9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 1354 - SC - Indian LawsCompensation for acquisition of land - Whether the allottee Company (M/s. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd.) is either a beneficiary or interested person entitled for hearing before determination of the market value to award just and reasonable compensation in respect of the acquired land of the Appellants either before the Deputy Commissioner or Reference Court? - Whether the Writ Petition filed by the allottee Company before the High Court is maintainable in law? - Whether the order of remand allowing the Writ Petition of the allottee Company to the Reference Court is legal and valid? - HELD THAT - The provisions of the KIAD Act and KIADB Regulations make it abundantly clear that the acquisition of the agricultural land in the notified Industrial Area vide notifications issued Under Section 28(1) and (4) of the KIAD Act empowers the State Government to acquire the land for the purpose of industrial development by the KIADB after the acquired land possession is transferred in its favour by the State Government - Sections 29 and 30 of the KIAD Act read with Sections 11 18 and 30 of the L.A. Act would clearly mandate that both the state government and the KIADB are liable jointly or severally to pay the compensation to the owners or interested persons of the acquired land. The market value of the acquired land is required to be determined by the Reference Court by applying the provisions of Section 18 of the L.A. Act after passing an award as provided Under Section 11 and notifying the same to the landowners or interested persons Under Section 12(2) of the L.A. Act if the owners are not satisfied with either the compensation awarded by the Deputy Commissioner or with regard to the area of acquisition of land. The land acquired shall be disposed off by the KIADB by inviting applications from the eligible applicants notifying the availability of land prescribing the manner of such disposal and fixing the last date for submitting applications and giving such particulars as it may consider absolutely necessary by publishing it in the newspapers having wide circulation in and outside the state of Karnataka - From a careful reading of the clauses of the lease agreement along with the provision Section 32(2) of the KIAD Act and Regulation Nos. 4 7 10(b) (c) and (d) of the KIADB Regulations it is clear that the Company is only the lessee by way of allotment of the land as the same has been allotted by the KIADB in its favour and has executed the lease deed in its favour in respect of the allotted land. Thus it can be safely concluded by us that the acquisition of the land involved in these proceedings is for the purpose of industrial development by the KIADB in the Sedam Taluk. Therefore the beneficiary of the acquired land is only the KIADB but not the Company as claimed by it. A reading of Section 28(5) of the KIAD Act makes it clear that the land which is acquired by the State Government statutorily vests absolutely with it - A careful reading of the provisions of the L.A. Act KIAD Act and the KIADB Regulations would clearly go to show that the Company is neither a beneficiary nor an interested person in the land as on the date of acquisition of the land as the land was acquired by the state government in favour of KIADB who is the beneficiary and it has allotted in favour of the Company after the acquired land was transferred in its favour by the State Government and executed the lease agreement. The acquisition of land under the provisions of the L.A. Act in favour of a Company the mandatory procedure as provided under part VII of the L.A. Act and Rules must be adhered to that is not the case in the acquisition of land involved in these proceedings as the acquisition of land is under the provisions of KIAD Act and therefore the reliance placed upon the provision of Section 3(f)(viii) of the Karnataka L.A. Amended Act of 17/1961 is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand and therefore the said provision cannot be made applicable to the case on hand. Enhancement of Compensation - HELD THAT - The statutory notifications of acquisition of land would clearly go to show that the land of the Appellants was acquired way back in the year 1981 for the purpose of establishment of industries The land of the Appellants has non-agricultural potentiality which fact is proved from the notifications published by the State Government Under Sections 28(1) and (4) of the KIAD Act as the State Government specifically mentioned therein that the acquisition of the land of the Appellants is for the industrial development and establishment of industries which is for non agricultural and commercial purpose - Further the land which has been covered under notification in 1988 is also adjacent to the residential sites which were formed. The land owners in that case produced the sale deeds of the year 1986 and 1988 respectively which was 2 years and 2 months earlier respectively to the notification issued in the year 1988 and some of which were two to three years earlier. Considering the fact that acquisition of the land was made in the year 1981 it would be just and proper to fix the compensation calculated at Rs. 1, 92, 000/- per acre with all statutory benefits such as solatium at 30% as provided Under Section 23(2) and statutorily payable interest Under Sections 23(1-A) and 28 of the L.A. Act from the date of taking possession of the land till the date of payment. The Appellants are also entitled to costs throughout as provided Under Section 27 of the L.A. Act - The Respondents are directed to pay the compensation to the Appellants-landowners as directed above within eight weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this judgment and award after proper computation in the above terms. Appeal disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the allottee Company (M/s. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd.) is either a beneficiary or interested person entitled for hearing before determination of the market value to award just and reasonable compensation in respect of the acquired land of the Appellants either before the Deputy Commissioner or Reference Court? 2. Whether the Writ Petition filed by the allottee Company before the High Court is maintainable in law? 3. Whether the order of remand allowing the Writ Petition of the allottee Company to the Reference Court is legal and valid? 4. Whether the owners of the land are entitled for the enhanced compensation? 5. If so, what award? Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the allottee Company (M/s. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd.) is either a beneficiary or interested person entitled for hearing before determination of the market value to award just and reasonable compensation in respect of the acquired land of the Appellants either before the Deputy Commissioner or Reference Court? The Supreme Court held that the Company is neither a beneficiary nor an interested person in the land acquisition proceedings. The land was acquired by the State Government for the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB) for industrial development, not specifically for the Company. The Company, being a lessee, does not have the right to participate in the compensation determination proceedings. The Court emphasized that the acquisition notifications and the lease agreement clearly indicate that the land was acquired for KIADB, and the Company is only an allottee. 2. Whether the Writ Petition filed by the allottee Company before the High Court is maintainable in law? The Court found that the Writ Petition filed by the Company was not maintainable. The Company, as a lessee, does not have the locus standi to challenge the compensation awarded to the landowners. The right to appeal or challenge the award lies with the landowners or the State Government/KIADB, not with the Company. The High Court erred in allowing the Writ Petition and remanding the case to the Reference Court. 3. Whether the order of remand allowing the Writ Petition of the allottee Company to the Reference Court is legal and valid? The Supreme Court held that the order of remand by the High Court was illegal and invalid. The High Court's decision to remand the case to the Reference Court for reconsideration, allowing the Company to participate, was contrary to the provisions of the KIAD Act, L.A. Act, and the KIADB Regulations. The Court set aside the High Court's order, emphasizing that the Company does not have the right to participate in the compensation determination process. 4. Whether the owners of the land are entitled for the enhanced compensation? The Supreme Court concluded that the landowners are entitled to enhanced compensation. The Reference Court had initially enhanced the compensation from Rs. 1,700/- per acre to Rs. 1,37,000/- per acre, which was upheld by the High Court. However, the Supreme Court found the deductions towards developmental charges, waiting period, and de-escalation charges to be excessive and unjustified. 5. If so, what award? The Supreme Court re-determined the compensation, fixing it at Rs. 1,92,000/- per acre, considering the non-agricultural potentiality of the land and its use for industrial purposes. The Appellants were awarded solatium at 30% under Section 23(2) and statutory interest under Sections 23(1-A) and 28 of the L.A. Act. The Respondents were directed to pay the enhanced compensation within eight weeks from the date of the judgment. Conclusion: The appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 31624-31625 of 2014 were allowed, setting aside the High Court's order of remand. The appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 3482-3484 of 2015 filed by KIADB were dismissed. The appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 19819 of 2013 filed by the landowners for enhancement of compensation was allowed, enhancing the compensation to Rs. 1,92,000/- per acre along with statutory benefits. The impleadment application by Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. was dismissed as not maintainable.
|
