9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Adequate opportunity of hearing before the acquisition decision. 2. Applicability of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act) to the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act). 3. Entitlement to any other relief if Section 11-A of LA Act is not applicable. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Re: Point (i) - Adequate Opportunity of Hearing: The petitioner contended that no hearing was given as required by Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act, thus vitiating the final declaration under Section 28(4). However, the court found that after the preliminary notification dated 7-7-1994, a show-cause notice dated 6-1-1995 was served on the petitioner, fixing the hearing for 23-2-1995. The petitioner filed objections on 21-2-1995. The records showed that the petitioner was absent on 23-2-1995, requested an adjournment, and was subsequently heard on 6-3-1995. The Special Land Acquisition Officer recorded the submissions and the petitioner signed the order sheet. Thus, the court concluded that the petitioner was given adequate opportunity of hearing, rejecting the first contention. Re: Point (ii) - Applicability of Section 11-A of LA Act: The petitioner argued that Section 11-A of the LA Act, which mandates that acquisition proceedings lapse if no award is made within two years from the final declaration, should apply to the KIAD Act. This argument was based on the Supreme Court's decision in Mariyappa's case, which applied Section 11-A to the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for House Sites Act, 1972 (House Sites Act). The court, however, distinguished between the House Sites Act and KIAD Act, noting that the former is in pari materia with the LA Act, whereas the KIAD Act deals with broader subjects beyond land acquisition. The court cited earlier Supreme Court decisions in Satendra Prasad Jain and Pratap's cases, which held that Section 11-A does not apply where the land has already vested in the government. Under Section 28(5) of the KIAD Act, land vests absolutely in the State Government upon publication of the final declaration, similar to Section 52(4) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act considered in Pratap's case. Consequently, the court concluded that Section 11-A of the LA Act does not apply to acquisitions under the KIAD Act. Re: Point (iii) - Entitlement to Other Relief: Despite Section 11-A of the LA Act being inapplicable, the court acknowledged that undue delay in making the award could still warrant relief. Citing Ram Chand's case, the court noted that unexplained delays could lead to quashing of acquisition proceedings or additional compensation. The court directed the fourth respondent to pass the award within three months and awarded the petitioner additional compensation at 6% per annum from 8-8-1998 to the date of the award, due to the delay. Conclusion: The court rejected the petitioner's prayer for declaring the acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 11-A of the LA Act. However, it directed the passing of the award within three months and granted additional compensation for the delay. Each party was ordered to bear their respective costs.
|
