Allowed

Smt. S. Jalaja v. Union of India

Karnataka HC24 Aug 2021WA/1105/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In appeals and writ petitions challenging an interim order, this Bench held that the 1966 Act is a special law on industrial development while the 2013 Act is a general law on land acquisition. Consequently, no repugnancy exists, the 1966 Act was not repealed, and Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not apply to 1966 proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Impugned interim order dated 19.04.2017 passed by the Single Judge is quashed; writ appeals allowed.

Smt. S. Jalaja Vs Union of India — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶9

W.A.No.1105 OF 2019 (LA-KIADB) IN

¶10

W.P.Nos.11209-212 of 2019 (LA-KIADB) C/W

¶11

W.A.No.2392 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB)

¶12

¶13

W.P.Nos.41641-642 OF 2015 (LA-KIADB),

¶14

W.A.No.4053 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN

¶15

W.P.Nos.2907/2015 & 46915/2016 (LA-KIADB),

¶16

W.A.No.4054 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN

¶17

W.P.Nos.59461-462 OF 2014 (LA-KIADB),

¶18

W.A.No.4055 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB)

¶19

¶20

W.P.No.35461 OF 2014 (LA-KIADB),

¶21

W.A.No.4056 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB)

¶22

¶23

W.P.Nos.58807-809 OF 2015 (LA-KIADB),

¶24

W.A.No.4057 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN W.P.No.32416 OF 2015 (LA-KIADB),

¶25

¶26

W.A.No.4058 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN

¶27

W.P.Nos.49228 & 50925-936 OF 2013 (LA-KIADB),

¶28

W.A.No.4059 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN

¶29

W.P.No.30920 OF 2013 (LA-KIADB),

¶30

W.A.No.4060 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN

¶31

W.P.No.18861 OF 2013 (LA-KIADB),

¶32

W.A.No.4061 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN

¶33

W.P.Nos.20367-373/2013 & W.P.Nos.20375-380 & 20382/2013 & W.P.Nos.20384-388/2013 (LA-KIADB),

¶34

W.A.No.4062 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN

¶35

W.P.Nos.40473-474 OF 2015 (LA-KIADB),

¶36

W.A.No.4063 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB)

¶37

¶38

W.P.Nos.51805-807 OF 2015 (LA-KIADB),

¶39

W.A.No.4064 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN

¶40

W.P.No.859 OF 2016 (LA-KIADB),

¶41

W.A.No.4065 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB)

¶42

¶43

W.P.Nos.48824-840/2015 & 7094-7109/2017 (LA-KIADB),

¶44

W.A.No.4066 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN

¶45

W.P.Nos.44987-988 OF 2015 (LA-KIADB),

¶46

W.A.No.4067 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN W.P.No.17272 OF 2014 (LA-KIADB),

¶47

¶48

W.A.No.4068 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN

¶49

W.P.Nos.18890 & 23750-752 OF 2013 (LA-KIADB),

¶50

W.P.No.55704 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB),

¶51

W.P.No.19222 OF 2018 (LA-KIADB),

¶52

W.P.No.22707 OF 2018 (LA-KIADB),

¶53

W.P.No.30905 OF 2018 (LA-KIADB),

¶54

W.P.No.12283 OF 2019 (LA-KIADB),

¶55

W.P.No.27081 OF 2019 (LA-KIADB),

¶56

W.P.No.49536 OF 2019 (LA-KIADB),

¶57

W.P.No.52298 OF 2019 (LA-KIADB)

¶58

IN W.A. No.1105 OF 2019 IN W.P.Nos.11209-212 of 2019

¶59

BETWEEN:

¶60

SMT. S. JALAJA W/O N. MALLIKARJUNAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT KUVEMPU NAGARA "SUKADA NILAYA" TUMAKOORU-572102.

¶61

SRI. SIDDAPPA S/O KARIYANNA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT KOLALUKUNTE KORA HOBLI, HALDODDRI POST TUMAKOORU TALUK AND DIST-572127.

¶62

SRI. KARIBASAVAIAH S/O KARIYANNA

¶63

¶64

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT KOLALUKUNTE, KORA HOBLI HALDODDRI POST TUMAKOORU TALUK AND DIST-572128.

¶65

SRI. DODDA CHINNAPPA S/O MELGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT THIPPEDASARAHALLI KORA HOBLI, HALDODDERI POST TUMAKOORU TQ AND DIST-572128. ... APPELLANTS

¶66

(BY SRI. P.N. RAJESWARA, ADV.,)

¶67

AND:

¶68

UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA KRISHI BHAVAN DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD NEW DELHI-110001 BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶69

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR BEEDI VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY.

¶70

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, IV & V FLOORS, EAST WING KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & EXECUTIVE MEMBER.

¶71

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER- NIMZ KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD MARUTHI TOWERS, IST FLOOR NEXT TO SIT COLLEGE

¶72

¶73

B H ROAD TUMAKURU-572102.

¶74

... RESPONDENTS

¶75

(BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADV., FOR R3 & R4 SRI. SHIVAKUMAR, CGC FOR R1

¶76

SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R2)

¶77

¶78

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05/04/2019 IN WP NOS.11209-212/2019 [LA-KIADB] PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID WP NOS.11209-212/2019 [LA-KIADB] AS PRAYED FOR.

¶79

IN W.A.No.2392 OF 2017 IN W.P.Nos.41641-642 OF 2015

¶80

BETWEEN

¶81

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB) NO.3/2, KHENI BUILDING 1ST CROSS, GANDHINAGAR BANGALORE-560 009.

¶82

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN (KIADB), 1ST CROSS, GANDHINAGAR BANGALORE-560 009.

¶83

...APPELLANTS

¶84

(BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, AG A/W

¶85

SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADV.,)

¶86

AND

¶87

SRI. MANJU S/O LATE MALLESHIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDENT OF NO.284

¶88

¶89

HALAGEVARDERAHALLI RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BANGALORE-560 098.

¶90

SMT. NALINI W/O OF SRI. MANJU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDENT OF NO.284 HALAGEVARDERAHALLI RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BANGALORE-560 098.

¶91

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001.

¶92

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶93

THE COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA CHANNAPATNA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (DELETED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 13.10.2015

¶94

…RESPONDENTS

¶95

(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R3 & R4 SRI. K.L. ASHOK, ADV., FOR R1 & R2)

¶96

¶97

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 41641-462/2015 DATED 19/4/17.

¶98

¶99

IN W.A.No.4053 OF 2017 IN W.P.Nos.2907/2015 & 46915/2016

¶100

BETWEEN

¶101

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD ZONAL OFFICE BANGALORE DIVISION NO.3, 1ST CROSS, KENI BUILDING 3RD FLOOR, GANDHINAGAR BANGALORE - 560009.

¶102

THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD ZONAL OFFICE BANGALORE DIVISION NO.3, 1ST CROSS, KENI BUILDING 3RD FLOOR, GANDHINAGAR BANGALORE - 560009.

¶103

...APPELLANTS

¶104

(BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADV.,)

¶105

AND

¶106

SRI. R. NARAYANA SON OF LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT MEDIHALLI VILLAGE BIDARA HALLI HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK.

¶107

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶108

THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE M. S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶109

¶110

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE - 560 001. 5. THE SECRETARY BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD CAUVERY BHAVAN K. G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.R. JAGADEESWARA, ADV., FOR R4 SMT. SUMANGALA SIMI MATH, ADV., FOR SRI. I.G. GACHCHINAMATH, ADV., FOR R5 R1, R2, R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) ----THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 2907/2015 & 46915/2016 DATED 19/04/2017.

¶111

IN W.A.No.4054 OF 2017 IN W.P.Nos.59461-462 OF 2014

¶112

BETWEEN

¶113

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.

¶114

THE EXECUTIVE MEMBER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560 001. ...APPELLANTS

¶115

(BY SRI.PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADV.,)

¶116

¶117

AND

¶118

J. VENKATESH REDDY S/O GURUMURTHY REDDY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT. JAKKASANDRA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. SHIVAPRAKASH, ADV., FOR R1 SRI. SHIVAPRABU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R2 R3 SERVED) ----THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 59461-462/2014 DATED 19/04/2017. IN W.A.No.4055 OF 2017 IN W.P.No.35461 OF 2014

¶119

BETWEEN

¶120

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KIADB NO.14/3 ARAVINDA BHAVANA NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-01. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADV.,)

¶121

¶122

AND

¶123

R. VENKATESH S/O LATE V. RAMAIAH AGED 62 YEARS R/AT KUMBARA PET MALUR TOWN

¶124

KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.

¶125

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BANGALORE-1.

¶126

THE UNDER SECRETARY INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-1.

¶127

…RESPONDENTS

¶128

(BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADV., FOR R1 SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R3 R2 SERVED)

¶129

¶130

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 35461/2014 DATED 19/04/2017.

¶131

IN W.A.No.4056 OF 2017 IN W.P.Nos.58807-809 OF 2015

¶132

BETWEEN

¶133

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD III AND IV FLOORS, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER NOW REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER.

¶134

¶135

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-I KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD MAHARSHI ARVIND BHAVAN IST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560 002.

¶136

...APPELLANTS

¶137

(BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADV.,) AND

¶138

MR. H.S. SOMASHEKAR SON OF H SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT #971, 11TH B MAIN III BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560 010.

¶139

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKAS SOUDHA DR. B R AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.

¶140

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (MEDICAL EDUCATION) VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001.

¶141

THE RAJEEV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, KARNATAKA IV T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560 041 BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶142

…RESPONDENTS

¶143

(BY SRI. NARAYANA BHAT M, ADV., FOR SRI. RAJESWARA P.N. ADV., FOR R1 SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R2 & R3

¶144

¶145

SRI. N.K. RAMESH, ADV., FOR R4 R2 SERVED)

¶146

¶147

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 58807-58809/2015 DATED 19/04/2017.

¶148

IN W.A.No.4057 OF 2017 IN W.P.No.32416 OF 2015

¶149

BETWEEN

¶150

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.

¶151

...APPELLANT

¶152

(BY SRI.PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADV.,)

¶153

AND

¶154

SRI. P. VENUGOPAL S/O P. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O MAHATHE, NO.72/1 3RD MAIN, 16TH CROSS G D PARK EXTENSION VYALIKAVAL, BANGALORE-560 003.

¶155

THE STATE REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY NO.49, SOUTH BLOCK KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.

¶156

THE COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.

¶157

¶158

4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-563 101.

¶159

….RESPONDENTS

¶160

(BY SRI. JAI M. PATIL, ADV., FOR R1

¶161

SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R2 & R4 V/O DTD:6.1.2020 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R3 IS ACCEPTED AS GOOD SERVICE)

¶162

¶163

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 32416/2015 DATED 19/4/17.

¶164

IN W.A.No.4058 OF 2017 IN W.P.Nos.49228 & 50925-936 OF 2013

¶165

BETWEEN

¶166

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.

¶167

THE EXECUTIVE MEMBER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER.

¶168

...APPELLANTS

¶169

(BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADV.,)

¶170

AND

¶171

SMT. K. PREMALATHA W/O C. SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

¶172

¶173

SRI. SRINIVASAPPA S/O NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

¶174

SRI. GANGANA BOVI S/O GANGANA BOVI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.

¶175

SRI. K M DODDAPPAIAH S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

¶176

SRI. NARAYANAPPA S/O DODDASIDDANNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

¶177

SRI. MUNIRAMAIAH S/O MUNIVENKATANNA BOVI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

¶178

SRI. BODAPPA S/O GANGANA BOVI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

¶179

APPELLANT NOS.1 TO 7 ARE R/AT JAKKASANDRA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.

¶180

SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT MINDAHALLI VILLAGE BANANAHALLIL POST MALLUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.

¶181

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE 560 001.

¶182

¶183

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD M.S. BUILDING BANGALROE 560 001.

¶184

…RESPONDENTS

¶185

(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR M, ADV., FOR R1 AND R4 TO R6 R2, R3, R7 AND R8 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED V/O DTD:6.1.2020 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R9 AND R10 IS ACCEPTED AS GOOD SERVICE)

¶186

----THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 49228/2013 & 50925-50936/2013 DATED 19/04/2017.

¶187

IN W.A.No.4059 OF 2017 IN W.P.No.30920 OF 2013

¶188

BETWEEN

¶189

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶190

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, 1ST FLOOR NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001.

¶191

...APPELLANTS

¶192

(BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADV.,)

¶193

AND

¶194

SMT. NANJAMMA W/O MANJUNATHA

¶195

¶196

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS DEAD, REP. BY LR'S.

¶197

1(a) SRI. MANJUNATH N S/O LATE NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.

¶198

1(b) SMT. SOUMYA W/O PRAKASH D/O MANJUNATH N AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.

¶199

1(c) SRI. SAGUN M S/O MANJUNATH N AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.

¶200

ALL ARE R/AT. HUSKUR VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK.

¶201

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001.

¶202

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.

¶203

…RESPONDENTS

¶204

(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R2 R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶205

¶206

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 30920/2017 DATED 19/04/2017.

¶207

¶208

IN W.A.No.4060 OF 2017 IN W.P.No.18861 OF 2013

¶209

BETWEEN

¶210

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KIADB NO 14/3 ARAVINDA BHAVANA NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE - 01.

¶211

...APPELLANT

¶212

(BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, AG A/W

¶213

SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADV.,)

¶214

AND

¶215

SHRI. M.R. ASHWATHAPPA S/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS MINDAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MALURU TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT -563101.

¶216

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BANGALORE - 560001.

¶217

THE UNDER SECRETARY INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560001.

¶218

…RESPONDENTS

¶219

(BY SRI. K.H. SOMASHEKAR, ADV., FOR R1 R2 & R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶220

¶221

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 18861/2013 DATED 19/4/17.

¶222

¶223

IN W.A.No.4061 OF 2017 IN W.P.Nos.20367-373/2013 & W.P.Nos.20375-380 & 20382/2013 & W.P.Nos.20384-388/2013

¶224

BETWEEN

¶225

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-506 001.

¶226

THE EXECUTIVE MEMBER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560 001

¶227

...APPELLANTS

¶228

(BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADV.,)

¶229

AND

¶230

SRI. J. SIDDAPPA S/O APPAYYANNA AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS.

¶231

SRI. S. NARAYANAPPA S/O J. SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

¶232

SRI. MUNIYAPPA S/O MOTAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

¶233

SRI. GANGANNA BHOVI S/O NARAYANA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS.

¶234

¶235

SMT. KEMPAMMA W/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS.

¶236

SRI. APPANNA S/O MUNIVENAKTAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

¶237

SRI. K.M. DODDAPPAIAH S/O MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.

¶238

SRI. MALLEGOWDA S/O MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS.

¶239

SMT. M. JAYALAKSHMI D/O MALLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

¶240

SMT. M. PADMA D/O MALLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

¶241

SMT. M. VIJAYALAKSHMI D/O MALLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

¶242

SRI. MUNIRAJU .M S/O MALLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

¶243

SRI. M. LAKSHMINARAYAN S/O MALLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

¶244

SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O LATE RAMANAIKA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

¶245

¶246

SRI. M. SIDDAPPA S/O MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.

¶247

SRI. M. MANJUNATH S/O MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

¶248

SRI. N. GOPALAPPA S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

¶249

SRI. CHANDRACHARI S/O RAMACHANDRACHARI AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS.

¶250

SRI. S. KRISHNA SINGH S/O SEETHARAM SINGH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

¶251

APPELLANTS ARE ALL R/AT JAKKASANDRA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.

