9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 1679 - HC - Indian LawsDrawing the award relating to the properties in question acquired by the KIADB under the provisions of the Karnataka Industries Area Development Act 1966 - absolute owners of the land converted from agricultural to nonagricultural purposes or not - HELD THAT - On perusing the material on record it is ex facie apparent that the Notification dated 20/12/2016 at Annexure-A issued under Section 28(1) of the Act 1966 would make it clear that the compensation shall be determined in terms of the Act 2013. This Court in W.P.No.11209-11212/2019 2019 (4) TMI 2150 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT while considering the resolution of the Board Meeting held on 27/08/2016 observed that the acquisition proceedings being initiated subsequent to the New Act 2013 coming into force the compensation has to be determined in terms of the provisions of the Act 2013. Such statement indeed was made in the statement of objections filed by the KIADB in the said matter. The endorsement dated 03/07/2019 at Annexure-H cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. The respondents shall determine the compensation in terms of the Act 2013 in so far as the petitioners land acquired are concerned for the purpose of development by respondent No.2. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Challenging endorsement for compensation determination under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 instead of Act, 2013 for property acquisition for industrial expansion. Analysis: The petitioners contested an endorsement issued by respondent No.3 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 regarding the compensation determination for their property acquired by Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB) for the 4th Phase expansion of Mangalore Refineries and Petro Chemicals Ltd. The petitioners claimed to be the absolute owners of the land converted for non-agricultural use and argued that compensation should be determined under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency of Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act, 2013). Respondent No.1 had issued a Preliminary Notification under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act, including the petitioners' property for development by KIADB. The petitioners contended that the compensation should be determined as per Act, 2013, but KIADB intended to determine compensation and pass an award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners relied on a previous court decision and a Board resolution to support their claim that compensation should be determined under Act, 2013. Respondent-Board argued that the notification clearly indicated compensation determination under Act, 2013, and challenged the petitioners' apprehension that compensation would be based on the old Act, 1894. Upon considering the arguments and examining the relevant documents, the Court found that the notification issued under Section 28(1) of the Act, 1966 clearly specified compensation determination under Act, 2013. Referring to a previous case and the Board's resolution, the Court emphasized that compensation must be determined as per Act, 2013 for acquisitions initiated after the enactment of the new Act. Consequently, the Court quashed the challenged endorsement and directed the respondents to determine compensation in accordance with Act, 2013 for the petitioners' acquired land intended for development by respondent No.2. As a result, the writ petition was disposed of based on the above findings.
|
