9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1415X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Entry 52 of List I to legislate in respect of that industry, otherwise, industry as a general head of legislation is in exclusive sphere of State Legislative activity pursuant to Entry 24 of List II of Seventh Schedule to Constitution. The legislative power of State under Entry 24 of List II is evaded only to the extent, control is assumed by the Parliament pursuant to a declaration. The true intent of the Act determines the validity of an Act. Real and true character of legislation is found with regard to pith and substance of the Act. The 2013 Act, which is a law relating to acquisition of land and matters incidental thereto i.e., rehabilitation is resettlement and compensation is in pith and substance the law relating to acquisition of land, has been enacted in exercise of powers under Entry 42 of List III. whereas, 1966 Act has been enacted in exercise of powers under Entry 24 of List II. The 1966 Act is an Act, which in pith and substance deals with establishment of Industrial areas in the State of Karnataka and generally to promote establishment and orderly development of industries therein and for matters incidental thereto - Merely because 1966 Act incidentally provides ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the object of establishment of industrial areas, promoting the establishment and orderly development of industries and establishment of industrial areas development board. The 1966 Act incidentally deals with acquisition of land for the purposes of development by the Board. In pith and substance the 1966 Act is the law enacted under Entry 24 of List II of the seventh schedule to the Constitution of India and is a law enacted with sole purpose of development of industrial areas, industrial estates and growth and development of industries within the State. Therefore, 1966 Act is a special law, whereas, 2013 Act, which deals with acquisition of the land is a general law. Thus, the issue is answered. Whether the sanction given by the President on 26.05.1966 to Karnataka Act No.18 of 1966, stood lapsed or come to end on coming into force of the 2013 Act? - HELD THAT:- There is a fundamental distinction between obtaining assent of the President under Article 31A(1) of the Constitution and Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India. The assent of the President under Article 254(2) of the Constitution is required to be taken when there is a repugnancy between the law enacted by the Sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to show as to how the provisions of Amendment Act are either arbitrary, voilative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India or unconstitutional. The provisions of the Amendment Act cannot also be said to be in violation of Section 108 of 2013 Act which provides an option to the affected families to avail better compensation an rehabilitation and resettlement, if state law or policy so provides. Thus, it is held that provisions of 2013 Act have been validly amended by the State legislature - the issue is thus answered. Whether provisions of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act apply to proceeding under 1966 Act? - HELD THAT:- A division bench of this court in ANANTHASWAMY VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. [ 2021 (3) TMI 1448 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] by placing reliance on decision of Supreme Court in ANASUYA BAI supra has also held that Section 24(2) of 2013 Act does not apply to proceeding under Section 1966 Act. Thus, the aforesaid issue is also answered in the negative and it is held that Section 24(2) does not apply to proceeding under 1966 Act. The finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that since, the State Government has adopted the National Manufacturing Policy, and theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; Sri. Muniramaiah; Sri. Bodappa; Sri. Narayanaswamy; The State Of Karnataka; Smt. Nanjamma; Sri. Manjunath N; Smt. Soumya; Sri. Sagun M; Shri. M.R. Ashwathappa; Sri. J. Siddappa; Sri. S. Narayanappa; Sri. Muniyappa; Sri. Ganganna Bhovi; Smt. Kempamma; Sri. Appanna; Sri. K.M. Doddappaiah; Sri. Mallegowda; Smt. M. Jayalakshmi; Smt. M. Padma; Smt. M. Vijayalakshmi; Sri. Muniraju .M; Sri. M. Lakshminarayan; Smt. Narayanamma; Sri. M. Siddappa; Sri. M. Manjunath; Sri. N. Gopalappa; Sri. Chandrachari; Sri. S. Krishna Singh; Shivanna; Chikka Hanumaiah; P.M. Siddappa; P.M. Diwakar Sankol; S. Narayanappa; Smt. Puttalakshmamma; Sri. H. Prabhanna; Sri. Krishnappa; Sri. Seebe Gowda; Sri. Hanumantharaya; Sri. Mahadevaiah; Sri. Gangadharaiah; Sri. Kenchaiah; Smt. Lakshmamma; Sri. G K Lakshmanna; Sri. Gaviyappa; Smt. Lakkamma; Sri. A G Basavarajaiah; Smt. Doddathayamma; Sri. Vasant A. Gowda; Sri. Siddaramaiah; Sri. Thimmaiah; Mr. Ajith Kumar D R; Sri. Chandrappa; Sri. Narayanappa; The Hon ble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe And The Hon ble Mr. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar For the Appellants : Sri. P.N. Rajeswara, Adv. For the Respondents : Sri. Prabhuling K. Navadagi, Ag A/W Sri. B.B. Patil, Adv., For R3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the legal issues involved in this batch of appeals and writ petitions, however, before adverting to same, it is apposite to refer to the factual backdrop, in which the issues arise for our consideration. Facts leading to filing of the appeals and the writ petitions briefly stated are that respondents are the owners of the land situate in Jakkasandra, Achatanhalli, Malur Taluk, District Kolar, Adinarayana Hosahalli, Dodballa Taluk Bangalore Rural District, Madhugiri village, Sira Taluk District Tumkur, Konappana Agrahara Bangalore South Taluk, Archakarahalli, Balveeranna Halli villages, Ramnagara Taluk Bangalore, Madihelli East Bangalore Taluk, Arebinnamangala Bangalore North (Addl.) Taluk. The lands of the respondent are required by the Board for a public purpose and were notified for acquisition under the provisions of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1966 