¶252

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001.

¶253

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE-506 001.

¶254

…RESPONDENTS

¶255

(BY SRI. M. SHIVAPRAKASH, ADV., FOR R1 TO R5 & R8 TO R19 R6, R7 AND R20 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶256

¶257

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN

¶258

¶259

THE WRIT PETITION 20367-373/2013 & 20375-380/2013 & 20382/2013 & 20384-388/2013 DATED 19/04/2017.

¶260

IN W.A.No.4062 OF 2017 IN W.P.Nos.40473-474 OF 2015

¶261

BETWEEN

¶262

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2 KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD 14/3, MAHARSHI ARAVINDA BHAVAN I FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560 002.

¶263

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.49, III & IV FLOORS KHANIJ BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER.

¶264

...APPELLANTS

¶265

(BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, AG A/W

¶266

SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADV.,)

¶267

AND

¶268

SHIVANNA S/O LATE SATHAGAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT VRISHABAHVATHI PURA ITTAMADU PO, BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 109.

¶269

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES VIKAS SOUDHA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.

¶270

¶271

…RESPONDENTS

¶272

(BY SRI. RAJESWARA P.N., ADV., FOR R1 V/O DTD:6.1.2020 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS ACCEPTED AS GOOD SERVICE)

¶273

¶274

THIS WRIT IS APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 40473-40474/2015 DATED 19/04/2017.

¶275

IN W.A.No.4063 OF 2017 IN W.P.Nos.51805-807 OF 2015

¶276

BETWEEN

¶277

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER -2 KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.49, V FLOOR, KHANIJ BHAVAN EAST WING, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE - 560001.

¶278

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.49, III & IV FLOORS KHANIJ BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE - 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & EXECUTIVE MEMBER NOW REP. BY SPL. DC.

¶279

...APPELLANTS

¶280

(BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADV.,)

¶281

AND

¶282

CHIKKA HANUMAIAH S/O LATE GANGA HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O ARASINAKUNTE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DIST.

¶283

¶284

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.641 8TH MAIN, VINAYAKA LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560072.

¶285

P.M. SIDDAPPA S/O MAHESWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

¶286

P.M. DIWAKAR SANKOL S/O MAHESWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶287

RESPONDENT NOS.2 & 3 ARE R/AT PILLE KARANAHALLI VILLAGE M D HALLI POST , KASABA HOBLI CHITRADURGA TALUK & DISTRICT.

¶288

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. B R AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE - 560001.

¶289

…RESPONDENTS

¶290

(BY SRI. RAJESWARA P.N. ADV., FOR R1 R2, R3 & R4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶291

¶292

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 51805-51807/2015 DATED 19/04/2017.

¶293

IN W.A.No.4064 OF 2017 IN W.P.No.859 OF 2016

¶294

BETWEEN

¶295

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD MARUTHI GROUP BUILDING II FLOOR, NEAR SIT COLLEGE B H ROAD, TUMAKURU-572 103.

¶296

¶297

...APPELLANT

¶298

(BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADV.,)

¶299

AND

¶300

S. NARAYANAPPA AGE 53 YEARS S/O SEETHARAMAIAH RESIDING AT SANTHEPETE SIRA TOWN TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572103.

¶301

…RESPONDENT

¶302

(BY SRI. S. NARAYANAPPA, SERVED)

¶303

¶304

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19/4/17 PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 859/2016.

¶305

IN W.A.No.4065 OF 2017 IN W.P.Nos.48824-840/2015 & 7094-7109/2017

¶306

BETWEEN

¶307

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NIMZ, MARUTHI TOWERS, 1ST FLOOR B.H.ROAD, TUMKUR-572 101.

¶308

THE MEMBER SECRETARY KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 NOW BY ITS SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER S.N. BALACHANDRA.

¶309

...APPELLANTS

¶310

(BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADV.,)

¶311

¶312

AND

¶313

SMT. PUTTALAKSHMAMMA W/O LINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/O NELAHALA (POST) BELLAVI HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572 128.

¶314

SRI. H. PRABHANNA S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O DEVENAHALLI, BELLAVI HOBLI NELAHAL(POST) TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572 128.

¶315

SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O NELAHALA (POST) BELLAVI HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572 128.

¶316

SRI. SEEBE GOWDA S/O BASAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/O HUNJINAL, KALLAMBELLA HOBLI SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 128.

¶317

SRI. HANUMANTHARAYA S/O THIMMAVVA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O NELAHALA (P), BELLAVI HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572 128.

¶318

SRI. MAHADEVAIAH S/O H. ERANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O SY.NO.11/10, NELAHALA (POST) BELLAVI HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572 128.

¶319

¶320

SRI. GANGADHARAIAH S/O THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT. NELAHALA (POST), BELLAVI HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572 128.

¶321

SRI. KENCHAIAH S/O HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS RESIDING AT NELAHALA (POST) BELLAVI HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572 128.

¶322

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT. NELAHALA (POST) BELLAVI HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572 128

¶323

SRI. G K LAKSHMANNA S/O LATE KOTE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT. NELAHALA (POST) BELLAVI HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572 128.

¶324

SRI. GAVIYAPPA S/O LATE KOTE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS RESIDING AT NELAHALA (POST) BELLAVI HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572 128.

¶325

SMT. LAKKAMMA W/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT NELAHALA (POST) BELLAVI HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572 128.

¶326

SRI. A G BASAVARAJAIAH S/O LATE GURUPADAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶327

¶328

R/O CHIKKASEEBI, BELLAVI HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572 128.

¶329

SMT. DODDATHAYAMMA W/O DODDAHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O NELAHAL(POST), BELLAVI HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572 128.

¶330

SRI. VASANT A. GOWDA S/O K V ADINARAYANA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.27, JAKKUR YALAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE-560 064.

¶331

SRI. SIDDARAMAIAH S/O LATE BETTAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/O NELAHALA (POST), BELLAVI HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572 128.

¶332

SRI. THIMMAIAH S/O LATE DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/O KEMPADALI VILLAGE HAL DODDERI POST, KORA HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572 101.

¶333

THE UNION OF INDIA BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND RESOURCES, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶334

THE UNION OF INDIA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LAW & PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS NEW DELHI-110 003.

¶335

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001.

¶336

¶337

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶338

THE DIRECTOR (TECHNICAL CELL) COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶339

THE KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR BENGALURU-560 001. (CAUSE TITLE AMENDED V.C.O. DATED 26.9.2016)

¶340

…..RESPONDENTS

¶341

(BY SRI. M. RAJAGOPAL, ADV., FOR R2, R6 AND R15 SRI. D.C. PRAKASH, ADV., FOR R6 SRI. M.N. KUMAR SHARMA, ADV., FOR R18 & R19 SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R20 TO R22 R3, R4, R5, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, R13, R14, R16 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶342

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 48824-48840/2015 DATED 19/04/2017.

¶343

IN W.A.No.4066 OF 2017 IN W.P.Nos.44987-988 OF 2015

¶344

BETWEEN

¶345

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD OFFICER - 2, KHANIJA BHAVAN BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶346

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.49, III & IV FLOORS KHANIJ BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD

¶347

¶348

BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER NOW REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL DC.

¶349

...APPELLANTS

¶350

(BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADV.,)

¶351

AND

¶352

MR. AJITH KUMAR D R SON OF LATE D R RADHAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDENT OF # 295 GROUND FLOOR, 9TH MAIN 12TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR II BLOCK, BANGALORE - 560011.

¶353

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. B R AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE - 560001.

¶354

…RESPONDENTS

¶355

(BY SRI. RAJESWARA P.N., ADV., FOR R1 V/O DTD:6.1.2020 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS ACCEPTED AS GOOD SERVICE)

¶356

¶357

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 44987-988/2015 DATED 19/4/17.

¶358

IN W.A.No.4067 OF 2017 IN W.P.No.17272 OF 2014

¶359

BETWEEN

¶360

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA

¶361

¶362

DEVELOPMENT BOARD, (KIADB) NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶363

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, (KIADB), NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 REP. BY SPL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER.

¶364

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIES AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, (KIADB) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 APPELLANT NO.3 IS REP. BY APPELLANT NO.1.

¶365

...APPELLANTS

¶366

(BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADV.,)

¶367

AND

¶368

SRI. CHANDRAPPA S/O JALIGE ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT AREBINNAMANGALA JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT.

¶369

REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI. KIRAN, S/O ANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NO.444, BAGALUR BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL.) TALUK BANGALORE-562 149.

¶370

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001.

¶371

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES

¶372

¶373

VIAKASA SOUDHA

¶374

DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶375

THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL.) TALUK BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶376

…RESPONDENTS

¶377

(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R2 & R3 V/O DTD:6.1.2020 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R4 IS ACCEPTED AS GOOD SERVICE)

¶378

¶379

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 17272/2014 DATED 19/04/2017.

¶380

IN W.A.No.4068 OF 2017 IN W.P.Nos.18890 & 23750-752 OF 2013

¶381

BETWEEN

¶382

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING) NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-01 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN NOW REP. BY SLAO-1.

¶383

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KIADB, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-01.

¶384

...APPELLANTS

¶385

(BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADV.,)

¶386

AND

¶387

SRI. NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE DODDA SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O JAKKASANDRA VILLAGE

¶388

¶389

KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563101.

¶390

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT ROOM NO.106, 1ST FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT.

¶391

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-563 101.

¶392

…RESPONDENTS

¶393

(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R2 & R3 V/O DTD:6.1.2020 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 TO R3 IS ACCEPTED AS GOOD SERVICE)

¶394

¶395

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 18890/2013 & 23750-752/2013 DATED 19/04/2017.

¶396

IN W.P.No.55704 OF 2017

¶397

BETWEEN

¶398

UDAYA SHANKARA S/O SHYAMA RAO AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT MADHU NIVASA AGARADAKODI, PERMUDE POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509.

¶399

SMT. VASANTHI .S RAO D/O SETHUMADHAVAN PEJATHAYA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RESIDING AT"HARIPRASAD" PERMUDE POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509.

¶400

¶401

HENRY FERNANDIZ S/O BENJAMIN FERNANDIZ AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS RESIDING AT SHENOYKODI MANE PERMUDE POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509.

¶402

SMT. AGNES D. SOUZA D/O PAUL FERNANDIZ AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS RESIDING AT LAVI NILAYA PERMUDE POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509.

¶403

FELIX NAZERATH S/O AMBOZE NAZERATH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT SHENOY KODIMANE PERMUDE POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509.

¶404

OLWIN ARUN MENEZES S/O ROSARIO MENEZES AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT SHENOY KODI PERMUDE POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509.

¶405

ROSARIO MEMEZES D/O PAUL MEMEZES AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS RESIDING AT SHENOY KODI PERMUDE POST, BAJPE MANGALURU DISTRICT 574509.

¶406

LANCY QUADROS D/O CYRIL QUADROS AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT ASHIRVAD PANCHAYATH ROAD PERMUDE POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509.

¶407

¶408

LAWRENCE FALVIAN D'CUNHA D/O LATE SEBASTIAN BAPTIST D'CUNHA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.2-130 "CHRIS FARM HOSUE" PERMUDE POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509.

¶409

...PETITIONERS

¶410

(BY SRI. NARAYANA BHAT M, ADV.,) AND

¶411

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALOE 560001.

¶412

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS ADDITIAIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE 1ST FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001.

¶413

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶414

STATE HIGH LEVEL CLEARANCE COMMITTEE REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE II FLOOR, KHANIJABHAVAN (SOUTH WING), NO.49, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001.

¶415

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT DEPUTY COMMISSINOER'S OFFICE HAMILTON CIRCLE, MANGALURU-575001.

¶416

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD

¶417

¶418

BYKAMPADY, MANGALROE 575011.

¶419

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL & AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD RERPESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECKUTIVE OFFICER & EM, III & IV FLOOR, KHAIJA BHAVAN (SOUTH WING), NO.49, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001.

¶420

THE MANGALURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER URVA STORES, KOTTARA MANGALURU-575006.

¶421

KARNTAKA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REP. BY ITS SECRETARY PARISARABHAVAN, CHURCH STREET BENGALURU-560001.

¶422

THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS (MoEF, GOI) PARYAWARABHAWAN, CGO COMPLEX LODI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003.

¶423

CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REP. BY ITS SECRETARY PARYAVARAN BHAVAN, C.G.O.COMPLEX LODI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003.

¶424

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR POST KUTHETHOOR, VIA. KATIPLALLA MANGALORE-575030.

¶425

….RESPONDENTS

¶426

(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ V. SABARAD, ADV., FOR R6 & R7 SRI. NATARAJU T, ADV., FOR R9 SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R5 SMT. K.S. GIRIJAMMA, ADV., FOR R11 SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADV., FOR R12 SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T, ADV., FOR R8 SRI. SATYANARAYANA SINGH, ADV., FOR R9

¶427

¶428

SRI. SHIVAKUMAR, CGC FOR R10)

¶429

¶430

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE ISSUE OF NOTIFICATIONS PRODUCED AT ANNEX-C, C1 AND C2. QUASH/DECLARE THAT THE NOTIFICATION DATED 20.12.2016 UNDER SEC. 3(1) AT ANNEX-C, THE NOTIFICATION DATED 20.12.2016 UNDER SEC. 1(3) OF THE KIADB ACT 1966 AT ANNEXC1 AND THE NOTIFICATION DATED 20.12.2016 ISSUED UNDER SEC. 28(1) AT ANNEX-C2 AS ULTRA VIRES OF THE POWERS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND ALSO IS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 14, 19, 21 AND 300A OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ALSO ARE VIOLATIVE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE " RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT 2013 " (CENTRAL ACT 30 OF 2013).

¶431

IN W.P.No.19222 OF 2018

¶432

BETWEEN

¶433

CARMIN SEQUEIRA

¶434

D/O LAZARAS PATRICH SEQUIRA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT 'PINTU SADAN' YERMADY HOUSE THENKAYAKKA VILLAGE AND POST PERMUDE, MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509.

¶435

PRABHAKAR BHAT S/O LATE NARAYANA BHAT AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT NAVIGUTTU, KUTTEETHOOR BAJAVU POST, MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509.

¶436

GURUPRASAD

¶437

S/O RAMACHANDRA PEJATHAYA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT TINNIKEREMANE PERMUDE POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509.

¶438

VILFRED PAVLA D SOUZA

¶439

¶440

S/O MARKEVEREST D SOUZA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT DEVASTANA KODI MANE PERMUDE POST

¶441

MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509.

¶442

PETER CYPRIAN D SOUZA S/O SALVADORE D SOUZA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT ROSARIO MOUNT HOUSE PERMUDE POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509.

¶443

VITTAL MOULYA S/O SANKU MOULYA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT DEVAS HOUSE KUTHETHOOR POST BAJAVAU POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-575030.

¶444

KRISHNA SHETTY S/O PUVA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/AT PUNKIDIDE MANE KUTHETHOOR POST BAJAVAU POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-575030.

¶445

GOPI SHETTY S/O PUVA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT PUNKIDIDE MANE KUTHETHOOR POST BAJAVAU POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-575030.

¶446

SANDEEPA S/O SADANANDA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT PUNKIDIDE MANE KUTHETHOOR POST BAJAVAU POST

¶447

¶448

MANGALURU DISTRICT-575030.

¶449

BHASKAR SHETTY S/O GANAPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT PUNKIDIDE MANE KUTHETHOOR POST BAJAVAU POST

¶450

MANGALURU DISTRICT-575030.

