9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 2150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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. - S. Sujatha, J. For the Appellant : Rajeswara P.N., Adv. For the Respondents : Laxminarayan N. Hegde, Adv., B.J. Eshwarappa, AGA and Ashok Haranahally, Senior Adv. for B.B. Patil, Adv. ORDER S. SUJATHA, J. 1. These petitions involving similar and akin issues, have been considered together and are taken up for final disposal at this stage itself, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The petitioners have challenged the provisions of Section 28[4] and [5] of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 ['KIAD Act', for short] inter alia 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 ['Act, 2013' for short] further ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the acquisition of the lands in question is covered by 'public purpose' as defined under Section 2[1][b][iii] of the Act, 2013. Therefore, the acquisition of lands for the purpose of manufacturing zone, ought to be under the Act, 2013 and not under the KIAD Act. The repugnancy under Article 254 [1] of the Constitution of India is pleaded in as much as KIAD Act is repugnant to the Act, 2013 enacted by the Parliament. The distinction made between the acquisition under the Act, 2013 and the acquisition under the KIAD Act, giving the benefit in respect of acquisitions under the former and not giving the benefit to acquisitions under the latter will amount to unfair discrimination and violating the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nagpur Improvement Trust v/s. Vithal Rao 1973 [1] SCC 500. Learned counsel contended that as per Annexure-J, the map showing the land acquired for the project in question indicates that certain pockets of land are left out from acquisition notwithstanding the compactness and contiguity, envisaged in the notifications notified for acquisition. 6. L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te the arguments. 8. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. The notifications impugned are issued by the Government of Karnataka under Sections 28[1] and 28[4] for the purpose of establishing the Machine Tools Industry Park by Indian Machine Tools Manufactures Association-a Manufacturing Zone. 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. To address on this point, it is beneficial to refer to Section 2[1][b][iii], 3[z][a] and Section 107 of the Act, 2013 which reads thus: 2. Application of Act.-[1] The provisions of this Act relating to land acquisition, compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement, shall apply, when the appropriate Government acquires land for its own use, hold and control, including for Public Section Undertakings and for public purpose, and shall include the following purposes, namely, [a] xxxxx [b] for infrastructure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt held that the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act is a valid piece of legislation and observed in paragraph 15 as under: 15. It is in the background of the purposes of the Act and powers and functions of the Corporation that the real and true character of the legislation will be determined. That is the doctrine of finding out the pith and substance of an Act. In deciding the pith and substance of the legislation, the true test is not to find out whether the Act has encroached upon or invaded any forbidden field but what the pith and substance of the Act is. It is true intent of the Act which will determine the validity of the Act. Industries come within Entry 24 of the State List subject to the provision of Entry 7 and Entry 52 of the Union List of the Constitution. Entry 7 of the Union List relates to industries declared by Parliament by law to necessary for the purpose of defence or for the prosecution of war. Entry 52 of the Union List relates to industries, the control of which by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest. The establishment, growth and development of industries in the State of Maharashtra do not fall within Entry 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legislation, the provisions of the LA Act automatically become applicable for the purpose of carrying out the object of the said particular State Act but wherever such power is not given there is no bar for taking recourse to any of the Acts which are available on the subject. There was no bar or prohibition for the authority to take recourse to the provisions of the LA Act which is also a self-contained Code and also could be taken recourse to for the purpose of acquiring land for public purposes like construction of Metro Railways and works connected therewith. In all these cases no other provision except the provisions of the LA Act have been resorted to and, therefore, the appellants cannot have any grievance for taking recourse to the said provision. 23. Besides, the Metro Railways Act gives power to the competent authority to acquire land for the purpose of construction of Metro Railways and works connected therewith and in the said Act it is also provided that the possession can be taken immediately after issuance of the declaration as envisaged under the Act. The mode of compensation is almost identical with that of Section 23 of the LA Act which lays down the manner for d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d has been acquired for the Board, the State Government, after it has taken possession of the land, may transfer the land to the Board for the purpose for which the land has been acquired. 17. Section 29 contemplates for Compensation. The said Section envisages that where any land is acquired by the State Government under the Chapter VII, the Stage Government shall pay for such acquisition compensation in accordance with the provisions of the KIAD Act. In terms of Section 29[2] where the amount of compensation has been determined by agreement between the State Government and the person to be compensated, it shall be paid in accordance with such agreement. Where such agreement can be reached, the State Government shall refer the case to the Deputy Commissioner for determination of the amount of compensation to be paid for such acquisition as also the person or persons to whom such compensation shall be paid, as per Sub-section [3]. In terms of Sub-section [4], on receipt of a reference under sub-section [3], the Deputy Commissioner shall serve notice on the owner or occupier of such land and on all persons known or believed to be interested herein to appear before him and state thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h 67 of the said Judgment is beneficial to be quoted: Sl. No. The Land Acquisition Act The MRTP Act 4. Under normal proceedingsfor acquisition under the Act, the land vests in the Government only afterthe award is made and possession is taken in terms of Section 16 of the Act, of course with the exception stated in Section 17 of the Act. Under this Act, the land required for development vests in the Government at the very threshold. Under Section 129[1] when emergency provisions are invoked, the land shall vest without any further assurance and free from all encumbrances in the State only when notice of 15 days is given by the Collector prior to taking possession. Section 83 shows marked distinction that possession of the land can be taken and it shall vest in the Government/authority where it is necessary to undertake forthwith any work included even in a draft scheme for a public purpose. 22. Considering such points of distinction between the two Acts observed that there are some of the glaring points of distinction between the two Acts. Of course, there may be other distinctions and the ones stated by us are only illustrative, the purpose of referring to the distinction is prima ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esaid, Chapter VII of the KIAD Act deals with the provisions of acquisition and compensation. In view of the discussions made in the preceding paragraphs, even after the Act, 2013 coming into force, the said Chapter subsists and aids to achieve the purpose and object of the Act. It cannot be held to be void at any stretch of imagination. 25. As regards certain pockets of lands left out from the acquisition under the subject notifications, it is not in dispute that a temple and a Government School are located in the respective land utilized in the public interest. Those two pockets of lands cannot be construed to be on parity with the petitioners' lands acquired under the subject notifications. 26. 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. 27. 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 enactm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. In case of the State and the land looser failing to enter into consent agreement, an award under Section 29[3] of the Act shall be passed. The Board in its 343rd meeting dated 24.08.2016 having discussed the said issue in detail, has resolved that the affidavits to the said effect for determination of compensation shall be as per 'Schedule-I' of the LARR Act for the purpose of Section 29[3] of the KIAD Act be filed in the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in cases wherein notifications under Section 3[1] and 28[1] of the KIAD Act have been issued on and after 01.01.2014. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Board placing reliance on this resolution, submitted that the petitioners herein are entitled to compensation in terms of Act 2013 as admitted by the Board in Paragraph 17 of the statement of objections in pursuant to the said resolution of the Board dated 24.08.2016. In view of the primary grievances of the petitioners being redressed by the Board as aforesaid, the grounds urged by the petitioners in as much as discrimination in resorting to the provisions of the KIAD Act, does not survive for consideration. 29. As could be seen, the resultant factors of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
