9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (2) TMI 1167 - SC - Indian LawsAcquisition proceeding - appellant claims to be the owner of the land - appellant alleged that these two plots of land were outside the purview of the Framework Agreement (FWA) and notification issued under Sections 28(1) and 28(4) of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act (KIAD Act) - counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of Court in the case of Mariyappa and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others, contending that Section 11A is applicable to an acquisition under KIAD Act. In Mariyappa (1998 (2) TMI 541 - SUPREME COURT) before coming to hold that provision of Section 11A of the Central Act applies to Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 - Held that - This Court held that the 1972 Act is not a self-contained code. The Court also held that the 1972 Act and the Central Acts are supplemental to each other to the extent that unless the Central Act supplements the Karnataka Act, the latter cannot function. But in the instant case the KIAD Act is a self-contained code and the Central Act is not supplemental to it. Therefore, the ratio in Mariyappa (supra) is not attracted to the facts of the present case, there is no substance in the contention of appellant that acquisition under KIAD Act lapsed for alleged non-compliance with the provisions of Section 11A of the said Act, all the contentions of the appellant, being without any substance, fail and the appeal is dismissed, State Government should complete the project as early as possible and should not do anything, including releasing any land acquired under this project, as that may impede the completion of the project and would not be compatible with the larger public interest which the project is intended to serve, appeal is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Constructive Res Judicata and its applicability to writ petitions. 2. Validity of land acquisition under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act (KIAD Act). 3. Applicability of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act to the KIAD Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Constructive Res Judicata and its Applicability to Writ Petitions: The appellant's attempt to relitigate issues previously decided by the courts was deemed an abuse of process. The principles of Res Judicata, which prevent re-litigation of issues already settled, were emphasized. The court highlighted that this doctrine is based on public policy principles such as "interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium" (it is in the interest of the state that there should be an end to litigation) and "nemo debet bis vexari" (no one ought to be vexed twice for the same cause). The court noted that the appellant had previously raised similar issues regarding the land acquisition, which were rejected up to the Supreme Court. The court reiterated that the principles of Constructive Res Judicata apply to writ petitions, as established in previous judgments and explained by the Constitution Bench in Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Assn. v. State of Maharashtra. 2. Validity of Land Acquisition under the KIAD Act: The appellant contended that the land acquisition was beyond the requirements of the Framework Agreement (FWA) and hence invalid. However, the court noted that this issue had been previously adjudicated and upheld in State of Karnataka v. All India Manufacturers Organisation, where it was determined that the project was an integrated infrastructure development project, and the acquisition of land, even away from the main alignment of the road, was justified for public purpose. The court affirmed that the acquisition proceedings were carried out in consonance with the provisions of the KIAD Act for a public project of significant importance for the development of Karnataka. 3. Applicability of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act to the KIAD Act: The appellant argued that the acquisition notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act was invalid as no award was passed within two years, as required by Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act. The court rejected this contention, clarifying that Sections 28(4) and 28(5) of the KIAD Act operate differently from Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Under the KIAD Act, land vests in the state upon the publication of the notification, independent of the award-making process. The court referred to previous judgments, including Pratap v. State of Rajasthan and Munithimmaiah v. State of Karnataka, which distinguished the purposes and processes of different land acquisition statutes. The court concluded that Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act does not apply to the KIAD Act, as the latter is a self-contained code. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeal, reiterating that the issues raised were barred by principles of Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata. The court emphasized the importance of finality in litigation to prevent abuse of the judicial process. The appellant was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 10 Lacs to the Karnataka High Court Legal Services Authority. The court also directed the State Government to complete the project promptly, ensuring that no actions, including land release, impede its completion.
|
