. (Incidentally, after these petitions were heard and reserved for Orders, the Apex Court having rendered the above decision it is necessary to address this issue)? - HELD THAT:- The recent decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 353/2017, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, Mysore vs. Anasuya Bai did not involve a challenge to the constitutional validity of the provisions of the KIAD Act and hence does not advance the case of the respondents. The petitions to be posted for hearing on facts and the merits of each case for final disposal.
|