¶451

LEELA M. SHETTY W/O MAHABALA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT PUNKIDIDE MANE KUTHETHOOR POST BAJAVAU POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-575030.

¶452

RATNAKAR SHETTY S/O RAMANNA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT PUNKIDIDE MANE KUTHETHOOR POST BAJAVAU POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-575030.

¶453

PANDURANGA SHETTY S/O KUTTY SHETTY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT PUNKIDIDE MANE KUTHETHOOR POST BAJAVAU POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-575030.

¶454

RAMACHANDRA PEJATHAYA S/O LAKSHMI NARAYAN PEJATHAYA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/AT DURGA PRASAD NILAYA THANNIKERE HOUSE PERMUDE MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509.

¶455

JECINTA MIRANDA

¶456

¶457

D/O LATE ZOOVAM D SOUZA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NEKKARE BALLE HOUSE BAJPE, MANGALURU DISTRICT-574142.

¶458

MAGGI D SOUZA D/O LEO D SOUZA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/AT KATEELUR ROAD PERMUDE MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509.

¶459

ROBERT FERNANDIS S/O PAVLA FERNANDIS AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT LAVI NILAYA PERMUDE POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509.

¶460

GEETHA W/O JAYASHETTY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT PANJEKALLU MANE KUTHETHOOR, BAJAVAU POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-575030.

¶461

DEEPAKSHETTY D/O JAYASHETTY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT PANJEKALLU MANE KUTHETHOOR BAJAVAU POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-575030.

¶462

PRAMOD ALVA S/O BHOJA ALVA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT KARAMARA MANE KUTHETHOOR, BAJAVAU POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-575030.

¶463

FATHER PETER CYPRIAN D SOUZA S/O LUCY D SOUZA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶464

¶465

R/AT KUTHETHOOR BAJAVAU POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-575030.

¶466

RAMANANDA K. SHETTY S/O KOOSA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT KALLOLLI BALIKE MANE KUTHETHOOR, BAJAVAU POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-575030.

¶467

SAROJINI SHETTY D/O NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT KALLOLLI BALIKE MANE KUTHETHOOR, BAJAVAU POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-575030.

¶468

YOGESH SHETTY S/O ANTHAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NOVI MANE KALYANI NIVASA KUTHETHOOR, BAJAVAU POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-575030.

¶469

RAVINDRA SHETTY S/O KOCHAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶470

R/AT NOVI MANE, KUTHETHOOR BAJAVAU POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-575030.

¶471

SANTHOSH SHETTY S/O SHEKAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT KALLOLI BALIKE KUTHETHOOR, BAJAVAU PSOT MANGALURU DISTRICT-575030.

¶472

SHAILA SHETTY D/O SHEKAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶473

¶474

R/AT KALLOLI BALIKE KUTHETHOOR, BAJAVAU POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-575030.

¶475

RAJEEVI SHETTY D/O CHARAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS R/AT KALLOLI BALIKE KUTHETHOOR, BAJAVAU PSOT MANGALURU DISTRICT-575030.

¶476

JAYA POOJARI S/O LATE RAMAPPA POOJARI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT PERMUDE VILALGE AND POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509.

¶477

NEELAYA POOJARI S/O LATE RAMAPPA POOJARI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT PERMUDE VILALGE AND POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509.

¶478

SEETHARAMA SHASTRY S/O LATE NARAYANA SHASTRY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT PERMUDE VILALGE AND POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509.

¶479

WILMA D SOUZA D/O ELIAS D SOUZA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT PERMUDE VILALGE AND POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509.

¶480

SATHEESHA PEJATHAYA S/O VANAJAKSHAMMA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT PERMUDE VILLAGE AND POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509.

¶481

GANESH POOJARI S/O LATE SEENA POOJARI

¶482

¶483

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT PERMUDE VILALGE AND POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509.

¶484

OLWIN RODRIGUES S/O LATE THOMOS MARCEL RODRIGUES AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT PERMUDE VILLAGE AND POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509. ...PETITIONERS

¶485

(BY SRI. NARAYANA BHAT M, ADV.,) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001.

¶486

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE IST FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001.

¶487

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANASOUDAH BANGALORE-560001.

¶488

STATE HIGH LEVEL CLEARANCE COMMITTEE REP BY MEMBER SECRETARY OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE II FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN (SOUTH WING) NO.49 RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560001.

¶489

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶490

¶491

DAKSHINA KANANDA DISTRICT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE HAMILTON CIRCLE, MANGALURU-575001.

¶492

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD BYKAMPADY, MANGALURU-575011.

¶493

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL & AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & EM III & IV FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN (SOUTH WING), NO.49, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001.

¶494

THE MANGALURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER URVA STORES, KOTTARA., MANGALURU-575006.

¶495

KARNATAKA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REP BY ITS SECRETARY PARISARABHAVAN CHURCH STREET, BENGALURU-560001.

¶496

THE UNION OF INDIA REP BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF ENVIRONOMENT & FORESTS (MOEF, GOL) PARYAWARA BAHVAN CGO COMPLEX, LODI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003.

¶497

CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REP BY ITS SECRETARY PARYAVARANA BHAVAN CGO COMPLEX, LODI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003.

¶498

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETRO CHEMICALS LTD., REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR POST KUTHETHOOR, VIA KATIPLALLA MANGALORE-575030.

¶499

….RESPONDENTS

¶500

¶501

(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ V. SABARAD, ADV., FOR R6, R7 AND R12 SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R5 SRI. SATYANARAYANA SINGH, ADV., FOR R9 SRI. MAYA HOLLA, ADV., FOR R12 SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T, ADV., FOR R8 SRI. S.R. DODAWAD, ADV., FOR R1 SMT. GIRIJAMMA K.S. ADV., FOR R11)

¶502

¶503

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE ISSUE OF NOTIFICATIONS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURES-C, C1 AND C2. QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 20.12.2016 UNDER SEC.3(1), PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C, THE NOTIFICATION DATED 20.12.2016 UNDER SEC.1(3) OF THE KIADB ACT 1966, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C1 AND THE NOTIFICATION DATED 20.12.2016 ISSUED UNDER SEC.28(1) PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C-2 AS ULTRA VIRES OF THE POWERS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND ALSO IS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 14, 19, 21 AND 300A OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ALSO ARE VIOLATIVE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE "RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT 2013 (CENTRAL ACT 30 OF 2013) & ETC.

¶504

IN W.P.No.22707 OF 2018

¶505

BETWEEN

¶506

SHRI. BHOJA SHETTIGARA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O LATE SHRI LINGAMMA SHETTIGARA.

¶507

SMT. GIRIJA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS D/O LATE SHRI LINGAMMA SHETTIGARA.

¶508

SHRI MOHINI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS D/O LATE SHRI LINGAMMA SHETTIGARA.

¶509

SMT HEMAVATHI

¶510

¶511

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS D/O LATE SHRI LINGAMMA SHETTIGARA.

¶512

SMT. GULABI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS D/O LATE SHRI LINGAMMA SHETTIGARA.

¶513

PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT PANJURLI KODI MANE PERMUDE VILLAGE AND POST MANGALORE TALUK D K DISTRICT PIN CODE: 574509.

¶514

SHRI. ANANTHA PADMANABHA BHAT AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O LATE SHRI SUBRAMANYA BHAT RESIDING AT NOVIGUTHU HOUSE BAJAVU POST, KUTHETHOOR MANGALORE TALUK, D K DISTRICT.

¶515

SHRI VASU POOJARI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O LATE SHRI KALYANI POOJARTHI.

¶516

SHRI. GANGAYYA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O LATE SHRI KALYANI POOJARTHI.

¶517

SMT. SUMATHI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS D/O LATE SHRI KALYANI POOJARTHI.

¶518

SMT. LEELA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS D/O LATE SHRI KALYANI POOJARTHI.

¶519

SMT. VASANTHI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS D/O LATE SHRI KALYANI POOJARTHI.

¶520

PETITIONERS NO.7 TO 11 ARE RESIDENTS OF THOTA MANE POST PERMUDE, MANGALORE TALUK

¶521

¶522

D K DISTRICT - 574509.

¶523

SHRI. SRINIVASA PEJATHAYA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O SRI RAMACHANDRA PEJATHAYA.

¶524

KRISHNAMURTHY PEJATHAYA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O SRI RAMACHANDRA PEJATHAYA

¶525

PETITIONERS NO.12 AND 13 ARE RESIDING AT THANNIKER HOUSE PERMUDE VILLAGE AND POST MANGALORE TALUK D K DISTRICT - 574509.

¶526

SHRI. K H VARADARAJA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O LATE SHRI HAYAGREEVA ACHARYA.

¶527

DR. NARAHARI DAS AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS S/O LATE SHRI HAYAGREEVA ACHARYA.

¶528

SHRI. GOVINDA DAS AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS S/O LATE SHRI HAYAGREEVA ACHARYA.

¶529

SHRI. JAGANNATHA DAS AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O LATE SHRI HAYAGREEVA ACHARYA.

¶530

PETITIONERS NO.14 TO 17 ARE RESIDING AT GOVINDA BHAVANA POST BAJAVU, KUTHETHOOR MANGALORE TALUK, D K DISTRICT.

¶531

SHRI. SEETHARAMA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O LATE SRI. RAMAYYA SHETTY.

¶532

SHRI. JAGANNATH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶533

¶534

S/O LATE SRI. RAMAYYA SHETTY.

¶535

PETITIONERS NO.18 TO 19 ARE RESIDING AT MATHRU KRIPA HOUSE AMBADE GURI, BAJAVU POST KUTHETHOOR, MANGALORE TALUK D K DISTRICT - 575030.

¶536

...PETITIONERS

¶537

(BY SMT. MAITREYI KRISHNAN, ADV.,)

¶538

AND

¶539

STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.

¶540

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001 REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY.

¶541

STATE HIGH LEVEL CLEARANCE COMMITTEE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE 2ND FLOOR KHANIJA BHAVAN NO.49, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶542

DEPUTY COMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, HAMILTON CIRCLE, MANGALURU - 575001.

¶543

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD 4TH & 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHEIF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

¶544

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD

¶545

¶546

BAIKAMPADI, MANGALORE - 575011.

¶547

KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD PARISARA BHAVAN, CHURCH STREET BENGALURU - 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶548

UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS PARISARA BHAVAN, CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110003 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶549

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD., KUTHETHOOR POST, VIA KATIPLALLA MANGALORE - 575030 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶550

…RESPONDENTS

¶551

(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ V. SABARAD, ADV., FOR R6 & R9 & R5 SRI. S. ISMAIL ZABIULLA, ADV., FOR R8 SRI. SATYANARAYANA SINGH, ADV., FOR R7 SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL FOR HOLLA AND HOLLA, ADV., FOR R9 SRI. C.M. POONACHA, ADV., FOR R3)

¶552

¶553

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ARE ULTRA VIRES ARTICLE 14, 19, 21 & 300A OF THE CONSTITUTION & REPUGNANT TO RIGHT TO THE FAIR COMPENSATION & TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION & RESETTLEMENT ACT 2013 AND HENCE INOPERABLE.

¶554

IN W.P.No.30905 OF 2018

¶555

BETWEEN

¶556

SCM DATA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER CALLED BLACK ROCK INFO SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED) (A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY

¶557

¶558

INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956) REGISTERED OFFICE AT 1-11-252/5/A PLOT NO.156, MOTILAL NEHRU NAGAR BEGUMPET, HYDERABAD - 500016 TELANGANA STATE REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED PERSON SRI. RAJENDRA PRASAD SHARMA S/O MADAN LAL SHARMA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.

¶559

INFOSAGE SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED (A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956) REGISTERED OFFICE AT SREE NIVAS PLOT NO 258, ROAD NO 72, PRASASHAN NAGAR JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD - 500033 TELANGANA STATE REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED PERSON SRI. RAJENDRA PRASAD SHARMA S/O MADAN LAL SHARMA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.

¶560

...PETITIONERS

¶561

(BY SRI. S.M. CHANDRASHEKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. VISHWANATH H.M. ADV.,)

¶562

AND

¶563

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE M S BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001, BANGALORE CITY BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶564

KIADB NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560001, BENGALURU CITY BY ITS EXEUCTIVE MEMBER.

¶565

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KIADB, KHENY BUILDING GANDHINAGAR

¶566

¶567

BENGALURU, BENGALURU CITY.

¶568

KARNATAKA UDYOG MITRA KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE, BENGALURU CITY BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶569

M/S. TECHZONE TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD NO.44/4/4/, DISTRICT FUND ROAD JAYANAGAR 9TH BLOCK BANGALORE - 560069 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SHRI. KUPPURAJU BENGALURU CITY.

¶570

...RESPONDENTS

¶571

(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ V. SABARAD, ADV., FOR R2 & R3 SMT. VIJETHA R. NAIK, ADV., FOR R5 R1 & R4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶572

¶573

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DATED 01.12.2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 3(1), 1(3) AND SECTION 28(1) OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A & ETC.

¶574

IN W.P.No.12283 OF 2019

¶575

BETWEEN

¶576

VIJAYA

¶577

D/O. LATE SEENA POOJARI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT PONGARNAR MANE PERMUDE MANGALURU-574509

¶578

AMBIKA D/O. LATE SEENA POOJARI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT PONGARNAR MANE PERMUDE

¶579

¶580

MANGALURU-574509

¶581

NIRMALA

¶582

D/O. LATE SEENA POOJARI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT PONGARNAR MANE PERMUDE MANGALURU-574509

¶583

KESHAVA S/O. LATE SEENA POOJARI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT PONGARNAR MANE PERMUDE MANGALURU-574509

¶584

MARIYA D CUNHA D/O. LATE WALTER D CUNHA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶585

MABEL D CUNHA W/O. LATE S.B. D CUNHA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS

¶586

KENNY D CUNHA W/O. LATE S.B. D CUNHA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶587

MELVIN D CUNHA W/O. LATE S B D CUNHA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS PETITIONERS NO.5 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT CHURCH BUILDINGS PERMUDE MANGALURU-574509

¶588

JULIET CORDA D/O. THOMOS RODRIGUS AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT CORDA VILLA KALTHUR POST & VILLAGE UDUPI

¶589

¶590

JANET ANDRADE S/O. THOMOS RODRIGUS AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT PELATHA LATTE HOUSE BELMAV POST PERMUDE MANGALURU

¶591

OZY RODRIGUS D/O. THOMOS RODRIGUS AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT MITHRA KANDA HOUSE PERMUDE MANGALURU-574509

¶592

GRETTA D SOUZA D/O. THOMOS RODRGUS AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT MANAPADY HOUSE NEAR BRIDGE MANAPADY MULKI MANGALURU

¶593

13 . INDIRA

¶594

D/O. NARAYANA BHAT AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS RESIDING AT NOVI GUTTHU KUTHETHAOOR POST BAJAVU POST MANGALURU

¶595

SMT. VARADA D/O. NARAYANA SHASTRI AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS RESIDING AT SR VARADASA POST PERMUDE MANGALURU-574509

¶596

PRASHANTH

¶597

S/O. ASHOKA MAYYA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS RESIDING AT HARI PRASAD HOUSE PERMUDE POST

¶598

¶599

MANGALURU-574509

¶600

METILDA ALPHONSA D/O. SOLIVADRE D SOUZA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT BETKERI HOUSE MOODBIDRI POST MANGALURU

