9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 1249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 7-7-1994) under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act giving notice of its intention to acquire such lands, as they were required for the purpose of an industrial establishment by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board ('Board' for short). In pursuance of it, a show-cause notice dated 6-1-1995 was issued to the petitioner under Section 28(2) of the KIAD Act fixing the hearing on 23-2-1995 and calling upon him to show cause why the said lands should not be acquired. The petitioner filed objections dated 21-2-1995. After enquiry and appropriate orders under Section 28(3), a final declaration dated 8-8-1996 (gazetted on 8-8-1996) was made under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act stating that the State Government was satisfied that the lands stated therein should be acquired for the purpose specified in the Notification under Section 28(1). This was followed by a notice dated 28-8-1996 issued under Section 28(6) of the KIAD Act by the 4th respondent calling upon the petitioner to deliver possession of the acquired lands. 3. Petitioner claims that he continues in possession of the acquired lands. Petitioner claims that no award has been made even though nearly four years have el ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AD Act was served on him. The said notice fixed the date of hearing as 23-2-1995 at 11 a.m. and called upon the petitioner to show cause why the lands should not be acquired. In response to the said notice, the petitioner filed his detailed objections on 21-2-1995 itself. The original file relating to the acquisition proceedings made available by the learned Counsel for the Board shows that the case was called before the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 23-2-1995; that, on that date the petitioner was absent and as he had already made a request for time, the matter was adjourned to 17-3-1995; that however, the matter was subsequently advanced to 6-3-1995 at the request of the petitioner; that on 6-3-1995, the petitioner was heard and a brief note of the submissions made by the petitioner was recorded in the order sheet and the petitioner signed the order sheet; and that thereafter, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, as a delegate of the State Government, in exercise of the power under Section 28(3) passed an order that the lands of petitioner be acquired. It is thus seen that there is no substance in the petitioner's contention that he was not heard as required under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of final declaration (even before taking possession) was not considered. While the decision in Mariyappa's case, supra, is a binding law insofar as it lays down that LA Act with subsequent amendments should be read into the provisions of House Sites Act, the further decision that Section 11-A of LA Act should be read into House Sites Act is contrary to earlier decisions of the Supreme Court which hold that Section 11-A will not apply where the land has already vested in the Government. The decision in Mariyappa's case, supra, was rendered by two Judges of the Supreme Court; and it is contrary to two earlier decisions of the Supreme Court rendered by larger Benches in Satendra Prasad Jain and Another v State of Uttar Pradesh and Others and Pratap and Others v State of Rajasthan and Others2. These decisions have held that Section 11-A will have no application where the land vests in the Government absolutely in pursuance of an acquisition, and where there is no provision in the Act for divesting the title which has so vested in the Government. As Section 28(5) of KIAD Act provides for such absolute vesting of title in the Government, on publication of the final declaration u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... than Act corresponds to Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act and Section 52(4), (5) and (6) of the Rajasthan Act corresponds to Section 28(5), (6) and (7) of KIAD Act. What is relevant to note is that Section 52(4) of the Rajasthan Act provided that where a final notice under Section 52(1) is published in the Official Gazette the land shall, on or from the date of publication absolutely vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances and sub-sections (5) and (6) provide for the State Government taking possession subsequent to such vesting. The same is the position under Section 28(5), (6) and (7) of the KIAD Act. Dealing with Section 52(4) of the Rajasthan Act, the Supreme Court held as follows.- "The provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 52 are somewhat similar to Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Just as publication of a notification under Section 52(1) vests the land in the State, free from all encumbrances, as provided by Section 52(4), similarly when possession of land is taken under Section 17(1) the land vests absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. A question arose before this Court that if there is a non-compliance with the provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e possession was taken. Section 28(5) of KIAD Act being similar or identical to Section 52(4) of the Rajasthan Act, it has to be held that insofar as KIAD Act is concerned, the provisions of Section 11-A will be inapplicable, as the land vests in the State Government on publication of Final Declaration under Section 28(4) of the Act. 13. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the decision in Mariyappa's case, supra, being a later decision, it should be followed. It is pointed out that even Section 3(5) of the House Sites Act provided for absolute vesting of the land in the State Government free from encumbrances on publication of the declaration under Section 3(4), even before taking possession and that Section 3(5) was therefore identical to Section 28(5) of the KIAD Act; that as Supreme Court has held in Mariyappa's case, supra, that Section 11-A will be applicable to acquisition to House Sites Act, it follows that Section 11-A is applicable to acquisitions under KIAD Act also, following Mariyappa's case, supra. It was contended that the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court with reference to Section 17 of the LA Act and 52(4) of the Rajasthan Act sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erwise would have fallen under the ambit of LA Act. Consequently, following the principles laid down in State of Madhya Pradesh v M.V. Narasimhan, the Supreme Court held that the provisions of LA Act as amended from time to time (including the 1984 amendment inserting Section 11-A) will have to be read into the House Sites Act. As Section 5 of House Sites Act makes LA Act applicable mutatis mutandis in respect of enquiry and award, reference to Court, appointment and payment in respect of lands acquired it was held that Section 11-A should also be read into the House Sites Act. But Mariyappa's case, supra, did not consider the point that was specifically considered in the earlier decisions (in Satendra Prasad and Pratap), of Larger Benches, that is, effect of provision for vesting on the applicability of Section 11-A. Therefore, having regard to the decisions in Satendra Jain's case, supra and Pratap's case, supra, it has to be held that the provisions of Section 11-A are not applicable to the acquisitions under KIAD Act. The decision in Mariyappa's case, supra, which is contrary to the decisions of earlier larger Benches insofar as applicability of Section 11-A, ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the land-owner), it is necessary to follow the earlier decisions in Satendra Prasad Jain's case, supra and Pratap's case, supra and hold that Section 11-A does not apply. But as for as the acquisition under House Sites Act is concerned, until otherwise held by the Supreme Court or the House Sites Act is modified, it has to be held that Section 11-A is applicable in view of the decision in Mariyappa's case. 17. In view of the above discussion, it is held that Section 11-A of the LA Act does not apply to acquisitions under KIAD Act. Re. Point (iii).- 18. Even if Section 11-A of LA Act is not applicable, it does not follow that the passing of the award can be unduly delayed. In Ram Chand and Others v Union of India and Others , the Supreme Court held that even when Section 11-A is not applicable, if there is inordinate delay in making the award and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the Court may either quash the acquisition proceedings or postpone the relevant date for fixing market value to a suitable later date or award some additional compensation. 19. The learned Counsel for the Board stated that most of the landowners have already entered into agreeme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