Act') and preliminary notifications under Section 28(1) of the 1966 Act dated 15.04.1997, 06.07.2001, 07.08.2006, 27.02.2007, 13.03.2012, 27.10.2012, 14.06.2013, 07.12.2015, 09.12.2016 were issued. The respondents filed the objections and after consideration of the obj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o pointed out that Entry 24 of List II to the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India deals with industry which is a subject of State list and therefore, the question of Parliament evincing interest in respect of a subject matter of a State List does not arise. It is also pointed out that during pendency of the appeal, the State Government by Amending Act No.16 of 2019 namely Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Resettlement (Karnataka Amendment) Act 2019, has amended the 2013 Act. In support of aforementioned submissions reliance has been placed on decisions of the Supreme Court in 'STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR. V. M.A. TULLOCH', AIR 1964 SC 1284, 'RAMTANU CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND ANR. V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.', (1970) 3 SCC 323, 'M. KARUNANIDHI V. UNION OF INDIA', (1979) 3 SCC 431, 'M/S HOECHST PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. AND OTHERS V. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS', (1983) 4 SCC 45, 'VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS V. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS', (1990) 2 SCC 562. 5. It is also pointed out that subsequent to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, provisions of 1966 Act were amended by Karna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een enacted under Entry 42 of List-III of Seventh Schedule and not under Entry 24 of List-II of Seventh Schedule of Constitution of India. It is also urged that the power to legislate for acquisition of property can be exercised only under Entry 42 of List-III to the Seventh Schedule of Constitution of India. It is also urged that after enactment of 2013 Act, 1966 Act is deemed to have repealed and is repugnant to the provisions of 2013 Act. In this connection, our attention has been invited to the decisions of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of RUSTOM CAVASJEE COOPER VS. UNION OF INDIA , 1970(1) SCC 248 as well as in the case of M. NAGABHUSHANA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA , 2011(3) SCC 408, and it is contended that the 1966 Act is a self contained code and primarily a law regulating acquisition of land for public purpose and for payment of compensation. It is also urged that the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of SHRI RAMTANU CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD is not binding on this Court per incuriam as the aforesaid decision has been rendered in ignorance of the decision rendered by a bench of 11 Judges in RUSTOM CAVASJEE COOPER S case. 8. Learned counsel for the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ticle 300A of the Constitution of India and has been recognized by the Supreme Court as a human right in 'HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. Vs. DARIUS SHAPUR CHENAI' (2005) 7 SCC 627, 'PADMAMMA Vs. RAMKRISHNA REDDY' (2008) 15 SCC 517, 'K.T.PLANTATION PVT. LTD. ANR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA' (2011) 9 SCC 1 AND 'DELHI AIRTECH SERVICES PVT. LTD. ORS. Vs. STATE OF U.P. ORS.' (2011) 9 SCC 354. 10. It is contended that Land Acquisition Act, 1894 occupied the field, on the date of commencement of the Constitution of India and was adopted for acquisition of the land by virtue of Article 372 of the Constitution of India. It is pointed out that Entry 42 of List III of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India deals with power of the State as well as Union Government to legislate on the subject of 'acquisition of land'. It is argued that the State legislature enacted the 1966 Act and sought the assent of President of India and the President gave assent to the same on 14.05.1996, which presupposes that 1966 Act was repugnant to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, otherwise the State Government would not have obtained the assent of the President. It is al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1983) 1 SCC 177, 'RESERVE BANK OF INDIA Vs. PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE' 1987 1 SCC 424, 'THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU ORS. Vs. ANANTHI AMMAL ORS.' 1994 SCC (11) 75, 'PT.RISHIKESH AND ANR. Vs. SMT.SALMA BEGUM' 1995 4 SCC 718, 'VASU DEV SINGH ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA ORS' (2006) 12 SCC 753, 'SHAYARA BANO Vs. UNION OF INDIA ORS.' (2017) 8 SCC 39, 'PRANAV BAJPE Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA' IN W.P.No.27761/2019, 'VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA ORS. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA ORS.' (1990) 2 SCC 562, 'ANITHA KISHORI D'SILVA Vs. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER ORS.' ILR 2015 KAR 3769, 'MESSERS RAYALA CORPORATION (P) LTD. ANR. Vs. DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT, NEW DELHI' (1969) 2 SCC 412, 'KOLHAPUR CANECUGAR WORKS LTD. ANR. Vs. UNION OF INDIA ORS.' (2000) 2 SCC 536, 'GENERAL FINANCE CO. ANR. Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PUNJAB (2002) 7 SCC 1 AND DECISION OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED 03.07.2019 PASSED IN W.P.No.22448/2018 AND OTHER CONNECTED MATTERS. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.55704/2017, 19222/2018 and 12283/2019, while adopting the submissions made by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in W. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es not arise and since, the State Legislature is competent to enact the provisions of the 1966 Act. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'SHRI RAMTANU COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS', (1970) 3 SCC 323, 'GIRNAR TRADERS (3) VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS', (2011) 3 SCC 1, 'SHORT NOTES OF CASES', 1975 (1) KAR L.J. 94, 'OFFSHORE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHOIRTY AND OTHERS', (2011) 3 SCC 139, 'SHORT NOTES ITEM 273', 1974(1) KKAR L.J.112, 'HMT LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS DY.GENERAL MANAGER (HRM) AND ANOTHER VS. MUDAPPA AND OTHERS', (2007) 9 SCC 768, 'S.S.DARSHAN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS', (1996) 7 SCC 302, 'SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER , KIADB, MYSORE AND ANOTHR VS. ANASUYA BAI (DEAD) BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS', (2017) 3 SCC 313, 'STATE OF A.P. AND OTHERS VS. MCDOWELL CO. AND OTHERS', (1996) 3 SCC 709, and 'SECURITY ASSOCIATION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS', (2014) 12 SCC 65. 16. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 7 in W.P.No.55704/2019 has adop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t? (5) What is the effect of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2019 (Act No.16 of 2019) on Right to Fair Compensation and transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013? (6) Whether provisions of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act apply to proceeding under 1966 Act? 18. We now proceed to deal with the issues ad seriatum: ISSUE NO.1. (1) Whether the provisions of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 are repugnant to the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013? At this stage, it is apposite to take note of well settled legal propositions with regard to repugnancy. The Supreme Court in 'DEEP CHAND VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH', AIR 1959 SC 648 laid down following three principles to ascertain the question of repugnancy between two statutes and held as under: (1) Whether there is direct conflict between the two provisions; (2) Whether Parliament intended to lay down an exhaustive code in respect of the subject-matter replacing the Act of the State Legislature and (3) Whether the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stance 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 that 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 be 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 does not fall within Entry 7 and Entry 52 of the Union List. Establishment, growth and development of industries in the state is within the State List of industries. Furthermore, to effectuate the purposes of the development of industries in the State is necessary to make land available. Such land can be made available by acquisition or requisition. 21. The decisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... luding (1) general supersession of the regulations of conduct, and so displacing the State regulations, whatever those may be; (2) the jurisdiction to convict, the State law empowering the Court to convict summarily, the Commonwealth Law making the contravention an indictable offence, and therefore bringing into operation sec. 80 of the Constitution, requiring a jury; (3) the penalty, the State providing a maximum of $ 50 the Commonwealth Act prescribing a maximum of $ 100, or imprisonment, or both; (4) the tribunal itself . Starke, J. observed as follows:- It is not difficult to see that the Federal Code would be 'disturbed or deranged' if the State Code applied a different sanction in respect of the same act. Consequently the State regulations are, in my opinion, inconsistent with the law of the Commonwealth and rendered invalid by force of sec. 109 of the Constitution . 27. In a later case of the Australian High Court in Ex. Parte Mclean(3) Issacs and Starke, JJ. while dwelling on the question of repugnancy made the following observation:- In Cowburn's case (supra) is stated the reasoning for that conclusion and we will now refer to those statements without repeating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ations of Nicholas in his Australian Constitution, 2nd Ed. p.303, where three tests of inconsistency or repugnancy have been laid down and which are as follows:- (1) There may be inconsistency in the actual terms of the competing statutes R. Brisbane Licensing Court(1). (2) Though there may be no direct conflict, a State law may be inoperative because the Commonwealth law, or the award of the Commonwealth Court, is intended to be a complete exhaustive code Clyde Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Cowburn (supra). (3) Even in the absence of intention, a conflict may arise when both State and Commonwealth seek to exercise their powers over the same subject matter Victoria v. Commonwealth(2) Wenn v. Attorney General(3) This Court also relied on the decisions in the case of Hume v. Palmer as also the case of Ex Parte Mclean (supra) referred to above. This Court also endorsed the observations of Sulaiman, J. in the case of Shyamakant Lal v. Rambhajan Singh (4) where Sulaiman, J. observed as follows: When the question is whether a Provincial legislation is repugnant to an existing Indian law, the onus of showing its repugnancy and the extent to which it is repugnant should be on the party attacking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the question of repugnancy it must be shown that the two enactments contain inconsistent and irreconcilable provisions so that they cannot stand together or operate in the same field. 2. That there can be no repeal by implication unless the inconsistency appears on the face of the two statutes. 3. That where the two statues occupy a particular field, but there is room or possibility of both the statutes operating the same field without coming into collision with each other, no repugnancy results. 4. That where there is no inconsistency but a statute occupying the same field seeks to create distinct and separate offences, no question of repugnancy arises and both the statutes continue to operate in the same field. 