¶601

VALERIEN STONEY D SOUZA D/O. LATE SALVODORE D SOUZA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT ROSARY MOUNT PERMUDE POST MANGALURU-574509

¶602

EVLOLIA HILDA ROSERIO

¶603

D/O. LATE SALVODORE D SOUZA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RESIDING AT ROSARY HOUSE PERMUDE MANGALURU-574509

¶604

JACINTHA SOPHIC D SOUZA D/O. LATE SOLVODERE D SOUZA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT ROSARY MOUNT PERMUDE POST MANGALURU-574509

¶605

MARY D SOUZA

¶606

D/O. LATE SOLVODORE D SOUZA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS RESIDING AT ROSARY HOUSE PERMUDE POST MANGALURU-574509

¶607

MARY JULIANA D SOUZA D/O. GABRIAL ALFONSE D SOUZA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.2-108 SENAVAKODI MANE C/O ANANDA MARIAN D SOUZA

¶608

¶609

PERMUDE POST MANGALURU-574509

¶610

LAWERENCE D SOUZA S/O. MAGDHALIN D SOUZA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDING AT KUDIYANA MANE PERMUDE POST MANGALURU-524509

¶611

23. YAMUNA

¶612

W/O. LATE ROHIT POOJARI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT BALPE GURI HOUSE PERMUDE MANGALURU-574509

¶613

24. YAMUNA

¶614

D/O. LATE RAMAPPA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT BALPA GURI HOUSE PERMUDE MANGALURU-574509

¶615

VASANTHI S/O. LATE RAMAPPA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT BALPA GURI HOUSE PERMUDE MANGALURU-574509

¶616

GEETHA J. SALIAN D/O. LATE RAGHU POOJARI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT BALPA GURI HOUSE PERMUDE MANGALURU-574509

¶617

PHILOMENA D SOUZA S/O. LATE ELIAS D SOUZA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT SHENARA KODI HOUSE PERMUDE BAJPE

¶618

¶619

MANGALURU-574509

¶620

SHALINI D SOUZA D/O. LATE ELIAS D SOUZA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS RESIDING AT SHENARA KODI HOUSE PERMUDE, BAJPE MANGALURU-574509

¶621

LALITHA SHETTY D/O. KOKRA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS RESIDING AT PANJIKALLU HOUSE BAJAVU POST KUTHETHUR VILLAGE MANGALURU DAKSHINA KANNADA-575030

¶622

CHANDRAKALA D/O. POOVAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT PANJIKALLU HOUSE BAJAVU POST KUTHETHUR VILLAGE MANGALURU DAKSHINA KANNADA-575030

¶623

RATHNAKALA D/O. POOVAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT PANJIKALLU HOUSE BAJAVU POST KUTHETHUR VILLAGE MANGALURU DAKSHINA KANNADA-575030

¶624

AMRUTHA D/O. POOVAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT PANJIKALLU HOUSE BAJAVU POST KUTHETHUR VILLAGE MANGALURU

¶625

¶626

DAKSHINA KANNADA-575030

¶627

KISHORE S/O. POOVAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT PANJIKALLU HOUSE BAJAVU POST KUTHETHUR VILLAGE MANGALURU DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575030

¶628

SHASHIKALA D/O. POOVAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT PANJIKALLU HOUSE BAJAVU POST KUTHETHUR VILLAGE MANGALURU DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575030

¶629

...PETITIONERS

¶630

(BY SRI. NARAYANA BHAT M., ADVOCATE)

¶631

AND

¶632

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA OSUDHA BENGALURU-560001

¶633

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE IST FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001

¶634

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001

¶635

STATE HIGH LEVEL CLEARANCE COMMITTEE REP BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY

¶636

¶637

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE II FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN (SOUTH WING) NO.49 RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001

¶638

1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE HAMILTON CIRCLE MANGALURU-575001

¶639

1. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD BYKAMPADY MANGALURU-575011

¶640

1. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & EM III & IV FLOOR KHANIJA BHAVAN(SOUTH WING) NO.49, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001

¶641

1. THE MANGALURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER URVA STORES, KOTTARA MANGALURU-575006

¶642

1. KARNATAKA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REP BY ITS SECRETARY PARISARA BHAVAN CHURCH STREET BENGALURU-560001

¶643

1. THE UNION OF INDIA REP BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY O ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS (MOEF, GOI) PARYAWARAN BHAWAN CGO COMPLEX, LODI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003

¶644

¶645

CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REP BY ITS SECRETARY PARYAVARAN BHAVAN C G O COMPLEX, LODI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003

¶646

MANGALURU REFINERY AND PETRO CHEMICALS LTD REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR POST KUTHETHOOR VIA KATIPLALLA MANGALURU-575030

¶647

…RESPONDENTS

¶648

(BY SRI. T.P. SRINIVAS, ADVOCTE FOR R10 AND R11 SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R5 SRI. BASAVARAJ V. SABARAD, ADVOCATE FOR R6 AND R7 SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE FOR R8 SRI. SATYANARAYANA SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR R9 SRI. H.C. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R12)

¶649

¶650

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE ISSUE OF NOTIFICATIONS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C, C1, C2 AND QUASH/DECLARE THAT THE NOTIFICATION DATED 20.12.2016 UNDER DEC.3(1), PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C, THE NOTIFICATION DATED 20.12.2016 UNDER SEC.1(3) OF THE KAID ACT 1966, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C1 AND THE NOTIFICATION DTD20.12.2016 ISSUED UNDER SEC.28(1) PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C2 AS ULTRA VIRES OF THE POWERS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND ALSO IS VIOLATION OF ARTICLES, 14, 19, 21 AND 300A OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ALSO ARE VIOLATIVE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT 2013 (CENTRAL ACT 30/2013).

¶651

¶652

IN W.P.No.27081 OF 2019

¶653

BETWEEN

¶654

SMT. GRACY D'SOUZA W/O. BERNARD D'SOUZA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS C/O. SRI. RONY D'SOUZA NEKKAREBALLE HOUSE PERMUDE VILLAGE & POST MANGALURU TALUK D.K. DISTRICT-574509.

¶655

SMT. JAYANTHI W/O. SUNDARA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS

¶656

SRI. SATISH SHETTY S/O. LATE SRI BHOJA SHETTY AND LATE PRABHAVATHI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶657

SRI. PRAKASH SHETTY S/O. LATE SRI BHOJA SHETTY AND LATE PRABHAVATHI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶658

5 . SMT. SANDHYA SHETTY D/O. RAJU SHETTY AND LATE ASHALATHA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶659

6 . SMT. VIDYA D/O. RAJU SHETTY AND LATE ASHALATHA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

¶660

PETITIONERS NO.2 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT KODAPPA BALIKE BAJAVU POST KUTHETHOOR MANGALURU TALUK D.K. DISTRICT-575030.

¶661

...PETITIONERS

¶662

¶663

(BY SRI. CLIFTON D. ROZARIO, ADVOCATE)

¶664

AND

¶665

STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY

¶666

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY.

¶667

STATE HIGH LEVEL CLEARANCE COMMITTEE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE 2ND FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN NO.49, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶668

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS OFFICE HAMILTON CIRCLE MANGALURU-575001.

¶669

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD 4TH & 5TH FLOOR EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

¶670

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD BAIKAMPADI MANGALURU-575011.

¶671

KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD PARISARA BHAVAN, CHURCH STREET BENGALURU-560001

¶672

¶673

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶674

UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS PARISARA BHAVAN CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶675

MANGALURU REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD KUTHETHOOR POST VIA KATIPALLA MANGALURU-575030 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶676

…RESPONDENTS

¶677

(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4 SRI. BASAVARAJ V. SABARAD, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R7 SRI. SATYANARAYANA SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR R9 SRI. BIRDYAIYAPPA, CGC FOR R8)

¶678

¶679

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ARE ULTRA VIRES ARTICLE 14, 19, 21 AND 300A OF THE CONSTITUTION AND REPUGNANT TO RIGHT TO THE FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 AND HENCE INOPERABLE.

¶680

IN W.P.No.49536 OF 2019

¶681

BETWEEN

¶682

SRI. M.K. SWAMY GOWDA S/O. KEMPEGOWDA, RESIDING AT NO. 428. 7TH-A-MAIN, HEBBAL I STAGE, METAGALLI POST, MYSURU 16,

¶683

¶684

(SITE NO. 304, SURVEY NO. 49)

¶685

SRI. THIPPEGOWDA S/O. CHIKKANNA, RESIDING AT NO. 60. 2ND MAIN, LOKANAYAKA NAGAR, HEBBAL I STAGE, METAGALLI POST, MYSURU 16, (SITE NO. 305, SURVEY NO. 49)

¶686

SRI. SHEKARAPPA S/O. KESHAVAIAH, II MAIN ROAD, I STAGE, HEBBAL, MYSURU 16, (SITE NO. 308, SURVEY NO. 49)

¶687

SRI. B.RAJAKUMAR S/O GOREGOWDA, RESIDING AT YELEKERE VILLAGE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT (SITE NO.313, SURVEY NO.49)

¶688

SRI. M.N. RAMU S/O LATE NAGE GOWDA, RESIDING AT M.SHETTY HALLI, K.SETTY HALLI HOBLI, S.R.PATTANA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT (SITE NO.329 SURVEY NO.49)

¶689

SRI.G.UMESH RAO S/O. GANESH RAO, RESIDING AT NO.54, I MAIN VIKRANT GUEST HOUSEE, OPP. NIRMALA CONVENT VONTIKOPPAL MYSURU-16 (SITE NO.330, SURVEY NO.49)

¶690

¶691

SMT. SRISHAILA C/O. B.R.SHIVASHANKAR, RESIDING AT RAGI BOMMANA HALLI MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT (SITE NO.333, SURVEY NO.49)

¶692

SRI.R.SRIKANTA S/O. R.RUDRAPPA RESIDING AT NO.49, 2ND MAIN, YADAVAGIRI, MYSURU-20 (SITE NO.338, SURVEY NO.49)

¶693

SRI. B.MANJUNATHA S/O. BOREGOWDA, RESIDING AT NO.177, 5TH CROSS, HEBBAL, II STAGE, MYSURU-17 (SITE NO.340/A. SURVEY NO.49)

¶694

SRI.S.A.LAKSHME GOWDA S/O. ANKEGOWDA, R/AT NO.195, 8TH MAIN, HEBBAL I STAGE, METAGALLI POST, MYSURU-16 (SITE NO.342/B, SURVEY NO.49)

¶695

SRI.T.SRINIVASA S/O. THIRUMALE GOWDA, RESIDING AT NO.744, III STAGE, HEBBAL, METAGALLI POST, MYSURU-16 (SITE NO.347, SURVEY NO.49)

¶696

SRI. N. SRIKANTA MURTHY S/O. NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.198/B, 5TH CROSS NIMISHAMBHA LAYOUT KUVEMPUNAGARA MYSURU (SITE NO.351, SURVEY NO.49)

¶697

¶698

SMT. SUJATHA A SETTY D/O ANKA SETTY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.146, 2ND CROSS ROOPANAGAR BOGADI MYSURU(SITE NO.354, SURVEY NO.49)

¶699

S G SHIVAKUMAR S/O M K GOWDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.18/B, 2ND A CROSS 4TH MAIN, V V MOHALLA MYSURU-2 (SITE NO.365, SURVEY NO.88/1)

¶700

MANJU S/O RACHAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.366, MUNESWARA SWAMY LAYOUT MOOGARAHALLI SRIRANGAPATTNA TALUK MANDYA DIST (SITE NO.366 SURVEY NO.88/1)

¶701

NASEER AHAMED S/O SHEK AHAMAD KHASIM AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.548, WEST PARK AVENUE HOSANAGAR, BOGADI MYSURU-26 (SITE NO.368, SURVEY NO.88/1)

¶702

K. GOVINDARAJU S/O. KULLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT PALLAHALLI SRIRANGAPATTNA TALUK MANDYA DIST (SITE NO.374, SURVEY NO.88/1)

¶703

M R KESHAVA PRASAD S/O S RANGANATHA

¶704

¶705

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.289, 7TH A MAIN HEBBAL I STAGE METAGALLI POST MANDYA DIST (SITE NO.375, SURVEY NO.88/1)

¶706

M B KRISHNE GOWDA S/O BORE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.628, 3RD CROSS HEBBAL 2ND STAGE MYSURU-17 (SITE NO.378, SURVEY NO.88/1)

¶707

MOGANNA S/O GURU SHANTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.309, LOKAYANAK NAGARA, NEAR GANAPATHI DEVASTANA, HEBBAL, MYSURU (SITE NO.381, SURVEY NO.88/1)

¶708

LOKESHACHAR S/O KEMPACHAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAMAPURA VILLAGE, K SHETTY HALLI HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT (SITE NO.383, SURVEY NO.88/1)

¶709

THIPPEGOWDA S/O KEMPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.60, 2ND A MAIN, LOKANAYAKA NAGARA, HEBBAL MYSURU -16 (SITE NO.386,. SURVEY NO.88/1)

¶710

¶711

P N KIRANA KUMAR S/O P S NAGABHUSHANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.104, 3RD A MAIN, III STAGE, SOUTH OF KUMBARA KOPPALU, MYSURU-16 (SITE NO.389, SURVEY NO.88/1)

¶712

SRI. BHADREGOWDA W/O SHIVANAGE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.27/27, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, NEAR POST OFFICE GOTTIGERE, BENGALURU SOUTH

¶713

(SITE NO.390, SURVEY NO.88/1)

¶714

SMT SAROJAMMA W/O LATE SRI MANJU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.284, 6TH CROSS, MAHADESHWARA EXTENSION, KUMBARAKOPPAL, MYSURU-16 (SITE NO 393, SURVEY NO.88/1)

¶715

SRI B A RAMACHANDRA S/O LATE APPU GOWDA, AGED 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.224, GARAGE ROAD, KAVERI EXTENSION, KUMBARAKOPPAL TOLLGATE, MYSURU-16 (SITE NO.332, SY NO.49)

¶716

SRI K C PEMMAIAH S/O LATE K B CHANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.383, I BLOCK, 2/2 MAIN, 6TH CROSS, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR,

¶717

¶718

MYSURU-22 (SITE NO.384. SY NO.88/1)

¶719

SRI P S RAMAKRISHNA S/O LATE SHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT PHALAHALLI VILLAGE, BHALAGHOLA HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK, MANDYA (SITE NO.392, SY NO. 88/1)

¶720

SRI Y B ESHWARA S/O LATE BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, NO.222, 6TH CROSS, MAHADESHWARA EXTENSION, KUMBARAKOPPAL,

¶721

MYSURU-16 (SITE NO.353, SY NO.49)

¶722

SRI S BASAVARAJ S/O LATE SIDDAYYA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2847/13C, 8TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, JAYANAGAR, MYSURU- (SITE NO.303, SY NO.49)

¶723

SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O K N MANJU GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT 720, IST MAIN, 15TH CROSS, B M SRINAGAR, METAGALLI, MYSURU-16 (SITE NO.331, SY NO.49)

¶724

SRI M N SHASHIDHAR S/O LATE M S NAGARAJ SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT 531, NEW KHATHA NO.41, DWARAKAMAIE,

¶725

¶726

CHALUVAMBA AGRAHARA, MYSURU (SITE NO.297, SY NO.49)

¶727

SMT JAYAMMA W/O LATE S V RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.716, SUBHASH NAGAR, CHAMUNDESHWARI EXTENSION, KUMBAR KOPPAL, MYSURU-16 (SITE NO.309,. SY NO.49)

