TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 675X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch of Karnataka High Court by which writ appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed and the judgment and order dated 28.1.2004 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions was affirmed. The subject matter of challenge in the writ petitions were two notifications issued under Section 28(1) and 28(4) of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 3. The impugned notifications were issued for acquisition of land for establishment and development of industries by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board. Before adverting to the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the parties, it will be convenient to reproduce the impugned notifications. The first notification bears No. CI:289:SPQ:2001 and was issued on 10.12.2001, relevant part whereof, is reproduced below: INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE SECRETARIAT NOTIFICATION NO:CI:289:SPQ:2001, Bangalore, Dated 10th Dec 2001 The below mentioned lands specified are required for the State government for establishment and development of industries by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board. With an intention of acquiring the lands notifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ior counsel for the appellants, has challenged the impugned notifications on several grounds and the principal ground is that the land has been acquired in order to benefit a company, namely, Vikas Telecom (P) Ltd. (respondent No. 9) who had submitted a project report for setting up a software technology park which included an I.T. Training Institute/Engineering College, Research and Development center, Educational center, Commercial and Residential Buildings and Service Apartments, Convention center, Hotel, Shopping Mall, etc. In the notification under Section 28(1) of the Act, the purpose of acquisition, namely, the purpose for which the company, Vikas Telecom (P) Ltd. wanted the land, as enumerated above, was not mentioned and, therefore, the appellant landowners were kept in dark and did not get an adequate opportunity to make an effective objection against the proposed acquisition. Learned Counsel has submitted that the notification being absolutely vague and cryptic, it deprived the landowners of a valuable right of making an effective representation and in these circumstances the entire acquisition proceedings are illegal and the impugned notifications are liable to be struc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of water or electricity, street lighting, drainage, sewerage, conservancy, and such other convenience, as the State Government may, by notification specify to be an amenity for the purposes of this Act; (2) Board means the Industrial Areas Development Board established under this Act; (3) ... (4) ... (5) development with its grammatical variations means the carrying out of levelling, digging, building, engineering, quarrying or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in any building or land, and includes re-development; and to develop shall be construed accordingly; (6) industrial area means any area declared to be an industrial area by the State Government by notification which is to be developed and where industries are to be accommodated and industrial infrastructure facilities and amenities are to be provided and includes, an industrial estate; (7) industrial estate means any site selected by the State Government where factories and other buildings are built for use by any industries or class of industries; (7a) industrial infrastructure facilities'' means facilities which contribute to the develo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion, give notice of its intention to acquire such land. (2) On publication of a notification under sub-section (1), the State Government shall serve notice upon the owner or where the owner is not the occupier, on the occupier of the land and on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein to show cause, within thirty days from the date of service of the notice, why the land should not be acquired. (3) After considering the cause, if any, shown by the owner of the land and by any other person interested therein, and after giving such owner and person an opportunity of being heard, the State Government may pass such orders as it deems fit. (4) After orders are passed under Sub-section (3), where the State Government is satisfied that any land should be acquired for the purpose specified in the notification issued under Sub-section (1), a declaration shall, by notification in the official Gazette, be made to that effect. (5) On the publication in the official Gazette of the declaration under Sub-section (4), the land shall vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances. (6) ... (7) ... (8) Where the land has been acquired fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f industries in industrial areas like technology parks, townships for the purpose of establishing trade and tourism centers and any other facility as the State Government may notify, will be an industrial infrastructure facility. It, therefore, shows that the object of the Act is not only to secure establishment of industrial areas and orderly development of industries therein, but also to create facilities which contribute to the development of industries which may include technology parks, townships, trade and tourism centers, etc. 9. The provision for acquisition of land under the Act is contained in Section 28 which is somewhat different from the provisions contained in Sections 4, 5A and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The legislature in its wisdom thought it proper to make a specific provision for acquisition of the land in the Act itself rather than to take recourse to Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. A plain reading of Sub-section (1) of Section 28 would show that land can be acquired for the purpose of (i) development by the Board, or (ii) for any other purpose in furtherance of the objects of the Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 28 is similar to Section 5A o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the land in accordance with the regulations made and directions given by the State Government in this behalf. This stage when the Board gets the authority to deal with the land comes at a later stage which is after the land has been developed by it. An entrepreneur or a company may give a proposal to the State Government for setting up an industry or infrastructure facility and the Government may thereafter acquire the land and give it to the Board. It is also possible that after the land has already been acquired and developed by the Board, it may be allotted to an entrepreneur or a company for setting up an industry or infrastructure facility. Therefore, the scheme of the Act does not show that at the time of acquisition of the land and issuing a preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the Act, the complete details of the nature of the industry or infrastructure facility proposed to be set up should also be mentioned. At that stage what is to be seen is whether the land is acquired for development by the Board or for any other purpose in furtherance of the objects of the Act, as mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the Act. In fact, if the contention raised by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lenged on the ground that the words in the notification, viz. for planned development of the area , gave no indication whatsoever as to the purpose for which the land was acquired and the same was vague. It was held that there was no indication whatsoever in the notification whether the development was to be of residential area and building cities or of commercial and industrial plots nor was it possible for anyone to find out what kind of planned development was under contemplation i.e. whether the land was to be developed by the Government or whether the owners of the properties would be required to develop a particular area in a specified way. It was also held that if the Master Plan which came to be sanctioned on 4.9.1962 had been available for inspection by the persons interested or even if the knowledge of its existence on the part of the appellants had been satisfactorily proved, the position may have been different, as in that situation the landowners could not claim that they were unable to file objections owing to the lack of any indication in the notification under Section 4 of the nature of the development for which the area was being acquired. In our opinion, the auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purpose should find a place in the notification actually issued. The requirements of the law will be satisfied if, in substance, it is found on investigation, and the appropriate Government is satisfied as a result of the investigation that the land was needed for the purpose of a company, which would amount to a public purpose under Part VII. In Union of India v. Jaswant Rai Kochhar [1996]3SCR206 , it was held that when the notification mentioned that the land is sought to be acquired for a housing scheme but actually it is to be used for a district center, the public purpose does not cease to be a public purpose and the notification could not be quashed on the ground that the land is sought to be used for a commercial purpose. This authority has been cited to show that even a change of purpose (from residential to commercial) would not result in invalidating the notification. Strong reliance has also been placed on Pratibha Nema and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors. AIR2003SC3140 , where the notification was challenged on the ground that it was vague and reliance was placed on the decisions rendered in M.P. Housing Board (supra) and Munshi Singh (supra) where it was observed tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffect in the Act, and the time gap being not very long, it is not possible to hold that the notification under Section 28(4) of the Act is invalid. 14. Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the appellants, has also submitted that Vikas Telecom (P) Ltd. (Respondent No. 9) were themselves owners of nearly 90 acres of land as three members of a family who were promoters and directors of the company had purchased agricultural land in the year 1995-96. They being not agriculturists, proceedings under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act were initiated against them, whereunder the land would have been forfeited to the State Government without payment of any compensation. In order to save their land, they manipulated with the Government and got their own land acquired whereunder they would be entitled to compensation. It is thus submitted that the whole proceedings for acquisition of the land whereunder not only the land of promoters and directors of Vikas Telecom (P) Ltd. but also the land of the appellants, who are agriculturists, was acquired is clearly mala fide. This point has been considered in detail by the High Court and has been repelled. Initially, proceedings initiated u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