22. In 'HOECHST PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VS. STATE OF BIHAR', (1983) 4 SCC 45 it was held as under: 57. It is well settled that the validity of an Act is not affected if it incidentally trenches upon matters outside the authorized field and therefore it is necessary to inquire in each case what is the pith and substance of the Act impugned. If the Act, when so viewed, substantially falls within the powers expressly conferred upon the legislature which enacted it, then ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bring about the repugnancy which is intended to be covered by Article 254(2). Both the legislations must be substantially on the same subject to attract the Article. 24. In 'STATE OF A.P. VS. MC DOWELL CO. OTHERS', (1996) 3 SCC 709, the Supreme Court held that whenever a piece of legislation is said to be beyond legislative competence of a State Legislature, what one must do is to find out by applying the rule of pith and substance as to whether the legislation falls within any Entries in List II and if it does not, further question arises and attack on the ground of legislative competence must fail. In 'OFFSHORE HOLDINGS (P.) LTD. VS. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHOIRTIY', (2011) 3 SCC 139, the constitution bench of the Supreme Court, held tat one of the settled principles to examine the repugnancy or conflict between provisions of law enacted by two legislatures is to apply doctrine of pith and substance. It was further held that entries in legislative fields are not powers of legislation but fields of legislation and have to be construed liberally. It was also held that developmental of land does not find place in concurrent list or List I and Bangalore Development ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being repugnant to each other. (vii) Validity of an Act is not affected if it incidentally trenches on matters outside the authorized field and therefore, it is necessary to determine the pith and substance of every enactment and to find out whether Act substantially falls within powers expressly conferred by the legislature. (viii) An enactment cannot be said to be invalid merely because it incidentally encroaches on the matters which have been assigned to another legislation. 27. Entry 24 of List II, Entry 7 52 of List I and Entry 42 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, read as under: List I : 7. Industries declared by Parliament by law to be necessary for the purpose of defence or for the prosecution of war. 52. Industries, the control of which by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest. List II : 24. Industries subject to the provisions of Entries and 52 of List I. List III: 42. Acquisition and requisitioning of property. 28. It is well settled in law that declaration by Parliament by law to assume control over any particular industry in public interest is a sine-qua-non to clothe the Parliament with power u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 apply to premises of the Board, whereas, the provisions of Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 do not apply to the premises of the Board. Chapter VII deals with acquisition and disposal of land. Chapter VII contains Section 27 to 31 of the 1966 Act, which are extracted below for the facility of reference: Section 27. Application - The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to such areas from such dates as have been notified by the State Government under sub-Section (3) of Section 1. Section 28. Acquisition of land - (1) If at any time, in the opinion of the State Government, any land is required for the purpose of development by the Board, or for any other purpose in furtherance of the objects of this Act, the State Government by Notification, give notice of its intention to acquire such land. (2) On a publication of a Notification under sub-Section (1), the State Government shall serve notice upon the owner is not the occupier, on the occupier of the land and on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein to show cause, within thirty days from the date of service of the notice, why the land should n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore him and state their respective interests in the said land. 30. Application of Central Act 1 of 1894. The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894) shall mutatis mutandis apply in respect of the enquiry and award by the Deputy Commissioner, the reference to Court, the apportionment of compensation and the payment of compensation, in respect of lands acquired under this Chapter. 31. Delegation of powers by the State Government. The State Government may if it thinks fit delegate any of its powers under this Chapter to any of its officers, by rules made in this behalf. 31. The 2013 Act is a law relating to acquisition of land. The relevant extract of statement of objects and reasons of 2013 Act, read as under: Act. No.30 of 2013 - 1. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is the general law relating to acquisition of land for public purposes and also for companies and for determining the amount of compensation to be made on account of such acquisition. The provisions of the said Act have been found to be inadequate in addressing certain issues related to the exercise of the statutory powers of the State for involuntary acquisition of private land and property. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esettlement mechanism for the project affected persons and their families. 11. Public purpose has been comprehensively defined, so that Government intervention in acquisition is limited to defence, certain development projects only. It has also been ensured that consent of at least 80 per cent of the project affected families is to be obtained through a prior informed process. Acquisition under urgency clause has also been limited for the purposes of national defence, security purposes and Rehabilitation and Resettlement needs in the event of emergencies or natural calamities only. 12. To ensure food security, multi-crop irrigated land shall be acquired only as a last resort measure. An equivalent area of culturable wasteland shall be developed, if multi-crop land is acquired. In districts where net sown area is less than 50 percent of total geographical area, no more than 10 per cent of the net sown area of the district will be acquired. 