¶728

SRI L RAJU S/O LATE LAKSHMANNA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, NO.2215, SEC, VIKRANTH TYRES, MYSURU-16 (SITE NO.380, SY NO.88/1)

¶729

SRI J RAMA SWAMY S/O LATE M N JAWARE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.64, 5TH CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR RAILWAY EXTENSION, MYSURU-16 (SITE NO.372, SY NO.88/1)

¶730

SRI H N PARAMESH S/O LATE NINGE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.14, 2ND CROSS, MAHALAKSHMI EXTENSION, OPP CIPET COLLEGE, MYSURU-16, (SITE NO.370, SY NO.88/1)

¶731

SRI H MANCHAPPA S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, NO.2496, VINAYAKA NAGAR, PADUVARAHALLI, DEVARAJ MOHALLA, MYSURU-02 (SITE NO.369, SY NO.88./1)

¶732

SRI B S LAKSHMIPATHI S/O LATE B R SRINIVAS,

¶733

¶734

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, NO.2866, LASHKAR MOHALLA, HALLADA KERI, MYSURU-02 (SITE NO.394, SY NO.88/1)

¶735

SRI B M NAGAMALLESH S/O LATE MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.504/1, 4TH CROSS, VENE SHESHANNA ROAD, MYSURU-04, (SITE NO.350, SY NO.49)

¶736

SRI M MAHADEVA SHETTY S/O LATE MADHA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.EWS, 3RD MAIN, HEBBAL IST STAGE, MYSURU-16 (SITE NO.314, SY NO.49)

¶737

SRI V KHODANDA RAMA S/O LATE VENKATRAME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT KENNALU VILLAGE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT (SITE NO.293, SY NO.49)

¶738

SRI P T KURIYAN S/O LATE THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, EMPLOYEE NO.2143, SEC, VIKRANTH TYRES (J K TYRES) MYSURU-16, (SITE NO.326, SY NO.49)

¶739

SRI DEVID C S S/O LATE F DEVID, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, NO.132/B, CHIKKA VERRANNA ROAD, BANNIMANTAP, MYSURU-10 (SITE NO.325, SY NO.49)

¶740

¶741

SRI M A CHUNCHE GOWDA S/O LATE AMAVASE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT BYLADAKERE THOTADAMANE, GOLLARAHOSAHALLI HOBLI,. CHNNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT (SITE NO.324, SY NO.49)

¶742

SRI P PRABURAJ S/O LATE M PUTTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, NO.342, MILK CENTER ROAD, VISHWESHWARANAGAR I STAGE, MYSURU-08 (SITE NO.302, SY NO.49)

¶743

SRI K V VENKATESH S/O LATE ANANDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT BANDIKERI BEEDHI, SRIRANGAPATNA TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT, (SITE NO.345, SY NO.49)

¶744

SRI H SHIVANANJAIAH S/O LATE HONNAYA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O NO.292, 2ND STAGE, K H B ROAD, EWS, KUVEMPU NAGAR, MYSURU-09 (SITE NO.300, SY NO.49)

¶745

SRI ABANIPAL S/O LATE JOGENDRA PAL, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, EMPLOYEE NO.2309, SEC VIKRANTH TYRES, MYSURU-16 (SITE NO.315, SY NO.49)

¶746

SRI M M AHMAD S/O LATE MOHAMMAD PAUAJULLA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, EMPLOYEE NO.2364,

¶747

¶748

VIKRANTH TYRES, MYSURU-16, (SITE NO.355, SY NO.49)

¶749

SRI B MARI S/O RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1292, RAMPURA ROAD, SRIRANGAPATTANA TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT, (SITE NO.341, SY NO.49)

¶750

SMT B SAVITHRI W/O D KUMARASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.62, 2ND MAIN, N H C S LAYOUT, BASAVESHWARANAGAR,

¶751

BENGALURU (SITE NO.298, SY NO.49)

¶752

SRI THOPANAIK S/O LATE CHANNANAIKA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT H NO. 289, B M SHRI NAGAR, METAGALLI LAYOUT/ POST, MYSURU-16 (SITE NO.291, SY NO.49)

¶753

SRI T N JEEVAN KUMAR S/O LATE T N LINGAM, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT SHREE NILAYAM APARTMENT, FLAT NO.004, SY NO. 109/3C, TUNGA NAGAR MAIN ROAD, TUNGA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560091 (SITE NO.299,SY NO.49)

¶754

SRI M DEVARAJ S/O LATE K MAHADEVU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶755

¶756

RESIDING AT NO.11/2, P BLOCK, NEW EXTENSION, KUMBARAKOPPAL OPP GOVT SCHOOL, MYSURU-16 (SITE NO.301,SY NO.49)

¶757

SRI D PADMANABHA RAO S/O LATE R H DEVOJIRAO, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2365, 12TH MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE, MYSURU-17 (SITE NO.307,SY NO.49)

¶758

SRI H RAMESH SHET S/O LATE H SRINIVAS SHET, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.2885-3/1, 7TH CROSS ROAD, KALIDASA ROAD, V V MOHALLA, MYSURU-12 (SIRE NO.310, SY NO.49)

¶759

SRI R SRINIVASA S/O LATE RANGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.82/1, MAARIGUDI BHEEDHI, KUMBARAKOPPAL, MYSURU-16 (SITE NO.320, SY NO.49)

¶760

SRI H K JAGADISH S/O LATE KALACHOWDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.477, IST MAIN, 5TH CROSS, LOKANAYAKANAGARA, MYSURU-16 (SITE NO.328, SY NO.49)

¶761

¶762

SRI R SRINIVASA S/O LATE RANGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT H NO .82/1, MARIGUDI ROAD, KUMBARAKOPPALU MYSURU (SITE NO 356 SY NO 49)

¶763

SRI N S KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE NABHA SUNDAR NARAYAN SHETTY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.26 MEKALA, 15TH CROSS 5TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE GOKULAM MYSURU (SIT NO.356, SY.NO.49) 61. SRI SHANTHARAJU S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1106 ASHWINI NILAYA 8TH CROSS 3RD PHASE GOLULAM MYSURU-12 (SITE NO.371, SY.NO.88/1)

¶764

SRI S CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE R SIDDEGOWDA AGED 56 YEARS RESIDING AT T M HOSURU KASABA HOBLI SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK (SITE NO.373, SY.NO.88/1)

¶765

SRI P RAJU S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT NEW HOUSE ROAD Q BLCOK 2 KUMBARAKOPPALU MYSURU-16 (SITE NO.376, SY.NO.88/1)

¶766

¶767

SRI K KRISHNE GOWDA S/O LATE BORE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.2882 8TH CROSS, V V MOHALLA MYSURU-12 (SITE NO.379, SY.NO.88/1)

¶768

65 . SRI MOHAMMED JOHN S/O LATE ABDUL RAVOOF AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS EMPLOYEE NO.2398 VIKRANT TYRES LTD. MYSURU-16 (SITE NO.382, SY.NO.88/1)

¶769

SRI R PRIYAVRATHA S/O LATE RACHAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.47 MANJUNATHNAGAR YADAVAGIRI MYSURU-02 (SITE NO.385, SY.NO.88/1)

¶770

SRI. M.B. GOPAL S/O SRI. BASAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDING AT HOSA ANANDUR BELAGOLA HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTR (SITE NO.295, SY NO.49)

¶771

SRI. S.K. RAMAKRISHNA S/O LATE KALE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEAWRS RESIDING AT ALLAPATTANA VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATNA TLAUK (SITE NO.322, SY NO.49)

¶772

SRI. M. BASAVARAJAPPA S/O LAWTE UMA MAHESHWARAPPA

¶773

¶774

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS NO.579, 14TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, B.M. SHRENAGARA, METAGALLI POST, MYSURU 570016 (SITE NO.289, SY NO.49

¶775

SRI. M.C. VASUDEVA MURTHY S/O LATE M.G. CHKRAPANI RAO AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS PLOT NO.302 "A" BLOCK, OAS1S9 7TH CROSS, RAOD, ISRO EXTENSION, BENGALURU 560078 (SITE NO.290, SY.NO.49

¶776

SRI. B. SIDDAIAH C/O ANANDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.2024/36, 8TH CROSS, ASHOKPURAM, MYSURU 570008 (SITE NO.292, SY.NO.49)

¶777

SMT. GEETHA SAROWAR W/O ANAND SAROWAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.410, 43TH CROSS, 8TH BLOCK, JAYANAARA, BENGALURU 85, (SITE NO.294, SY. NO.49)

¶778

SRI. L. BASAVARAJU C/O ANANDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.428, 7TH "A" CROSS HEBBAL ST STAGE, MYSURU 570016 (SITE NO.303, SY. NO.49)

¶779

SRI P SRINIVASA C/O ANANDA RESIDING AT NO.428, 7TH A CROSS,

¶780

¶781

HEBBAL 1ST STAGE, MYSURU 570016.

¶782

SRI RAGHAVENDRA RAO S/O LATE RAMA RAO, RESIDING AT NO.1934, 6TH MAIN, 28TH CROSS, D GROUP BADAVANE, SRIGANDA KAVALU, BENGALURU 560091.

¶783

SRI S GUPTHAJI S/O ALT SATHYANARAYANA SHETTY, RESIDING AT NO.8, SRINVISA NILAYA, 1ST CROSS, KTV LAYOUT, K R PURAM BENGALURU 560036.

¶784

SRI N PAPANNA C/O ANANDA, RA/T NO.428, 7TH A COSS, HEBAL 1ST STAGE, MYSURU-570016.

¶785

SRI K G ARUNA S/O K.GOPAL SRI RAO, NO.166, 2ND CROSS, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 2ND STAGE, BRINDAVAN EXTN. MYSURU 570020

¶786

SRI NAGARJA S/O LATE JOGANNA GOWDA, NO.101, 8TH AI ROAD, HEBAL 1ST STAGE, MYSURU 570016.

¶787

SRI MARISWAMY GOWDA S/O LATE CHIKKATHIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT OSA ANANDOOR VILALGE, PUMP HOSAHALLY POST, SRIRANGAPATNA TQ. MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶788

¶789

VENUGOPAL S/O LATE M S BALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.5 4TH CROSS DR AMBEDKAR LAYOUT VIJAYANAGARA TELICOM LAYOUT BENGALURU-560023 (SITE NO.334 SY NO.49)

¶790

SMT GAYATHRI W/O LATE ODOSI GOWDA AGE ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.98/2 2ND MAIN ROAD, KIDAGANNAMA LAYOUT KUMBARAKOPPAL MYSURU-16 (SITE NO.336 SY NO.49)

¶791

SRI B MAHESHA S/O LATE M BORALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NO.2630/1 HOSA BANDIKERI 6TH CROSS, CHAMUNDIPURAM MYSURU-570004 (SITE NO 337 SY NO.49)

¶792

SRI S NATARAJA S/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1038/1 HUNSUR ROAD, ADITHYA LAYOUT HINKAL MYSURU-570032 (SITE NO.340/B SY NO.49)

¶793

SMT GOWRAMMA W/O LATE GANGADHARA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.112, 8TH A MAIN 6TH CROSS HEBBAL 1ST STAGE MYSURU-570016 (SITE NO.342/A SY NO.49)

¶794

¶795

SRI N KEMPASHINGE GOWDA S/O LATE NARASHIMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT HULIKERE SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT (SITE NO.346 SY NO.49)

¶796

SRI M RAMAIAH S/O LATE LAKKAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, NO.2066 24TH CROSS, HEBBAL 2ND STAGE, MYSURU -570016 (SITE NO.348 SY NO.49

¶797

M BOJARAJ S/O LATE MUDDU KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R-AT NO.695, 15TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN ROAD, B.M.C. NAGARA MYSURU-570016

¶798

N SAVITHRI W/O LATE K NADUN CHELLIAN, RESIDING AT NO.648/B, IISC, HOUSING COLLONY BENGALURU

¶799

N S KAMALAKARAN S/O LATE M.S.SATHYAM, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.138, 9TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN, HEBBAL 1ST STAGE, MYSURU-570016

¶800

J GURULINGAIAH C/O ANANDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, NO.428, 7TH A CROSS, HEBBAL 1ST STAGE, MYSURU

¶801

¶802

GEETHA W/O LATE NANJEGOWDA, RESIDING AT NO.138, 9TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN, HEBBAL 1ST STAGE, MYSURU-570016

¶803

A LOVELY D ANTO W/O LATE ANTO, C/O ANANDA RESIDING AT NO.428, 7TH A CROSS, HEBBAL 1ST STAGE, MYSURU-570016

¶804

CHANNARAJA URS S/O LATE MALARAJ URS, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, C/O ANANDA RESIDING AT NO.428, 7TH A CROSS, HEBBAL 1ST STAGE, MYSURU

¶805

MANJULA W/O ALTE H.E.NARAYANA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT 5TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, VIJAYANAGARA, 1ST STAGE, MYSURU-570 017. ...PETITIONERS

¶806

(BY SRI. S.M. CHANDRASHEKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H.B. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND

¶807

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, M.S. BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560001

¶808

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD REPTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER, RASTROTHAN BUIDLING,

¶809

¶810

OPP. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, N.R. ROAD, BENGALURU 560002

¶811

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KIADB DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, RASTROTHAN BUIDLING, OPP. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, N.R. ROAD, BENGALURU 560002

¶812

M/S. WIPRO REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN / MANAGING DIRECTOR, NO. 53, KAIKONDRAHALLI, SARJAPUR MAIN ROAD, DODDAKANNELLI, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560035

¶813

…RESPONDENTS

¶814

(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1, SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, AG ALONG WITH SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3 SRI. RAJESH CHANDER KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶815

¶816

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE R-3 IN RESPECT OF ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS DATED 22.08.2019 AT ANNX-Q, QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.08.2019 AT ANNX-Q, QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE NOTIFICATION DATED 07.12.2005 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 3(1) 1(3) AND 28(1) OF THE KIADB ACT AND THE FINIAL NOTIFICATION AT ANNX-B AND THE NOTIFICATION DATED 29.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE R-3 AND PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNX-G AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT.

¶817

¶818

IN W.P.No.52298 OF 2019

¶819

BETWEEN

¶820

ROBUST MARKETING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING OF COMAPNIES ACT 2013 HAVINAG ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT FLAT NO.502, 5TH FLOOR STERLING HERITAGE, PLOT NO.388 SRI SANKARA MATTAM ROAD MATUNGA, MUMBAI-400 019. REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. G. CHANDRASEKAR S/O MR. G. GOVINDARAJULU AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

¶821

...PETITIONER

¶822

(BY SRI. SANJANTHI SAJAN POOVAYYA, ADV.,)

¶823

AND

¶824

STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGLAURU-560 001 REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.

¶825

DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 REP BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY.

¶826

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD ESTALISHED UNDER THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT 1966 4TH AND 5TH EAST WING KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

¶827

STATE HIGH LEVEL CLEARANCE COMMITTEE

¶828

¶829

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, 2ND FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN NO.49, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGLAURU-560 01 REP BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶830

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD BIKAMPADI, MANGALURU-575 011.

