9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 1639 - HC - Indian LawsDoctrine of Repugnancy - Acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the KIAD Act - Section 3(1) and Sections 28 to 31 of the KIAD Act are repugnant to the provisions of the 2013 Act or not - applicability of Section 24 of the 2013 Act to an acquisition initiated under the provisions of the KIAD Act - deemed divesting of the acquired land in terms of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act - decision in the case of The Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, Mysore v. Anasuya Bai, 2017 (1) TMI 1828 - SUPREME COURT would entail dismissal of these petitions? Whether Section 3(1) and Sections 28 to 31 of the KIAD Act are repugnant to the provisions of the 2013 Act - HELD THAT - The State Government cannot any longer exercise power under Section 3 of the KIAD Act without conforming to the pre-requisites as prescribed under the 2013 Act, nor work the other provisions of the Act without also adhering to other mandatory provisions of the 2013 Act and the Rules thereunder. The Scheme under the KIAD Act as it prevails is inconsistent with the provisions of the 2013 Act in terms of Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India and is hence no longer valid as an independent enactment. Whether Section 24 of the 2013 Act is applicable to an acquisition initiated under the provisions of the KIAD Act? - HELD THAT - Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is applicable to an acquisition initiated under the provisions of the KIAD Act. Whether there could be a deemed divesting of the acquired land in terms of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, which provides for a lapsing of the acquisition proceedings if the conditions specified therein are satisfied, notwithstanding the deemed vesting of the land in terms of Section 28(5) of the KIAD Act? - HELD THAT - By virtue of Section 24(2) at whatever point of time the vesting of land may have taken place, there is a divesting, in terms thereof, as it provides for a 'lapsing' of the acquisition proceedings, if the conditions specified therein are satisfied. Whether the decision of the Apex Court in The Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, Mysore v. Anasuya Bai, 2017 (1) TMI 1828 - SUPREME COURT , would entail dismissal of these petitions. (Incidentally, after these petitions were heard and reserved for Orders, the Apex Court having rendered the above decision it is necessary to address this issue)? - HELD THAT - The recent decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 353/2017, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, Mysore vs. Anasuya Bai did not involve a challenge to the constitutional validity of the provisions of the KIAD Act and hence does not advance the case of the respondents. The petitions to be posted for hearing on facts and the merits of each case for final disposal.
Issues Involved:
1. Repugnancy between the KIAD Act and the 2013 Act. 2. Applicability of Section 24 of the 2013 Act to acquisitions under the KIAD Act. 3. Deemed divesting of acquired land under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. 4. Impact of the Supreme Court decision in Civil Appeal No. 353/2017 on these petitions. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Repugnancy between the KIAD Act and the 2013 Act: The court examined whether Section 3(1) and Sections 28 to 31 of the KIAD Act are repugnant to the 2013 Act. It was noted that the 2013 Act provides a comprehensive framework for land acquisition, emphasizing fair compensation, rehabilitation, and resettlement, which the KIAD Act lacks. The 2013 Act aims to ensure a humane, participative, informed, and transparent process for land acquisition with minimal disturbance to landowners. The court concluded that the KIAD Act, when juxtaposed with the 2013 Act, is inadequate and inconsistent. Therefore, the KIAD Act must conform to the 2013 Act's provisions, making the former redundant unless it adheres to the latter's safeguards. 2. Applicability of Section 24 of the 2013 Act to acquisitions under the KIAD Act: The court held that Section 24 of the 2013 Act, which deals with the lapsing of land acquisition proceedings if certain conditions are met, is applicable to acquisitions under the KIAD Act. This conclusion was based on the interpretation that Section 30 of the KIAD Act, which incorporates provisions of the 1894 Act, should now be read as referring to the 2013 Act. The court emphasized that the construction which harmonizes the statutes within the constitutional mandate should be preferred, ensuring that the benefits of the 2013 Act are extended to landowners affected by acquisitions under the KIAD Act. 3. Deemed divesting of acquired land under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act: The court addressed whether there could be a deemed divesting of acquired land under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, notwithstanding the deemed vesting under Section 28(5) of the KIAD Act. It was held that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, which provides for the lapsing of acquisition proceedings if physical possession has not been taken or compensation has not been paid, applies to acquisitions under the KIAD Act. The court noted that the expression "deemed to have lapsed" in Section 24(2) is significant and creates a legal fiction that must be given effect. 4. Impact of the Supreme Court decision in Civil Appeal No. 353/2017 on these petitions: The court considered the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in Civil Appeal No. 353/2017, where it was held that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act was not applicable to acquisitions under the KIAD Act. However, the court distinguished this case by noting that the validity of the KIAD Act's provisions was not challenged in the Supreme Court case. Therefore, the court concluded that the recent Supreme Court decision does not render the current petitions infructuous. Conclusion: The court concluded that the State Government cannot exercise power under the KIAD Act without conforming to the 2013 Act's prerequisites. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is applicable to acquisitions under the KIAD Act, and there is a deemed divesting of land if the conditions under Section 24(2) are met. The recent Supreme Court decision does not affect the validity of these findings. The petitions were to be posted for a hearing on the facts and merits of each case for final disposal.
|
