- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Anasuya Bai v. State Of Karnataka
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellants, owners of land in Anaganahalli Village, Mandya District, challenged acquisition proceedings initiated by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB) to develop the land as an industrial area. Preliminary notification was published on 15.9.2000 and final declaration on 15.6.2005. The appellants contended that no notice under Section 29(3) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1965, was served and they were not heard before the award was passed. They alleged the Deputy Commissioner fixed compensation unilaterally without their consent and did not determine compensation within the prescribed time under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act (L.A. Act), leading to a claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 11(9) of the L.A. Act. The appellants filed a writ petition to quash the notifications and declare the proceedings lapsed, seeking possession of the land.
The respondents contended the writ petition was not maintainable, asserting that a consent order was passed after hearing the appellants' family members and compensation was determined under Section 30 of the L.A. Act before the Civil Judge. The Single Judge found no consent award was passed due to absence of agreement as required under Section 10B of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Rules, 1965, and no notice was served before passing the award. The Single Judge directed the respondents to pass the award treating the final declaration date as the basis for compensation.
Aggrieved, the appellants filed this writ appeal challenging the Single Judge's direction. The respondents did not challenge the Single Judge's order but have not passed any award to date as directed.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the acquisition proceedings initiated under the KIADB Act lapse due to non-passing of the award within a reasonable time, particularly in light of provisions under the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 (New Act).
- Whether the New Act’s Section 24(2) applies to land acquisition proceedings initiated under the KIADB Act but where awards are passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
- Whether the failure to pass an award within five years from the date of final declaration and non-payment of compensation results in the acquisition proceedings being deemed lapsed.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The Single Judge erred in directing the respondents to pass the award based on the date of final declaration.
- Under the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013, specifically Section 11(A), if the award is not passed within two years from the final declaration, the acquisition proceedings are deemed lapsed.
- The New Act’s provisions apply, and since no award has been passed, the acquisition proceedings must be held as lapsed.
Respondents' Arguments
- The writ petition was not maintainable.
- The Deputy Commissioner passed a consent order after hearing the appellants' family members.
- Compensation was determined under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Civil Judge.
- The New Act does not apply as the acquisition was finalized under the Land Acquisition Act and proceedings were under the KIADB Act, with the award to be passed under Section 11 of the L.A. Act as per Section 30 of the KIADB Act.
- The acquisition cannot be held lapsed merely because the award was not passed within five years or compensation was not tendered/deposited.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| M. Nagabhushana v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 3 SCO 408 | Held that Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, does not apply to land acquired under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act. | The court referred to this precedent to consider applicability of Section 11-A and the New Act to acquisition proceedings under KIADB Act and L.A. Act. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed whether the New Act’s provisions apply to acquisition proceedings initiated under the KIADB Act but requiring award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It noted that although acquisition proceedings including notifications were under the KIADB Act, there is no provision under it to pass an award; the award must be passed under the L.A. Act. The court examined Section 24 of the New Act, which deems acquisition proceedings lapsed if an award under Section 11 of the L.A. Act has not been passed or if compensation has not been paid within five years prior to the New Act’s commencement.
It was noted that the respondents did not dispute the requirement to pass an award under the L.A. Act. The court observed that despite the Single Judge’s direction to pass the award based on the final declaration date (15.6.2005), no award has been passed for over a decade. The respondents also declined an option to pass the award treating the current date as the basis for compensation under the New Act.
Considering these facts, the court concluded that the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed due to non-passing of the award and non-payment of compensation within the prescribed time, applying Section 24(2) of the New Act. The court distinguished the applicability of the New Act provisions despite the acquisition being initiated under the KIADB Act, because the award falls under the L.A. Act.
Holding and Implications
The writ appeal is allowed, and the acquisition proceedings initiated by KIADB for the appellant’s land are deemed to have lapsed.
The direct effect of this decision is that the acquisition proceedings for the land in question are invalidated, and possession is to be restored to the appellants. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. The court did not set any new precedent beyond applying the existing statutory provisions to the facts of this case.
JUDGMENT
The Appellants who were petitioners in W.P No. 11955/2008, being not satisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge by his order dated 9.11.2012, has filed this writ appeal.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The admitted facts in this appeal are as hereunder:-
3. Accordingly to the appellants, they are owners of the land bearing Sy. No. 123/1 measuring 4 acres 9 guntas and land in Sy. No. 123/2 measuring 1 acre of Anaganahalli Village, Eelagola Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District.
4. The first respondent initiated acquisition proceedings to acquire the aforesaid land in order to develop the land as industrial area on behalf of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board. The preliminary notification was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 15.9.2000 and final declaration was published by the authority on 15.6.2005
5. According to the appellant, no notice as required U/s 29(3) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1965 (hereinafter called as the ‘KIAD Act’), was served upon the appellant and they were not heard before passing any award.
6. It is specific case of the Appellant that the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya unilaterally has fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,50,000 per acre as if the same was passed by consent. The appellants were not parties to the award and they were not notified. Contending that the Dy. Commissioner was found to determine the compensation of the acquired land within the time prescribed under Section 11 of the Act and the same is not done. Hence in view of Section 11(9) of the L.A Act, the land acquisition proceedings are required to be considered as lapsed. Therefore, the writ petition came to be filed to quash Annexure A-preliminary notification dated 15.9.2000 and final declaration dated 15 6.2005 ad to declare that the proceedings initiated by respondents 1 and 2 U/s 28(1) of Act has lapsed and sought direction against the respondents to hand over possession to the appellants.