¶831

MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF LAND RESOURCES NBO BUILDING, G-WINGS NIRMAN BHAWAN, MOULANA AZAD ROAD NEW DELHI-110 011 REP BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶832

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED A GOVERNMENT COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING OFCOMPANIES ACT 2013, KUTHETHOOR POST MANGALURU-575 030 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶833

….RESPONDENTS

¶834

(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI. BASAVARAJ V. SABARAD, ADV., FOR R3 & R5 SRI. M.S. RAJENDRA PRASAD, ADV., FOR R7 SRI. SHIVAKUMAR, CGC FOR R6)

¶835

---THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE SEC. 3(1), 28 AND 29 OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966, TO BE ULTRA VIRES OF ARITICLE 14, 19(1)(g) AND 300A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 IN ADDITION TO BEING REPUGNANT TO THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 AND HENCE, LIABLE TO BE STRUCK DOWN.

¶836

THESE WRIT APPEALS AND WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 18.08.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶837

¶838

JUDGMENT

¶839

In these intra Court appeals, the appellant namely Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board', for short) has assailed the validity of the interim order dated 19.04.2017 by which learned Single Judge has held as follows:

¶840

“ POINT NO. (i) : The State Government cannot any longer exercise power under Section 3 of the KIAD Act without conforming to the pre-requisites as prescribed under the 2013 Act, nor work the other provisions of the Act without also adhering to other mandatory provisions of the 2013 Act and the Rules there under. The Scheme under the KIAD Act as it prevails is inconsistent with the provisions of the 2013 Act in terms of Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India and is hence no longer valid as an independent enactment.

¶841

¶842

POINT NO. (ii) : Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is applicable to an acquisition initiated under the provisions of the KIAD Act.

¶843

POINT NO. (iii) : By virtue of Section 24(2) at whatever point of time the vesting of land may have taken place, there is a divesting, in terms thereof, as it provides for a ‘lapsing’ of the acquisition proceedings, if the conditions specified therein are satisfied.

¶844

POINT NO. (iv) : The recent decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 353/2017, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, Mysore vs. Anasuya Bai, dated 25.01.2017 did not involve a challenge to the constitutional validity of the provisions of the KIAD Act and hence does not advance the case of the respondents.

¶845

The petitions to be posted for hearing on facts and the merits of each case for final disposal.”

¶846

In the writ petitions, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the notifications issued under the

¶847

¶848

Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1966 Act' for short) and have also sought the relief that provisions of 1966 Act have been impliedly repealed on commencement of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2013 Act' for short).

¶849

When the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the parties jointly requested the Court to answer the legal issues. In view of aforesaid joint request made by learned counsel for the parties, we proceed to deal with 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

¶850

the owners of the land situate in Jakkasandra, Achatanhalli, Malur Taluk, District Kolar, Adinarayana

¶851

¶852

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 objections, final notifications under section 28(4) of the 1966 Act dated 15.07.1997, 27.08.2003, 18.06.2007, 28.06.2008, 15.09.2008, 19.08.2010, 04.12.2012, 04.01.2013, 30.01.2015, 20.07.2018 and 29.12.2018,

¶853

¶854

were issued. The respondents challenged the validity of section 3, Chapter II and provisions of Chapter VII of the 1966 Act as well as the validity of Notifications issued under 1966 Act and sought the relief that provisions of 1966 Act have been impliedly repealed on commencement of 2013 Act, before the learned Single Judge.

¶855

The learned Single Judge, by an interim order

¶856

dated 19.04.2017, inter alia held that Section 24(2) of the are applicable to an acquisition initiated under the 1966 Act and the proceeding under the 1966 Act shall lapse if conditions mentioned therein are satisfied. It was further held that the scheme insofar as it pertains to acquisition of land is inconsistent with the mandatory provisions of the 2013 Act in terms of Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India and is no longer valid as an independent Act. Being aggrieved by the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge, the Board has

¶857

¶858

preferred these appeals. In writ petitions, since the issues pertaining to validity of the provisions of the 1966

¶859

Act arise for consideration, the writ petitions with consent of parties were heard analogously with these writ appeals.

¶860

SUBMISSION OF LEARNED ADVOCATE GENERAL IN WRIT APPEALS:

¶861

4 . Learned Advocate General submitted that the

¶862

1966 Act has been enacted in exercise of powers under Entry 24 of List II of Seventh Schedule, whereas 2013 Act has been enacted in exercise of powers under Entry

¶863

42 of List III of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India respectively. While referring to provisions of 1966 Act as well as 2013 Act, it is contended that question of repugnancy does not arise in the fact situation of the case as both the enactments operate in different fields and the 1966 Act does not occupy the field in respect of which Parliament has enacted 2013 Act. It is also urged that in order to succeed on the ground that provisions of

¶864

¶865

1966 Act have been repealed, the respondents are required to demonstrate that both legislations operate in respect of same subject matter and provisions of both the laws cannot coexist. It is also urged that question of repugnancy on the ground of 1966 Act having occupied, the field does not arise. It is also 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.

¶866

M.A. TULLOCH', AIR 1964 SC 1284, ' RAMTANU CO-

¶867

¶868

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

¶869

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.

¶870

It is also pointed out that subsequent to the

¶871

order passed by the learned Single Judge, provisions of 1966 Act were amended by Karnataka Amendment Act No. 16 of 2019 and therefore the provisions of Chapter II and III of 2013 Act do not apply in respect of notified projects. While referring to provisions of Sections 28 and 29 of 1966 Act as well as Sections 11, 15, 16 to 19 of 2013 Act, it is submitted that there is no conflict between provisions of both the enactments.

¶872

Learned Advocate General, while referring to

¶873

Section 29 of the 1966 Act and Sections 26 to 28, 30(2)

¶874

¶875

and First Schedule of the 2013 Act submitted that even provisions pertaining to determination of compensation contained in both the enactments are not in conflict with each other. Our attention has also been invited to resolution dated 27.08.2016 passed by the Board by which it has resolved to take into account the components mentioned in First Schedule appended to the 2013 Act for computation of market value of the land in respect of land which has to be acquired under 1966 Act. It is therefore submitted that grievance of the owners of land insofar as it pertains to challenge to provisions pertaining to determination of compensation in fact does not survive. It is also urged that 1966 Act is a self contained code. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of Supreme Court in ' MAGANLAL CHHAGANLAL (P) LTD. V. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY AND ORS.', (1974) 2 SCC 402 AND 'GIRNAR TRADERS V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶876

¶877

AND ORS.', (2011) 3 SCC 1 . It is also contended that issue with regard to applicability of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act to the proceeding under 1966 Act is no longer res integra and it has been held that Section 24(2) does not apply to the proceeding under 1966 Act. In this connection, reference has been made to decision of Supreme Court in ' SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MYSORE V. ANASUYA BAI', (2017) 3 SCC

¶878

313 .

¶879

SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENTS IN WRIT APPEALS:

¶880

In W.A.No.4056/2017, learned counsel for

¶881

respondent No.1 submitted that the 1966 Act has been enacted after obtaining the assent of the President of India. In this connection, reference has been made to Article 31 of the Constitution of India and it is submitted

¶882

that the same was in existence when 1966 Act was enacted by the State Legislature. It is further submitted that 1966 Act is an Act, which pertains to acquisition of land and not industry. It is also pointed out that 1966

¶883

¶884

Act has been 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

¶885

¶886

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

¶887

RUSTOM CAVASJEE COOPER’S case.

¶888

Learned counsel for the respondent in W.A.No.4065/2017 submitted that 1966 Act is not an

¶889

Act pertaining to industries, as expression 'industries', is defined to mean the process of manufacture or production and therefore, Chapter I to VII of the 1966 Act cannot be construed as incidental to the dominant object of the 1966 Act. It is submitted that the expression 'industries' cannot be enlarged to mean the power to acquire the land. It is also submitted that in respect of power of acquisition of property, the question of incidental power does not arise and the power of acquisition is expressly conferred under Entry 42 of List III to the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India.

¶890

Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the Board that Article 254(2) does not apply to the facts of the

¶891

¶892

case in hand, cannot be accepted. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of Supreme Court in 'CALCUTTA GAS COMPANY (PROPRIETARY) LTD. Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS' AIR 1962 SC 1044, 'RUSTOM CAVASJEE COOPER Vs. UNION OF INDIA' (1970) 1 SCC 248 AND 'ISHWARI KETAN SUGAR MILLS (P) LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS' (1980) 4 SCC 136 AND FORUM FOR PEOPLE'S COLLECTIVE EFFORTS (FPCE) AND ANOHER VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL', (2021) SCC ONLINE 361.

¶893

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.30905/2018 and 49536/2019 submits that

¶894

object of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was to acquire the land for the purpose of East India Company and the Government in power and the Doctrine of eminent domain was invoked to confiscate the property of a private individual in exercise of sovereign power. It is

¶895

¶896

pointed out that the Supreme Court has recognized the power of eminent domain in 'KEDARNATH YADAV Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS', AIR 2016 SC 4156, 'LAXMAN LAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS AND ANR. Vs,. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.', (2013) 3 SCC 764 as well as by Madras High Court in 'SUDARSHAN CHARITABLE TRUST Vs. THE GOVT.

¶897

OF TAMIL NADU', (2018) LAWS (MAD)3 918. It is further submitted that right to property has been recognized by Article 17 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the year 1948 itself which was diluted by the Parliament by inserting Article 31A in the Constitution. It is further submitted that right to hold property is still a Constitutional right as prescribed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and has been recognized by the Supreme Court as a human right in

¶898

'HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. Vs. DARIUS SHAPUR CHENAI' (2005) 7 SCC 627, 'PADMAMMA Vs. RAMKRISHNA REDDY' (2008) 15

¶899

¶900

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.

¶901

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 also argued that in view of

¶902

¶903

the assent given by the President, the 1966 Act was protected under Article 254 of the Constitution of India. It is also argued that Parliament, in exercise of powers under the concurrent list enacted 2013 Act on 26.09.2013, which came into force on 01.01.2014 and therefore, the 1966 Act was impliedly repealed in view of proviso to Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India.

¶904

While inviting our attention to statement of objects and reasons and the provisions of the 1966 Act as well as 2013 Act, it is contended that provisions of 1966 Act are in direct conflict with the 2013 Act and there is no requirement of invoking the doctrine of pith and substance, as the Parliament intended to repeal the State law. It is also contended that 2013 Act has occupied the field of acquisition and development of industrial corridor and has been enacted in exercise of power under Entry 52 of List I and Entry 42 of List III of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. It is pointed out that Entry 24 of List II is not an exclusive

¶905

¶906

legislative power but is subject to Entry 7 and 52 of List I of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and there is no encroachment of power by the Parliament. It is also argued that 2013 Act is a dominant legislation occupying the entire field relating to acquisition and development of industrial corridor and is intended to confer benefits to the land losers and affected persons by providing for fair compensation as well as rehabilitation and resettlement to the affected families.

¶907

It is also argued that objects and reasons of Karnataka Amendment Act 2019 are shocking and are opposed to decisions of various Courts and the same are in violation of Section 108 of 2013 Act. It is also argued that the amendment made by State Legislature to 2013 Act defeats the federal structure of the country and is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions in 'STATE OF KERALA Vs. MAR

¶908

APPAEM KURI CO. LTD.' (2012) 7 SCC 106,

¶909

100

¶910

'KAISER-I-HIND PVT. LTD. AND ORS. Vs. NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION' AIR (SC) 3404, 'ZAVERBHAI AMAIDAS Vs. THE STATE OF BOMBAY AIR 1954 SC 742, 'P.L.MEHRA Vs. D.R.KHANNA' 1971 AIR (DEL) 1, 'M.KARUNANIDHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA' AIR 1979 SC 898, 'T.BARAI Vs. HENRY AH HOE AND ANR.' (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

¶911

101

¶912

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.

¶913

Learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.55704/2017, 19222/2018 and 12283/2019,

¶914

while adopting the submissions made by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P.Nos.30905/2018 and 49536/2019, submitted that assent accorded by the President to 1966 Act came to an end on 26.09.2013 and the State Act has therefore become void. It is also submitted that the provisions of 1966 Act have been

¶915

102

¶916

rendered unconstitutional on account of passage of time. It is also argued that right of the farmer to cultivate the land, is part of his right to livelihood and if two views are possible, the one which protects the constitutional right must be preferred. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the decisions in 'ASSOCIATION OF NATURAL GAS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT' (2004) 4 SCC 489, 'CHAIRMAN, INDORE VIKAS PRADHIKARAN Vs. PURE INDUSTRIAL COKE AND CHEMICALS LTD. & ORS.' (2007) 8 SCC 705, 'DEVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB' (2008) 1 SCC 728, 'JOHN VALLAMATTOM Vs. UNION OF INDIA' (2003) 6 SCC 611, 'KAPILA HINGO RANI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR' (2003) 6 SCC 1, 'SAHARA INDIA REAL ESTATE Vs. SEBI' (2013) 1 SCC 1, 'RAJENDRA SHANKAR SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF CHATTISGARH' (2015) 10 SCC 400 AND 'KEDARNATH YADAV Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL' (2017) 11 SCC 601.

¶917

103

¶918

SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENTS IN WRIT PETITION

¶919

Learned Senior counsel for respondent No.9 in W.P.No.22707/2018 submitted that the 1966 Act has

¶920

been enacted under Entry 24 of List II and Entry 7 & Entry 52 of List I of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India does not relate to acquisition of land. It is further submitted that the 1966 Act has not been enacted under Entry 42 of List III of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. It is also contended that entries in the list contained in Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India are not sources of power but are merely demarcated fields of legislation and have to be construed liberally and widely so as to attain the purpose.

¶921

It is also urged that the enactments viz.,

¶922

1966 Act and 2013 Act operate in different fields and therefore, the question of conflict between 1966 Act and 2013 Act does not arise. It is also urged that the

¶923

104

¶924

concept of occupied field is only relevant in case of a law enacted under the entries of list III of Seventh Schedule of Constitution of India. It is further contended that since, 1966 Act and 2013 Act have been enacted respectively under List II and List III of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, the question of repugnancy does 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

¶925

AUTHOIRTY AND OTHERS', (2011) 3 SCC 139, 'SHORT NOTES ITEM 273', 1974(1) KKAR L.J.112,

¶926

105

¶927

'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.

¶928

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 & 7 in W.P.No.55704/2019 has adopted the submissions made by learned Advocate General and learned Senior counsel for respondent No.9 in W.P.No.22707/2018 and has submitted that the issue of rehabilitation and resettlement of the owners of the lands is being taken

¶929

106

¶930

care of by the Board in the light of the Government Order issued in the year 1992.

¶931

We have considered the submissions made

¶932

by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The power of 'eminent domain' connotes the inherent power of the Government to take property especially land of a person and to convert it to public use, subject to payment of reasonable compensation. The power of 'eminent domain' was exercised under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which was adopted by the Central Government under Article 372 of the Constitution of India. Article 17 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 recognized the right of an individual to own property. The said right was recognized in the Constitution of India as fundamental right under Article 31 of the Constitution of India, which was subsequently deleted by Constitution of Forty Fourth Amendment Act. However, right to property is a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the

¶933

107

¶934

Constitution of India and has also been recognized as Human right and cannot be taken away except in accordance with law. [See: 'PADMAMMA VS. RAMKRISHNA REDDY', (2008) 15 SCC 517]. After having noticed the power of 'eminent domain' and nature and right of an individual to own property,

¶935

ISSUES:

¶936

The issues, which arise for consideration in these bunch of cases are as under:

¶937

(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?

¶938

(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 Resettlement Act, 2013?

¶939

108

¶940

(3) Whether Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 is a special enactment vis a vis Right to Fair Compensation and transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013?

¶941

(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?

¶942

(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?

¶943

(6) Whether provisions of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act apply to proceeding under 1966 Act?

¶944

We now proceed to deal with the issues ad

seriatum:

109

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

¶949

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013?