18. The benefits under the new law would be available in all the cases of land acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 where award has not been made or possession of land has not been taken. 22. Certain Central Acts dealing with the land ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e State Government may by Notification, give notice of its intention to acquire such land. 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 Sector Undertakings and for public purpose, and shall include the following purposes, namely: (a) For strategic purposes relating to naval, military, air force, and armed forces of the Union, including central paramilitary forces or any work vital to national security or defence of India or State police, safety of the people; or (b) For infrastructure projects, which includes the following, namely: (i) All activities or items listed in the notification of the Government of India in the Department of Economic Affairs (Infrastructure Section) number 13/6/2009-INF, dated the 27th March, 2012, excluding private hospitals, private educational institutions and private hotels; (ii) Projects involving agro-processing, supply of inputs to agriculture, warehousing, cold storage facilities, marketing infrastructure for agriculture and allied activities such as d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereas, the provisions of 1966 Act apply to an industrial area which may be declared to be so by a Notification by a State Government under the 1966 Act. Thus, both the Act operate in different fields. 35. Even for the sake of argument, if it is accepted that both the statutes have been enacted under the same Entries, yet in order to attract the principle of repeal, it is required to be shown that there is irreconcilable conflict between the provisions of the Act. It is apposite to take note of Section 28 to 30 of 1966 Act and Section 11 to 19, 26 and 28 of the 2013 Act. Section 28 to 30 of 1966 Act Section 11 to 19, 26 28 of 2013 Act 28. Acquisition of land. (1) If at any time, in the opinion of the State Government, any land is required for the purpose of development by the Board, or for any other purpose in furtherance of the objects of this Act, the State Government may by notification, give notice of its intention to acquire such land. (2) On publication of a notification under sub-Section (1), the State Government shall serve notice upon the owner or where the owner is not the occupier, on the occupier of the land and on all such persons known or believed to be interested the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) uploaded on the website of the appropriate Government; (e) in the affected areas, in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) Immediately after issuance of the notification under sub-Section (1), the concerned Gram Sabha or Sabhas at the village level, municipalities in case of municipal areas and the Autonomous Councils in case of the areas referred to in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, shall be informed of the contents of the notification issued under the said sub-Section in all cases of land acquisition at a meeting called especially for this purpose. (3) The notification issued under sub-Section (1) shall also contain a statement on the nature of the public purpose involved, reasons necessitating the displacement of affected persons, summary of the Social Impact Assessment Report and particulars of the Administrator appointed for the purposes of rehabilitation and resettlement under Section 43. (4) No person shall make any transaction or cause any transaction of land specified in the preliminary notification or create any encumbrances on such land from the date of publication of such notification till such time as the proceedings under this Chapter are completed: Provide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of any standing crop, fence or jungle: Provided that no act under clauses (a) to (e) in respect of land shall be conducted in the absence of the owner of the land or in the absence of any person authorised in writing by the owner: Provided further that the acts specified under the first proviso may be undertaken in the absence of the owner, if the owner has been afforded a reasonable opportunity to be present during the survey, by giving a notice of at least sixty days prior to such survey: Provided also that no person shall enter into any building or upon any enclosed court or garden attached to a dwellinghouse (unless with the consent of the occupier thereof) without previously giving such occupier at least seven days' notice in writing of his intention to do so. 30. Application of Central Act 1 of 1894. The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894) shall mutatis mutandis apply in respect of the enquiry and award by the Deputy Commissioner, the reference to Court, the apportionment of compensation and the payment of compensation, in respect of lands acquired under this Chapter. 13. Payment for damage. The officer so authorised under Section 12 sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eparate report giving therein the approximate cost of land acquisition, particulars as to the number of affected families likely to be resettled, for the decision of that Government. (3) The decision of the appropriate Government on the objections made under sub- Section (2) shall be final. 