9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 2150 - HC - Indian LawsValidity 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- -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.
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Sections 28(4) and 28(5) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act). 2. Validity of acquisition notifications issued under Sections 28(1) and 28(4) of the KIAD Act. 3. Applicability of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act, 2013) to the acquisitions under the KIAD Act. 4. Alleged repugnancy between the KIAD Act and Act, 2013. 5. Entitlement to compensation under Act, 2013 for acquisitions under the KIAD Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitutionality of Sections 28(4) and 28(5) of the KIAD Act: The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Sections 28(4) and 28(5) of the KIAD Act, arguing that these provisions allow for taking possession of land before paying compensation, which is contrary to Article 31A of the Constitution. The court held that the KIAD Act, being a self-contained code, provides a complete machinery for acquisition and compensation under Sections 28, 29, and 30. The court found that Section 28(4) and (5) are not in violation of the proviso to Article 31A, as the Act provides for compensation not less than the market value. Therefore, these sections are intra vires the Constitution. 2. Validity of Acquisition Notifications: The petitioners contended that the notifications dated 09.12.2016 and 20.07.2018 issued under Sections 28(1) and 28(4) of the KIAD Act for acquiring land for a Machine Tools Industry Park were illegal. The court upheld the validity of these notifications, stating that the KIAD Act's provisions for land acquisition are in accordance with the law and serve the purpose of industrial development in Karnataka. 3. Applicability of Act, 2013 to KIAD Act Acquisitions: The petitioners argued that after the enactment of Act, 2013, any acquisition for a manufacturing zone should be governed by Act, 2013 and not the KIAD Act. The court referred to Sections 2(1)(b)(iii), 3(za), and 107 of Act, 2013 and concluded that the KIAD Act, being a specific legislation for industrial development, can coexist with Act, 2013. The court found no bar to using the KIAD Act for land acquisition, provided the compensation aligns with Act, 2013. 4. Alleged Repugnancy Between KIAD Act and Act, 2013: The petitioners claimed repugnancy between the KIAD Act and Act, 2013 under Article 254(1) of the Constitution. The court applied the doctrine of pith and substance and determined that the KIAD Act aims at industrial development, while Act, 2013 focuses on land acquisition and compensation. The court held that both acts operate in their respective fields and are not repugnant to each other. Therefore, the ground of repugnancy was dismissed. 5. Entitlement to Compensation Under Act, 2013: The primary grievance of the petitioners was the potential denial of higher compensation under Act, 2013. The court noted that the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) had resolved that compensation for land acquired under the KIAD Act would be in tune with Act, 2013. The court acknowledged this resolution and directed that the petitioners are entitled to compensation as per Act, 2013 if they do not agree to a consent award under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the constitutionality of Sections 28(4) and (5) of the KIAD Act, validating the acquisition notifications, and ensuring that the petitioners receive compensation in accordance with Act, 2013. The court's order emphasized the harmonious coexistence of the KIAD Act and Act, 2013, and addressed the petitioners' concerns regarding fair compensation.
|