¶950

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:

¶951

(1) Whether there is direct conflict between the two provisions;

¶952

(2) Whether Parliament intended to lay down an exhaustive code in respect of the subject-matter replacing the Act of the State Legislature and

¶953

110

¶954

(3) Whether the law made by Parliament and the law made by the State Legislature occupy the same field.

¶955

In State of 'ORISSA VS. M.A.TULLOCH

¶956

AND CO.', AIR 1964 SC 284 while examining the issue

¶957

whether Orissa Mining Areas Development Fund Act, 1952 has been rendered ineffective on enactment of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, it was held as follows:

¶958

Repugnancy arises when two enactments both within the competence of the two Legislatures collide and when the Constitution expressly or by necessary implication provides that the enactment of one Legislature has superiority over the other then to the extent of the repugnancy the one supersedes the other. But two enactments may be repugnant to each other even though obedience to each of them is possible without disobeying the other. The test of two legislations containing contradictory provisions

¶959

111

¶960

is not, however, the only criterion of repugnancy, for if a competent legislature with a superior efficacy expressly or impliedly evinces by its legislation an intention to cover the whole field, the enactments of the other legislature whether passed before or after would be overborne on the ground of repugnance. Where such is the position, the inconsistency is demonstrated not by a detailed comparison of provisions of the two statutes but by the mere existence of the two pieces of legislation.

¶961

In 'SHRI RAMTANU CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS', (1970) 3 SCC

¶962

323 , the Supreme Court dealt with twin questions viz., whether State of Maharashtra is competent to enact the Maharashtra Industrial Act, 1961 and whether there is procedural discrimination between Maharashtra Industrial Act, 1961 and Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It was inter alia held that Maharashtra Industrial Act is a special Act having the specific and special purpose of

¶963

112

¶964

growth, development and organization of industries in Maharashtra and the same does not fall within Entry 7 and Entry 52 of Union List but is within State List of Industries and therefore, the State Legislature was competent to enact the aforesaid law. The relevant extract of para 15 reads as under:

¶965

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 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

¶966

113

¶967

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.

¶968

The decisions rendered in DEEP CHAND and

¶969

M.A.TULLOCH AND CO. supra were referred to with approval by the Supreme Court in 'M.KARUNANIDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA', (1979) 3 SCC 431 and the proposition emerging from various decisions of the Supreme Court were culled out in paragraphs 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33 and 35 as under:

¶970

114

¶971

24 . It is well settled that the presumption is always in favour of the constitutionality of a statute and the onus lies on the person assailing the Act to prove that it is unconstitutional. Prima facie, there does not appear to us to be any inconsistency between the State Act and the Central Acts. Before any repugnancy can arise, the following conditions must be satisfied:-

¶972

1. That there is a clear and direct inconsistency between the Central Act and the State Act.

¶973

2. That such an inconsistency is absolutely irreconcilable.

¶974

3. That the inconsistency between the provisions of the two Acts is of such a nature as to bring the two Acts into direct collision with each other and a situation is reached where it is impossible to obey the one without disobeying the other.

¶975

25 . In Colin Howard's Australian Federal Constitutional Law, 2nd Edition the author while describing the nature of

¶976

115

¶977

inconsistency between the two enactments observed as follows:-

¶978

"An obvious inconsistency arises when the two enactments produce different legal results when applied to the same facts".

¶979

26 . In the case of Hume v. Palmer Knox, C.J. observed as follows:-

¶980

"The rules prescribed by the Commonwealth Law and the State law respectively are for present purposes substantially identical, but the penalties imposed for the contravention differ... In these circumstances, it is I think, clear that the reasons given by my brothers Issacs and Starke for the decisions of this Court in Union Steamship Co. of New Zealand v. Commonwealth(1) and Clyde Engineering Co. v. Cowburn establish that the provisions of the law of the State for the breach of which the appellant was convicted are inconsistent with the law of the Commonwealth within the meaning of sec. 109 of the Constitution and are therefore invalid".

¶981

116

¶982

Issacs, J. observed as follows:-

¶983

"There can be no question that the Commonwealth Navigation Act, by its own direct provisions and the Regulations made under its authority, applies upon construction to the circumstances of the case. It is inconsistent with the State Act in various ways, including (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".

¶984

Starke, J. observed as follows:-

¶985

"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

¶986

117

¶987

State regulations are, in my opinion, inconsistent with the law of the Commonwealth and rendered invalid by force of sec. 109 of the Constitution".

¶988

27 . In a later case of the Australian High Court in Ex.

¶989

Parte Mclean(3) Issacs and Starke, JJ. while dwelling on the question of repugnancy made the following observation:-

¶990

"In Cowburn's case (supra) is stated the reasoning for that conclusion and we will now refer to those statements without repeating them. In short, the very same conduct by the same persons is dealt with in conflicting terms by the Commonwealth and State Acts. A Court, seeing that, has no authority to inquire further, or to seek to ascertain the scope or bearing of the State Act. It must simply apply sec. 109 of the Constitution, which declares the invalidity protanto of the State Act".

¶991

Similarly Dixon, J. observed thus:-

¶992

"When the Parliament of the Commonwealth and the Parliament of a State

¶993

118

¶994

each legislate upon the same subject and prescribe what the rule of conduct shall be, they make laws which are inconsistent, notwithstanding that the rule of conduct is identical which each prescribes, and sec. 109 applies. That this is so is settled, at least when the sanctions they impose are diverse Hume v. Palmer (supra)".

¶995

28 . In the case of Zaverbhai Amaidas v. The State of Bombay this Court laid down the various tests to determine the inconsistency between two enactments and observed as follows-

¶996

"The important thing to consider with reference to this provision is whether the legislation is 'in respect of the same matter'. If the later legislation deals not with the matters which formed the subject of the earlier legislation but with other and distinct matters though of a cognate and allied character, then Article 254 (2) will have no application. The principle embodied in section 107 (2) and Article 254 (2) is that when there is legislation covering the same ground both by

¶997

119

¶998

the Centre and by the Province, both of them being competent to enact the same, the law of the Centre should prevail over that of the State". "It is true, as already pointed out, that on a question under Article 254(1) whether an Act of Parliament prevails against a law of the State, no question of repeal arises; but the principle on which the rule of implied repeal rests, namely, that if subject-matter of the later legislation is identical with that of the earlier, so that they cannot both stand together, then the earlier is repealed by the later enactment, will be equally applicable to a question under Article 254(2) whether the further legislation by Parliament is in respect of the same matter as that of the State law".

¶999

29 . In the case of Ch. Tika Ramji & Ors. etc. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.(2) while dealing with the question of repugnancy between a Central and a State enactment, this Court relied on the observations 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:-

¶1000

120

¶1001

"(1) There may be inconsistency in the actual terms of the competing statutes R. Brisbane Licensing Court(1).

¶1002

(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).

¶1003

(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:

¶1004

"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

¶1005

121

¶1006

is repugnant should be on the party attacking its validity. There ought to be a presumption in favour of its validity, and every effort should be made to reconcile them and construe both so as to avoid their being repugnant to each other, and care should be taken to see whether the two do not really operate in different fields without encroachment. Further, repugnancy must exist in fact, and not depend merely on a possibility".

¶1007

30 . In the case of Om Prakash Gupta v. State of U.P.(5) where this Court was considering the question of the inconsistency between the two Central enactments, namely, the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act held that there was no inconsistency and observed as follows:-

¶1008

"It seems to us, therefore, that the two offences are distinct and separate. This is the view taken in Amarendra Nath Roy v. The State(1) and we endorse the opinion of the learned Judges, expressed therein. Our

¶1009

122

¶1010

conclusion, therefore, is that the offence created under section 5 (1) (c) of the Corruption Act is distinct and separate from the one under section 405 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, there can be no question of section 5 (1) (c) repealing section 405 of the Indian Penal Code. If that is so, then, Article 14 of the Constitution can be no bar".

¶1011

[…]

¶1012

33 . In the case of State of Orissa v. M. A. Tulloch & Co.

¶1013

(1) Ayyangar J. speaking for the Court observed as follows:-

¶1014

"Repugnancy arises when two enactments both within the competence of the two Legislatures collide and when the Constitution expressly or by necessary implication provides that the enactment of one Legislature has superiority over the other then to the extent of the repugnancy the one supersedes the other. But two enactments may be repugnant to each other even though obedience to each

¶1015

123

¶1016

of them is possible without disobeying the other. The test of two legislations containing contradictory provisions is not, however, the only criterion of repugnancy, for if a competent legislature with a superior efficacy expressly or impliedly evinces by its legislation an intention to cover the whole field, the enactments of the other legislature whether passed before or after would be overborne on the ground of repugnance. Where such is the position, the inconsistency is demonstrated not by a detailed comparison of provisions of the two statutes but by the mere existence of the two pieces of legislation".

¶1017

[…]

¶1018

35 . 1. That in order to decide 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.

¶1019

124

¶1020

2. That there can be no repeal by implication unless the inconsistency appears on the face of the two statutes.

¶1021

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.

¶1022

4. That where there is no

¶1023

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.

¶1024

22. In 'HOECHST PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.

¶1025

VS. STATE OF BIHAR', (1983) 4 SCC 45 it was held as under:

¶1026

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

¶1027

125

¶1028

impugned. If the Act, when so viewed, substantially falls within the powers expressly conferred upon the legislature which enacted it, then it cannot be held to be invalid merely because it incidentally encroaches on matters which have been assigned to another Legislature.

¶1029

23. In 'VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF

¶1030

KARNATAKA', (1990) 2 SCC 562 , it was held as under:

¶1031

46 . What is important from our point of view, is the view taken in that case that when repugnancy is alleged between the two statutes, it is necessary to examine whether the two laws occupy the same field, whether the new or the later statute covers the entire subject matter of the old, whether legislature intended to lay down an exhaustive code in respect of the subject matter covered by the earlier law so as to replace it in its entirety and whether the earlier special statute can be construed as remaining in effect as a qualification of or exception to the later

¶1032

126

¶1033

general law, since the new statute is enacted knowing fully well the existence of the earlier law and yet it has not repealed it expressly. The decision further lays down that for examining whether the two statutes cover the same subject matter, what is necessary to examine is the scope and the object of the two enactments, and that has to be done by ascertaining the intention in the usual way and what is meant by the usual way is nothing more or less than the ascertainment of the dominant object of the two legislations.

¶1034

[…]

¶1035

53. The aforesaid review of the authorities makes it clear that whenever repugnancy between the State and Central Legislation is alleged, what has to be first examined is whether the two legislations cover or relate to the same subject matter. The test for determining the same is the usual one, namely, to find out the dominant intention of the two legislations. If the dominant intention, i.e. the pith and substance of the two legislations is different, they cover different

¶1036

127

¶1037

subject matters. If the subject matters covered by the legislations are thus different, then merely because the two legislations refer to some allied or cognate subjects they do not cover the same field. The legislation, to be on the same subject matter must further cover the entire field covered by the other. A provision in one legislation to give effect to its dominant purpose may incidentally be on the same subject as covered by the provision of the other legislation. But such partial coverage of the same area in a different context and to achieve a different purpose does not 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.

¶1038

24. In 'STATE OF A.P. VS. MC DOWELL & CO.

¶1039

& OTHERS', (1996) 3 SCC 709, the Supreme Court

¶1040

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

¶1041

pith and substance as to whether the legislation falls

¶1042

128

¶1043

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

¶1044

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 Authority Act, 1976 is a law relatable to Entry 5 and 18 of List II, whereas, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is relatable to Entry 42 of List III. In 'SECURITY ASSOCIATION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA', (2014) 12 SCC 65, it was held that before determining the issue of

¶1045

129

¶1046

repugnancy between State Act & Central Act one has to see whether both Acts related to same entry in List III and whether there is direct and irreconcilable conflict between the two.

¶1047

In 'FORUM FOR PEOPLE'S COLLECTIVE

¶1048

EFFORTS (FPCE) AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER', 2021 SCC ONLINE

¶1049

SC 361 while dealing with Article 254 of the Constitution of India and repugnancy, the Supreme Court has held that Repugnancy of a statute enacted by the State Legislature with a central statute on a subject in the concurrent list may arise in anyone or more of the following modes: First, there may be an inconsistency or conflict in the actual terms of competing statutes; second, though there is no direct conflict between a State and Central statute, the later may be intended to be an exhaustive code in which event it occupies the whole field, excluding the operation of the state law on the subject in the concurrent list; and third, even in the

¶1050

130

¶1051

absence of an actual conflict, repugnancy may arise when both the State and Central statutes seek to exercise power over the same subject matter.

¶1052

Thus, from the perusal of aforementioned

¶1053

decisions of Supreme Court, following legal propositions emerge:

¶1054

(i) The presumption is always in favour of constitutionality of a statute and burden is on the person alleging the same to be unconstitutional.

¶1055

(ii) In order to decision the question of repugnancy or conflict, the doctrine of pit and substance has to be invoked.

¶1056

(iii) In order to attract doctrine of repugnancy it must be shown that both the enactments have been enacted in respect of same subject matter and operated in the same field.

¶1057

(iv) The doctrine of implied repeal applies when legislature with superior efficacy evinces an interest to cover whole field and is

¶1058

131

¶1059

an exhaustive code in respect of subject matter of State Legislation.

¶1060

(v) Clear and Direct inconsistency must exist between two enactments and such inconsistency should be absolutely irreconcilable.

¶1061

(vi) Every effort should be to made to reconcile both enactments and to construe them in such a manner so as to avoid their being repugnant to each other.

¶1062

(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.

¶1063

(viii) An enactment cannot be said to be invalid merely because it incidentally encroaches on the matters which have been assigned to another legislation.

¶1064

132

¶1065

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:

¶1066

List I :

¶1067

Industries declared by Parliament by law to be necessary for the purpose of defence or for the prosecution of war.

¶1068

Industries, the control of which by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest.

¶1069

List II :

¶1070

Industries subject to the provisions of Entries and 52 of List I.

¶1071

List III:

¶1072

Acquisition and requisitioning of property.

¶1073

It is well settled in law that declaration by

¶1074

Parliament by law to assume control over any particular industry in public interest is a sine-qua-non to clothe the Parliament with power under Entry 7 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

¶1075

133

¶1076

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. [ See: ' ISHWARI KHETAN SUGAR MILLS (P) LTD. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS', (1980) 4 SCC 136 ].

¶1077

The 1966 Act received the assent of the President on 14.05.1966 and came into force on 26.05.1966. The statement of objects and reasons of 1966 Act, read as under:

¶1078

An Act to make special provisions for securing the establishment of industrial areas in the State of Karnataka and generally to promote the establishment and orderly development of industries therein, and for that purpose to establish an Industrial Areas Development Board and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.

¶1079

Thus, from perusal of statement of objects and reasons, it is axiomatic that 1966 Act is an Act for

¶1080

134

¶1081

establishment of an industrial area, for promoting the establishment and orderly development of industries and establishment of Industrial Areas Development Board. Section 3 of the 1966 Act empowers the State Government to declare any area in the State to be an industrial area for the purposes of 1966 Act. Section 4 of the 1966 Act empowers the State Government to alter the industrial area by including or excluding any area from industrial area. Section 5 of the Act deals with establishment and incorporation of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, which is a Body Corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal. Section 6 of the 1966 Act provides for constitution of the Board, whereas, Section 7 of the 1966 Act deals with terms of office and conditions of service for members of the Board. Section 11 of the 1966 Act provides for appointment of Chief Executive Officer of the Board as well as other employees. Section 13 of the 1966 Act defines the functions of the Board, whereas, Section 14

¶1082

135

¶1083

of the 1966 Act defines the general power of the Board. Chapter V of the Act, which contain Sections 18 to 24 of the 1966 Act deal with 'Finance, Accounts and Audit' of the Board. Chapter VI, which contain Sections 25 & 26 of the 1966 Act provide that provisions of Karnataka 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:

¶1084

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.