16. Preparation of Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme by the Administrator. (1) Upon the publication of the preliminary notification under sub-Section (1) of Section 11 by the Collector, the Administrator for Rehabilitation and Resettlement shall conduct a survey and undertake a census of the affected families, in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed, which shall include (a) particulars of lands and immovable properties being acquired of each affected family; (b) livelihoods lost in respect of land losers and landless whose livelihoods are primarily dependent on the lands being acquired; (c) a list of public utilities and Government buildings which are affected or likely to be affected, where resettlement of affected families is involved; (d) details of the amenities and infrastructural facilities which are affected or likely to be affected, where resettlement of affected fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18. Approved Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme to be made public. The Commissioner shall cause the approved Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme to be made available in the local language to the Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal Corporation, as the case may be, and the offices of the District Collector, the Sub- Divisional Magistrate and the Tehsil, and shall be published in the affected areas, in such manner as may be prescribed, and uploaded on the website of the appropriate Government. 19. Publication of declaration and summary of Rehabilitation and Resettlement. (1) When the appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under sub- Section (2) of Section 15, that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, a declaration shall be made to that effect, along with a declaration of an area identified as the resettlement area for the purposes of rehabilitation and resettlement of the affected families, under the hand and seal of a Secretary to such Government or of any other officer duly authorised to certify its orders and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... months from the date of preliminary notification, then such notification shall be deemed to have been rescinded: Provided that in computing the period referred to in this sub-Section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any court shall be excluded: Provided further that the appropriate Government shall have the power to extend the period of twelve months, if in its opinion circumstances exist justifying the same: Provided also that any such decision to extend the period shall be recorded in writing and the same shall be notified and be uploaded on the website of the authority concerned. 26. Determination of market value of land by Collector. (1) The Collector shall adopt the following criteria in assessing and determining the market value of the land, namely: (a) the market value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) for the registration of sale deeds or agreements to sell, as the case may be, in the area, where the land is situated; or (b) the average sale price for similar type of land situated in the nearest village or nearest vicinity area; or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espect of similar types of land situated in the immediate adjoining areas: Provided that in a case where the Requiring Body offers its shares to the owners of the lands (whose lands have been acquired) as a part compensation, for acquisition of land, such shares in no case shall exceed twenty-five per cent of the value so calculated under sub-Section (1) or sub- Section (2) or sub-Section (3) as the case may be: Provided further that the Requiring Body shall in no case compel any owner of the land (whose land has been acquired) to take its shares, the value of which is deductible in the value of the land calculated under sub-Section (1): Provided also that the Collector shall, before initiation of any land acquisition proceedings in any area, take all necessary steps to revise and update the market value of the land on the basis of the prevalent market rate in that area: Provided also that the appropriate Government shall ensure that the market value determined for acquisition of any land or property of an educational institution established and administered by a religious or linguistic minority shall be such as would not restrict or abrogate the right to establish and administer e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xisting law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State. 38. Thus, in exercise of powers under Proviso to Article 254(2), the Parliament can enact an subsequent law in respect of same matter, in respect of which State legislature has enacted a law under Article 254 (2). The 1966 Act and 2013 Act have been enacted in respect of different subject matters as stated hereinabove. Therefore, Article 254(2) does not apply to the fact situation of these cases. For the aforementioned reasons, we answer issue No.1 in the negative and hold that provisions of 1966 Act are not repugnant to 2013 Act. ISSUE NO.2 (2) Whether the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 is impliedly repealed on coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation ad Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esaid principles were reiterated in 'K.T.PLANTATION (P.) LTD. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA', (2011) 9 SCC 1 and 'LALSHAH BABA DARGAH TRUST VS. MAGNUM DEVELOPERS', (2015) 17 SCC 65 and 'UNION OF INDIA VS. RANJEET KUMAR SAHA', (2019) 7 SCC 505. 41. Section 103 of 2013 Act reads as under: 103. Provisions to be in addition to existing laws. The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being in force. 42. Thus, it is evident that the provisions of 2013 Act are in addition to any other law for the time being in force. In other words, from Section 103 of 2013 Act, it can safely be inferred that parliament while enacting 2013 Act had the knowledge of existing laws and did not provide for a provision for repealing the same. Therefore, the Doctrine of implied repeal cannot be invoked in the fact situation of the case. As already noticed, 2013 Act is a law relating to acquisition under Entry 42 of List III and 1966 Act is a law relating to industries under Entry 24 of List II of the seventh schedule to the Constitution of India. Thus, 2013 Act does not deal with the prohibited field viz., industries and therefore, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered. ISSUE NO.4 (4) Whether the sanction given by the President on 26.05.1966 to Karnataka Act No.18 of 1966, stood lapsed or come to end on coming into force of the 2013 Act? 45. The relevant extract of Article 31 of the Constitution of India prior to its repeal by Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 read as under: 31. Compulsory acquisition of property (1) No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. (2) No property shall be compulsorily acquired or requisitioned save for a public purpose and save by authority of a law which provides for acquisition or requisitioning of the property for an amount which may be fixed by such law or which may be determined in accordance with such principles and given in such manner as may be specified in such law; and no such law shall be called in question in any Court on the ground that the amount so fixed or determined is not adequate or that the whole or any part of such amount is to be given otherwise than in cash: Provided that in making any law providing for the compulsory acquisition of any property of an educational institution established and administered by a minority, referred to in clause (1) of art ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r licence, shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by Article 14 or Article 19: Provided that where such law is a law made by the Legislature of a State, the provisions of this article shall not apply thereto unless such law, having been reserved for the consideration of the President, has received his assent: Provided further that where any law makes any provision for the acquisition by the State of any estate and where any land comprised therein is held by a person under his personal cultivation, it shall not be lawful for the State to acquire any portion of such land as is within the ceiling limit applicable to him under any law for the time being in force or any building or structure standing thereon or appurtenant thereto, unless the law relating to the acquisition of such land, building or structure, provides for payment of compensation at a rate which shall not be less than the market value thereof 47. Thus, regarding the law framed by state legislature in respect of subject matter provided in clauses (a) to (e) of Article 31A(1), which includes the law providing for acquisition of estates, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d under Entry 24 of List II and Entry 42 of List III of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. A part of the state legislation affects property rights, therefore the assent of President of India is taken under Article 31A(1) of the Constitution of India and no assent was required to be taken under Article 254(2) of the Constitution as there is no repugnancy between the 1966 Act and 2013 Act. Even otherwise merely because assent of the President has been taken, the presumption with regard to repugnancy does not arise as the burden to prove that there has been repeal by implication lies on the party asserting the same which has not been discharged in this case. For the aforementioned reasons, the fourth issue is also answered in the negative and it is held that assent granted by the President on 26.05.1996 to 1966 Act did not lapse on coming into force of 2013 Act. ISSUE NO.5. (5) What is the effect of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2019 (Act No.16 of 2019) on Right to Fair Compensation and transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013? 50. The provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hout making further enquiry, make an award according to the terms of such agreement . (2) The determination of compensation for any land under sub-Section (1) shall not in any way affect the determination of compensation in respect of other land in the same locality or elsewhere in accordance with the other provisions of this Act. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act, 1908(Central Act 16 of 1908), no agreement made under sub-Section (1) shall be liable to registration under that Act. 30-A. Acquisition of land by the State Government by entering into agreement voluntary Acquisition of Land.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, or any other law, whenever it appears to the State Government that the land is needed in any area for any public purpose, the State Government or its Authorised Officer may enter into an agreement with the willing land owner to sell the land in favour of the State Government for the matters specified therein in a prescribed form. (2) The State Government or its authorized officer shall pass an order in terms of agreement under sub-Section (1) for acquisition, and the substance of the order shall be notified in the offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of Section 108 of 2013 Act which provides an option to the affected families to avail better compensation an rehabilitation and resettlement, if state law or policy so provides. Thus, it is held that provisions of 2013 Act have been validly amended by the State legislature. Accordingly the issue No.5 is answered. ISSUE NO.6 (6) Whether provisions of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act apply to proceeding under 1966 Act? 52. The aforesaid issue is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court in 'SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER VS. ANUSUYA BAI', (2017) 3 SCC 313 while dealing with the issue regarding applicability of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act to proceeding under 1966 Act has held as under: 28. The Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment [Anasuya Bai v. State of Karnataka, 2015 SCC OnLine Kar 2220] , 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 in the following manner: (Anasuya Bai case [Anasuya Bai v. State of Karnataka, 2015 SCC OnLine Kar 2220] , SCC OnLine Kar paras 13-14) 13. It is also noted that the acquisition proceedings including preliminar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atter is not properly appreciated by ignoring the important aspects mentioned in para 28 above. Secondly, effect of non-applicability of Section 11-A of the old LA Act is not rightly understood. The High Court was not oblivious of the judgment of this Court in M. Nagabhushana case [M. Nagabhushana v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 3 SCC 