9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 1828 - SC - Indian LawsApplicability of provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - land is acquired under the provisions of KIAD Act - HELD THAT - The entire move on the part of the Appellants was bonafide one, though there was an accidental slip on their part that insofar as Respondents are concerned, no consent to the amount of compensation fixed was given by them. It appears that the Appellants-authorities did not proceed further to determine the compensation in respect of Respondents' land as they nurtured a bonafide belief that with the fixation of compensation as per the Minutes dated 9th September, 2005 all the land owners, including the Respondents, had agreed with the same and, therefore, no further exercise was required. Had the Appellants-authorities been more careful, they would have noticed that insofar as Respondents herein are concerned, they are not the consenting parties. In that event, they could have brought them on board with other land owners by taking their specific consent as well or proceeded further Under Section 29(3) of the KIAD Act. Taking these factors into consideration, the learned Single Judge vide his judgment dated 9th November, 2012 permitted the Appellants to proceed on the basis of the Gazette notification dated 15th June, 2005 acquiring the land and determine the compensation by making an award in this behalf. By this process, Appellants were allowed to proceed afresh to determine the compensation Under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act by reaching an agreement with the Respondents, and failing which to refer the case to the Deputy Commissioner Under Section 29(2) for determination of the amount of compensation. The learned Single Judge, by adopting this course of action, specifically rejected the contention of the Respondents herein to quash the proceedings. The Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment, however, has quashed the acquisition proceedings itself holding that they have lapsed. For this purpose, the High Court has taken aid of Section 24 of the New LA Act - This approach of the High Court is found to be totally erroneous. In the first instance, matter is not properly appreciated by ignoring the important aspects mentioned in para 24 above. Secondly, effect of non-applicability of Section 11A of the Old LA Act is not rightly understood. Having regard to the aforesaid raison d'etre for non-application of the Old LA Act, on the parity of reasoning, provision of Section 24(2) of the New LA Act making Section 11A of the Old LA Act would, obviously, be not applicable. The view taken by the learned Single Judge was correct in law which should not have been interfered with by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment. It is significant to state that insofar as direction of the Single Judge is concerned that was accepted by the Appellants herein, as the Appellants did not challenge the same. It is the Respondents which had filed the intra court appeal. Thus, Appellants by their aforesaid conduct, are satisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge in directing them to determine the compensation. The direction passed by the Single Judge with a direction to the Appellants authorities to fix the compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 29 of the KIAD Act, restored - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (New LA Act) to land acquired under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act). 2. Validity of the compensation agreement under the KIAD Act. 3. Lapse of acquisition proceedings due to non-passing of an award within the stipulated time. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of the New LA Act to Land Acquired under the KIAD Act: The primary legal question was whether the provisions of the New LA Act were applicable when land was acquired under the KIAD Act. The Division Bench of the High Court held that the New LA Act would apply, leading to the conclusion that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed due to non-passing of the award within two years. However, the Supreme Court found this approach erroneous. The Court clarified that the KIAD Act is a self-contained code, and the provisions of Section 11A of the Old LA Act (and by extension, Section 24(2) of the New LA Act) do not apply to acquisitions under the KIAD Act. The Court referenced the judgment in M. Nagabhushana's case, which established that Section 11A of the Old LA Act does not apply to the KIAD Act, as the land vests in the State Government upon the final notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act, independent of the award. 2. Validity of the Compensation Agreement under the KIAD Act: The Court examined whether there was a valid consent agreement for compensation at Rs. 6,50,000 per acre. The Respondents contended they did not consent, and the High Court found no evidence of such consent. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting the lack of documentation in Form D as required by Rule 10(b) of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Rules, 1965. The Court emphasized that the absence of the Respondents' consent meant that the compensation could not be deemed to have been agreed upon, necessitating further proceedings under Section 29(3) of the KIAD Act to determine compensation. 3. Lapse of Acquisition Proceedings Due to Non-passing of an Award: The Court addressed whether the acquisition proceedings had lapsed due to the non-passing of an award within the stipulated time. The High Court had quashed the acquisition proceedings, citing the applicability of Section 24(2) of the New LA Act. However, the Supreme Court found that since the KIAD Act is a self-contained code and Section 11A of the Old LA Act does not apply, the acquisition proceedings did not lapse. The Court referenced the principle that when a subsequent Act incorporates provisions of a previous Act, the borrowed provisions become an integral part of the subsequent Act and are unaffected by amendments to the previous Act, unless the Acts are supplemental, in pari materia, or the amendment would render the subsequent Act unworkable. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Division Bench and restoring the direction of the Single Judge. The Appellants were directed to determine the compensation in accordance with Section 29 of the KIAD Act expeditiously. The judgment emphasized that the New LA Act's provisions were not applicable to acquisitions under the KIAD Act, and the acquisition proceedings had not lapsed due to the non-passing of an award. The Court also highlighted the need for proper consent documentation and adherence to the procedural requirements under the KIAD Act.
|
