Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 2150 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURTValidity of provisions of Section 28[4] and [5] of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 - seeking for a direction, declaring that the provisions contained in Chapter VII of the KIAD Act are void after the enactment of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - assailing the acquisition proceedings under the notification dated 09.12.2016 published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 26.01.2017 issued under Sections 3[1], 1[3] and 28[1] of the KIAD Act, as well as the notification dated 20.07.2018 published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 09.08.2018 issued under Section 28[4] of the KIAD Act. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that subsequent to enactment of Act, 2013, in terms of Section 2[1][b][iii] of the Act 2013, any acquisition if to be made for acquiring the lands for manufacturing zone, the Provisions of Act 2013 would apply and not the KIAD Act. HELD THAT:- The validity of Maharashtra Industrial Development Act came into consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RAMTANU CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [1970 (8) TMI 84 - SUPREME COURT], wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act is a valid piece of legislation and observed The powers and functions of the Corporation show in no uncertain terms that these are all in aid of the principal and predominant purpose of establishment, growth and establishment of, industries. The Corporation is established for that purpose. When the Government is satisfied that the Corporation has substantially achieved the purpose for which the Corporation is established, the Corporation will be dissolved because the raison d'etre is gone. We, therefore, hold that the Act is a valid piece of legislation. It is further held that there is no procedural discrimination between the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act and the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The two Acts are dissimilar in situation and circumstances. The Maharashtra Industrial Development Act is a special one having the specific and special purpose of growth, development and Organisation, of industries in the State of Maharashtra. Applying the doctrine of pith and substance, it is clear that KIAD Act is aimed at planned establishment and development of Industries in suitable Areas in the State unlike that Central Act enacted with the object to acquire land and disburse compensation in accordance with law. The State is competent to enact such a law under Entry 24 of List-II. It is not in dispute that the KIAD Act is a comprehensive law pertaining to establishment of the Industries in the State of Karnataka which is enacted in furtherance of Entry 24 of the State List. The acquisition of the lands under the said enactment is an ancillary issue and the main purpose is of enacting the growth and development of the industries in the State of Karnataka. Entry 24 of List-II i.e., State List deals with "Industries subject to the provisions of Entry 7 and 52 of List-I". The new Act 2013 and KIAD Act can reconcile and co-exist. The Scheme of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which is repealed by Act 2013, was an ex-proprietary legislation to provide for acquisition of lands for public purposes and for companies. There is no bar to the authorities to take recourse to the provisions of the KIADB Act, which is also a self contained code, the acquisition of land under the said Act is justifiable. The petitioners cannot have any grievance for the same. The main ground of attack of the petitioners is that pursuant to the enactment of Act, 2013, no notifications would have been issued for acquisition of the lands of the petitioners in the manufacturing zone resorting to the provisions of the KIAD Act - The genesis of the challenge to the provisions of the KIAD Act vis-à-vis the notifications issued under Section 28[1] and 28[4] of the KIAD Act relates to the visible distinction inasmuch as award of compensation under the two enactments and apprehension of denial of the higher compensation which otherwise the petitioners are legitimately entitled to, under the Act, 2013. This grievance of the petitioners is addressed by the Board wherein, a specific stand has been taken in the Statement of Objections filed by the Board, in paragraph 17, that the Board constituted under the KIAD Act, in its meeting has resolved that the compensation as regards lands acquired under the KIAD Act, shall be in tune with the New Act, 2013. The resultant factors of getting compensation under the Act, 2013 being achieved by the petitioners, in view of the undertaking given by the Board before this Court in terms of the objections filed coupled with the submissions of the learned Senior counsel on instructions, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. Petition dismissed.
|