408 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 733] which is referred by it in the aforesaid discussion itself. This judgment categorically holds that once the proceedings are initiated under the KIAD Act, Section 11-A of the old LA Act would not be applicable. Such an opinion of the Court is based on the following rationale: (M. Nagabhushana case [M. Nagabhushana v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 3 SCC 408 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 733] , SCC pp. 420-22, paras 29-36) 29. The appellant has not challenged the validity of the aforesaid provisions. Therefore, on a combined reading of the provisions of Sections 28(4) and 28(5) of the KIAD Act, it is clear that on the publication of the Notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act i.e. from 30-3-2004, the land in question vested in the State free from all encumbrances by operation of Section 28(5) of the KIAD Act, whereas the land acq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quisition under the BDA Act. 33. The same principle is attracted to the present case also. Here also on a comparison between the provisions of the said Act and the KIAD Act, we find that those two Acts were enacted to achieve substantially different purposes. Insofar as the KIADB Act is concerned, from its Statement of Objects and Reasons, it is clear that the same was enacted to achieve the following purposes: It is considered necessary to make provision for the orderly establishment and development of industries in suitable areas in the State. To achieve this object, it is proposed to specify suitable areas for industrial development and establish a Board to develop such areas and make available lands therein for establishment of industries. 34. The KIAD Act is of course a selfcontained code. The said Act is primarily a law regulating acquisition of land for public purpose and for payment of compensation. Acquisition of land under the said Act is not concerned solely with the purpose of planned development of any city. It has to cater to different situations which come within the expanded horizon of public purpose. Recently, the Constitution Bench of this Court in Girnar Traders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and independent part of the subsequent Act and are totally unaffected by any repeal or amendment in the previous Act. This principle, however, will not apply in the following cases: (a) where the subsequent Act and the previous Act are supplemental to each other; (b) where the two Acts are in pari materia; (c) where the amendment in the previous Act, if not imported into the subsequent Act also, would render the subsequent Act wholly unworkable and ineffectual; and (d) where the amendment of the previous Act, either expressly or by necessary intendment, applies the said provisions to the subsequent Act. 53. A division bench of this court in SRI ANANTHA SWAMY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS vide judgment dated 02.03.2021 in W.A.No.1451/2018 by placing reliance on decision of Supreme Court in ANASUYA BAI supra has also held that Section 24(2) of 2013 Act does not apply to proceeding under Section 1966 Act. Thus, the aforesaid issue is also answered in the negative and it is held that Section 24(2) does not apply to proceeding under 1966 Act. 54. The Supreme Court in ISHWARI KHAITAN SUGAR MILLS (P) LTD. AND OTHERS V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS, (1980) 4 SCC 136, has explained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sition) Act, 1949, on the ground that the Madras Legislature was not competent to enact the legislation because at the relevant time there was no entry in the Government of India Act, 1935, relating to compulsory acquisition of anycommercial or industrial undertaking. This challenge failed in the High Court but on appeal the challenge was accepted by a Constitution Bench of this Court. Now, it must be remembered that the impugned legislation in that case was a pre- Constitution legislation then governed by the Government of India Act, 1935. The challenge was that the State Legislature had no power to enact a legislation for acquisition of an electrical undertaking. On behalf of the State the Act was sought to be sustained on the ground that the Act was in pith and substance a law with respect to electricity under Entry 31 of the Concurrent List and, therefore, the State Legislature was competent to enact the same. After scrutinising the Act this Court came to the conclusion that in pith and substance the Act was one to provide for acquisition of electrical undertaking and, therefore, the State Legislature lacked competence to enact the same. Now, in that case the Advocate General o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legislation in any of the three lists, is borne out from Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corporation case [AIR 1954 SC 251 : 1954 SCR 779 : 1954 SCJ 310] and Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh case [AIR 1952 SC 252 : 1952 SCR 889 : 1952 SCJ 354] . The aforesaid interpretation by the Supreme Court binds this court, therefore, it cannot be held that decision of Supreme Court in SHRI RAMTANU COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD does not bind this court. 55. The finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that since, the State Government has adopted the National Manufacturing Policy, and therefore, the provisions of 1966 Act would be redundant unless al the provisions of 2013 Act are introduced to safeguard the interest of the land owners cannot be sustained. Similarly, the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that since, acquisition of land for industrial and manufacturing purposes is now declared a primary public purpose under 2013 Act, the 1966 Act which is silent with regard to feasibility of acquisition of particular land for industrial purposes should conform to provisions of 2013 Act, otherwise must perish is sans substance. Similarly, the finding that State Government cannot be permi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