7. The respondents 2 and 3 filed counter before the learned Single Judge. According to them, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was not maintainable. It was contended that the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya has passed consent order after hearing all the farmers and the petitioner children namely Parmesh, Lakshmamma and Sunil. Therefore, the compensation determined has been based U/s 30 of L.A Act before the learned Civil Judge, Srirangapatna and they also contended that the writ petition is not maintainable.
8. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that there is no consent award passed by the Deputy Commissioner in respect of the acquired land of the appellant since there is no agreement as required U/s 10B of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Rules, 1965 in Form No. D. He also came to the conclusion that no notice is served upon the petitioner before passing the award by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya and ultimately, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that since the award has not been passed within reasonable time, the final notification dated 15.6.2005 shall be considered as the basis for determining the compensation and pass award in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition came to be disposed directing the respondents to pass award treating the date of final declaration as the basis for determining the compensation.
9. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge passed this writ appeal is filed. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
10. Sri. G.B Shastry, learned counsel for the appellants submit that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in directing the respondents to reckon the date of final declaration as the basis for determining the compensation. According to him when the award is not passed within the reasonable time in view of the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013, the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have been lapsed. According to him, Section 11(A) of the Land Acquisition Act is squarely applicable to the facts of the case. Therefore, he submits that in view of the New Act, since the respondents has not even passed the award.
11. It is not in dispute that the order of the learned Single Judge has not been questioned by the respondents. In other wards, the respondents are satisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge in directing them to pass the award and treat the date of final declaration as the basis to determine the compensation. But the facts remain till today the respondents have not passed any award as directed by the learned Single Judge. It is the specific case of the KIADB that New Act is not applicable to the case and Section 24(2) of the New Act cannot be made applicable since the land acquisition has been finalized under L.A Act and the proceedings have passed under KIADB act. as per Section 30 of the KIADB Act, the award is passed U/s 11 of the L. A Act. So the provisions of the new act cannot be pressed into service by the respondents. If all acquisition proceedings is initiated under KIADB Act it cannot be held that the acquisition is lapsed even though the award is not within the period of 5 years and even if the compensation is not tendered or deposited.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties what is considered to be by us is that whether after the award U/s 11 of the L.A Act even acquisition proceedings are initiated under KIADB Act in view of Section 24(2) of New Act, the acquisition proceedings would lapse or not. Even we hold that New Act is not applicable and if the award is not within reasonable time from the date of order of the learned Single Judge and final declaration dated 15.6.2005, it is permissible for the KIADB to contend that acquisition is deemed to have been lapsed. In order to appreciate whether the New Act is applicable, the provisions of Section 24 of the New Act is extracted below:-
24. Land Acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings in initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,-
(a) Where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or
(b) where an award under said Section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section(1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award under the said Section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under Section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
13. It is also noted that the acquisition proceedings including preliminary and final declaration have been passed under the provisions of the KIADB Act. But there is no provisions under the KIADB Act to pass an award and award has to be passed only under the provisions of the L.A Act 1894. If the award has to be passed under L.A Act, whether the new act can be pressed into service to hold the acquisition proceedings are lapsed on account of non-passing of award within a period of 5 years U/s 11. If the award is passed under L.A Act, the enquiry has to be conducted by the Deputy Commissioner or Collector before passing the award. Section 11A contemplates if the award is not passed within 2 years from the date of publication of the final declaration, the entire proceedings for acquisition of the land shall automatically stands lapsed. It is no doubt true the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. NAGABHUSHANA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, (2011) 3 SCO 408 has held that Section 11-A of the act is no application in respect of the land acquired under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act. We have to consider in this appeal as to whether Section 24(2) of the New Act is applicable in order to hold that the acquisition proceedings deemed to be lapsed due to non-payment of compensation and non-passing of the award within a period of five years from the date of declaration and with effect from non-payment of compensation to the land owners.
14. The New Act does not say whether the Act is applicable to the land acquired under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Act 1894. What Section 24 says that if the award is not passed U/s 11 of the Act and the compensation is not paid within 5 years or more prior to new act, if the physical possession of the land is taken or not especially the compensation is not paid or deposited in Court such proceedings deem to have been lapsed. In the instant case, it is not case of the respondent that award, is not required to be passed under the provisions of the L.A Act. When the award is required to be passed under L.A Act, the respondents cannot contend that the provisions of New Act cannot be made applicable on account of non payment of compensation within a period of five years.
15. In the instant case, though the preliminary notification was issued on 15.9.2000 and final declaration on 15.6.2005, till today the award has not been passed. Even now the respondents is not ready to pass the award afresh based on the date of final notification. So we are of the view that there is lapse on the part of the respondents in passing the award for more than a decade even after order of the learned Single Judge. So we are of the opinion that the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have been lapsed.
16. After conclusion of the arguments, an option was given to the respondents to pass award treating today's date as the basis of determining the compensation under the provisions of the New Act. The respondents are not willing to make use of the opportunity, and they are not willing to pay compensation to the land owners considering today's date as the basis for determining the compensation.
17. In the circutnstances, we have no option than to allow this writ appeal holding that the proceedings initiated by the KIADB acquiring the land of the appellant vide Annexure A and B are deemed to be lapses. The parties to bear their costs.
Alert