¶1085

Section 28. Acquisition of land - (1) If at any time, in the opinion of the State Government, any land is required for the

¶1086

136

¶1087

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.

¶1088

(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 not be acquired.

¶1089

(3) After considering the cause, if any, shown by the owner of the land and by any other person interested therein, and after giving such owner and person an opportunity of being heard, the State Government may pass such orders as it deems fit.

¶1090

(4) After orders are passed under subSection (3), where the State Government is satisfied that any land should be acquired for the purpose specified in the Notification issued

¶1091

137

¶1092

under sub-Section (1), a declaration shall, by Notification in the Official Gazette, be made to that effect.

¶1093

(5) On the publication in the official gazette of the declaration under sub-Section (4), the land shall vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances.

¶1094

(6) Where any land is vested in the State Government under Sub-Section (5), the State Government may, by notice in writing, order any person who may be in possession of the land to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government or any person duly authorized by it in this behalf within thirty days of the service of the notice.

¶1095

(7) If any person refuses or fails to comply with an order made under sub-Section (5), the State Government or any Officer authorized by the State Government in this behalf may take possession of the land and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary.

¶1096

138

¶1097

(8) Where the land 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.

¶1098

29. Compensation .—(1) Where any land is acquired by the State Government under this Chapter, the State Government shall pay for such acquisition compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

¶1099

(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.

¶1100

(3) Where no 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.

¶1101

139

¶1102

(4) On receipt of a reference under subsection (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 their respective interests in the said land.

¶1103

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.

¶1104

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.

¶1105

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:

¶1106

140

¶1107

Act. No.30 of 2013 - 1. The Land

¶1108

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. The Act does not address the issues of rehabilitation and resettlement to the affected persons and their families.

¶1109

2 . The definition of the expression "public purpose" as given in the Act is very wide. It has therefore, become necessary to re-define it so as to restrict its scope for acquisition of land for strategic purposes vital to the State, and for infrastructure projects where the benefits accrue to the general public. The provisions of the Act are also used for acquiring private lands for companies. This frequently raises a question mark on the

¶1110

141

¶1111

desirability of such State intervention when land could be arranged by the company through private negotiations on a "willing seller-willing buyer" basis, which could be seen to be a more fair arrangement from the point of view of the land owner. In order to streamline the provisions of the Act causing less hardships to the owners of the land and other persons dependant upon such land, it in proposed repeal the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and to replace it with adequate provisions for rehabilitation and resettlement for the affected persons and their families.

¶1112

3 . There have been multiple amendments to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 not only by the Central Government but by the State Governments as well. Further, there has been heightened public concern on land acquisition, especially multi-cropped irrigated land and there is no central law to adequately deal with the issues of rehabilitation and resettlement of displaced persons. As land acquisition and rehabilitation and resettlement need to be seen as two sides of the same coin, a single integrated law to deal with the issues

¶1113

142

¶1114

of land acquisition and rehabilitation and resettlement has become necessary. Hence the proposed legislation proposes to address concerns of farmers and those whose livelihoods are dependent on the land being acquired, while at the same time facilitating land acquisition for industrialization, infrastructure and urbanization projects in a timely and transparent manner.

¶1115

5 . It is now proposed to have a unified legislation dealing with acquisition of land, provide for just and fair compensation and make adequate provisions for rehabilitation and resettlement mechanism for the affected persons and their families. The Bill thus provides for repealing and replacing the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with broad provisions for adequate rehabilitation and resettlement mechanism for the project affected persons and their families.

¶1116

11 . "Public purpose" has been comprehensively defined, so that Government intervention in acquisition is limited to defence, certain development projects only. It has also

¶1117

143

¶1118

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.

¶1119

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.

¶1120

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.

¶1121

144

¶1122

22 . Certain Central Acts dealing with the land acquisition have been enlisted in the Bill. The provisions of the Bill are in addition to and not in derogation of these Acts. The provisions of this Act can be applied to these existing enactments by a notification of the Central Government.

¶1123

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

¶1124

to promote establishment and orderly development of

¶1125

145

¶1126

industries therein and for matters incidental thereto. The 1966 Act has been enacted under Entry 24 of List II to the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. Both the enactments i.e., 1966 Act and 2013 Act taken together, as well as its objects and effect of provisions of the Act it is evident that the establishment, growth and development of industries in the State of Karnataka or development of land for the Board does not fall either within Entry 7 or Entry 52 of List I to Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. It is pertinent to note that no declaration under Entry 52 of List I relating to 2013 Act or relating to matters covered by 1966 Act has been made. Both the Acts have been enacted under different Entries. Merely because 1966 Act incidentally provides for acquisition of land for industries, it cannot be held that 1966 Act has been enacted under Entry 43 of List III of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. Since, both the statutes have been enacted under

¶1127

146

¶1128

different entries in different Lists, therefore, the question of repugnancy does not arise.

¶1129

Section 28(1) of 1966 Act, Section 2(a) to (f) and Section 2(b)(iii) of 2013 Act are extracted below for facility of reference:

¶1130

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.

¶1131

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:—

¶1132

147

¶1133

(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

¶1134

(b) For infrastructure projects, which includes the following, namely:—

¶1135

(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;

¶1136

(ii) Projects involving agro-processing, supply of inputs to agriculture, warehousing, cold storage facilities, marketing infrastructure for agriculture and allied activities such as dairy, fisheries, and meat processing, set up or owned by the appropriate Government or by a farmers' cooperative or by an institution set up under a statute;

¶1137

(iii) Project for industrial corridors or mining activities, national investment and

¶1138

148

¶1139

manufacturing zones, as designated in the National Manufacturing Policy;

¶1140

(iv) Project for water harvesting and water conservation structures, sanitation;

¶1141

(v) Project for Government administered, Government aided educational and research schemes or institutions;

¶1142

(vi) Project for sports, heath care, tourism, transportation of space programme;

¶1143

(vii) Any infrastructure facility as may be notified in this regard by the Central Government and after tabling of such notification in Parliament;

¶1144

(c) Project for project affected families;

¶1145

(d) Project for housing, or such income groups, as may be specified from time to time by the appropriate Government;

¶1146

(e) Project for planned development or the improvement of village sites or any site in the urban areas or provision of land for residential purposes for the weaker sections in rural and urban areas;

¶1147

(f) Project for residential purposes to the poor or landless or to persons residing in areas affected by natural calamities, or to persons

¶1148

149

¶1149

displaced or affected by reason of the implementation of any scheme undertaken by the Government, any local authority or a corporation owned or controlled by the State.

¶1150

2. Application of Act .—

¶1151

(b) For infrastructure projects, which includes the following, namely:—

¶1152

(i) xxxxxxxx

¶1153

(ii) xxxxx

¶1154

(iii) Project for industrial corridors or mining activities, national investment and manufacturing zones, as designated in the National Manufacturing Policy;

¶1155

It is pertinent to note that Section 28(1) of

¶1156

the 1966 Act provides that if the State Government is of the opinion that any land is required for the purpose of development by the Board, then a Notification will be issued for acquisition of the land. Thus, the acquisition of the land under the 1966 Act is for the purpose of development by the Board which does not fall under any of the activities as set out in Section 2(1)(a) to (f) of the

¶1157

150

¶1158

2013 Act. It is noteworthy that provisions of 2013 Act apply in respect of project for industrial corridor for mining activities, national investment and manufacturing zones, as designed by the National Manufacturing Policy by virtue of Section 2(b)(iii) of the 2013 Act, whereas, 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.

¶1159

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.

¶1160

151

¶1161

Section 28 to 30 of 1966 Act Section 11 to 19, 26 & 28 of 2013 Act

¶1162

28. Acquisition of land .— 11. Publication of (1) If at any time, in the opinion preliminary notification and of the State Government, any power of officers land is required for the purpose thereupon .—(1) Whenever, it of development by the Board, or appears to the appropriate for any other purpose in Government that land in any furtherance of the objects of area is required or likely to be this Act, the State Government required for any public purpose, may by notification, give notice a notification (hereinafter of its intention to acquire such referred to as preliminary land. notification) to that effect along with details of the land to be (2) On publication of a acquired in rural and urban notification under sub-section areas shall be published in the (1), the State Government shall following manner, namely:— serve notice upon the owner or where the owner is not the ( a ) in the Official Gazette; occupier, on the occupier of the ( b ) in two daily land and on all such persons newspapers circulating known or believed to be in the locality of such interested therein to show area of which one shall cause, within thirty days from be in the regional the date of service of the notice, language; why the land should not be ( c ) in the local language acquired. in the Panchayat, (3) After considering the Municipality or Municipal Corporation, cause, if any, shown by the as the case may be owner of the land and by any and in the offices of other person interested therein, the District Collector, and after giving such owner and the Sub-divisional person an opportunity of being Magistrate and the heard, the State Government Tehsil; may pass such orders as it ( d ) uploaded on the deems fit. website of the appropriate (4) After orders are passed Government; under sub-section (3), where the State Government is ( e ) in the affected areas,

¶1163

152

¶1164

satisfied that any land should be in such manner as acquired for the purpose may be prescribed. specified in the notification (2) Immediately after issued under sub-section (1), a issuance of the notification declaration shall, by notification under sub-section (1), the in the official Gazette, be made concerned Gram Sabha or to that effect. Sabhas at the village level, (5) On the publication in the municipalities in case of official Gazette of the municipal areas and the declaration under sub-section Autonomous Councils in case of (4), the land shall vest the areas referred to in the absolutely in the State Sixth Schedule to the Government free from all Constitution, shall be informed encumbrances. of the contents of the notification issued under the (6) Where any land is vested said sub-section in all cases of in the State Government under land acquisition at a meeting sub-section (5), the State called especially for this Government may, by notice in purpose.

¶1165

(6) Where any land is vested in the State Government under sub-section (5), the State Government may, by notice in writing, order any person who may be in possession of the land to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government or any person duly authorised by it in this behalf within thirty days of the service of the notice.

¶1166

(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.

¶1167

(7) If any person refuses or fails to comply with an order made under sub-section (5), the State Government or any officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf may take possession of the land and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary.

¶1168

(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

¶1169

(8) Where the land has been acquired for the Board, the State Government, after it has

¶1170

153

¶1171

taken possession of the land,	under this Chapter are
may transfer the land to the Board for the purpose for which the land has been acquired.	completed: Provided that the Collector may, on the application made by the owner of the land so notified, exempt in special circumstances to be recorded in writing, such owner from the operation of this sub-section: Provided further that any loss or injury suffered by any person due to his wilful violation of this provision shall not be made up by the Collector. (5) After issuance of notice under sub-section (1), the Collector shall, before the issue of a declaration under Section 19, undertake and complete the exercise of updating of land records as prescribed within a period of two months.
29. Compensation .—(1)	12. Preliminary survey of
Where any land is acquired by the State Government under	land and power of officers to carry out survey .—For the
this Chapter, the State	purposes of enabling the
Government shall pay for such acquisition compensation in	appropriate Government to determine the extent of land to
accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) Where the amount of compensation has been determined by agreement	be acquired, it shall be lawful for any officer, either generally or specially authorised by such Government in this behalf, and for his servants and workmen,—
between the State Government	(a) to enter upon and
and the person to be	survey and take levels ofanylandinsuch

¶1172

154

¶1173

compensated, it shall be paid in accordance with such agreement. (3) Where no 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. (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 their respective interests in the said land.

¶1174

locality; ( b ) to dig or bore into the sub-soil; ( c ) to do all other acts necessary to ascertain whether the land is adapted for such purpose; ( d ) to set out the boundaries of the land proposed to be taken and the intended line of the work (if any) proposed to be made thereon; and ( e ) to mark such levels, boundaries and line by placing marks and cutting trenches and where otherwise the survey cannot be completed and the levels taken and the boundaries and line marked, to cut down and clear away any part of any standing crop, fence or jungle:

¶1175

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:

¶1176

Provided further that the acts specified under the first proviso may be undertaken in the absence of the owner, if the

¶1177

155

¶1178

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 13. Payment for 1 of 1894 .—The provisions of damage .—The officer so authorised under Section 12 the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall at the time of entry under (Central Act 1 of 1894) Section 12 pay or tender shall mutatis mutandis apply in payment for any damage caused, and, in case of dispute respect of the enquiry and as to the sufficiency of the award by the Deputy amount so paid or tendered, he Commissioner, the reference to shall at once refer the dispute to the decision of the Collector or Court, the apportionment of other chief revenue officer of compensation and the payment the district, and such decision shall be final. of compensation, in respect of lands acquired under this Chapter. 31. Delegation of powers 14. Lapse of Social Impact by the State Government .— Assessment Report .—Where a The State Government may if it preliminary notification under thinks fit delegate any of its Section 11 is not issued within powers under this Chapter to twelve months from the date of any of its officers, by rules appraisal of the Social Impact

¶1179

156

¶1180

made in this behalf.	Assessment report submitted by
	the Expert Group under Section 7, then, such report shall be deemed to have lapsed and a fresh Social Impact Assessment shall be required to be undertaken prior to acquisition proceedings under Section 11: Provided 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 further 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.
	15. Hearing of
	objections .—(1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under sub-section (1) of Section 11, as being required or likely to be required for a public purpose, may within sixty days from the date of the publication of the preliminary notification, object to—
	(a) the area and
	suitability of land
	proposed to be
	acquired;
	(b) justification offered

¶1181

157

¶1182

for public purpose;
(c) the findings of the Social Impact Assessment report.
(2) Every objection under
sub-section (1) shall be made to
the Collector in writing, and the
Collector shall give the objector
an opportunity of being heard in
person or by any person
authorised by him in this behalf or by an Advocate and shall,
after hearing all such objections
and after making such further
inquiry, if any, as he thinks
necessary, either make a report in respect of the land which has
been notified under sub-section
(1) of Section 11, or make
different reports in respect of
different parcels of such land, to
the appropriate Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with
the record of the proceedings
held by him along with a
separate 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.

¶1183

158

¶1184

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,

¶1185

159

¶1186

where resettlement of
affected families is involved; and
(e) details of any common property resources being acquired. (2) The Administrator shall,
based on the survey and census
under sub-section (1), prepare a draft Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Scheme, as
prescribed which shall include
particulars of the rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements
of each land owner and landless
whose livelihoods are primarily
dependent on the lands being
acquired and where
resettlement of affected families is involved—
(i) a list of Government
buildings to be
provided in the Resettlement area;
(ii) details of the public
amenities and
infrastructural facilities
which are to be
provided in the
Resettlement Area.
(3) The draft Rehabilitation
and Resettlement scheme
referred to in sub-section (2)
shall include time limit for
implementing Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme;
(4)The draftRehabilitation

¶1187

160

¶1188

and Resettlement scheme
referred to in sub-section (2)
shall be made known locally by
wide publicity in the affected
area and discussed in the
concerned Gram Sabhas or Municipalities. (5) A public hearing shall be
conducted in such manner as
may be prescribed, after giving
adequate publicity about the
date, time and venue for the
public hearing at the affected
area: Provided that in case where
an affected area involves more
than one Gram Panchayat or
Municipality, public hearings shall be conducted in every
Gram Sabha and Municipality
where more than twenty-five
per cent of land belonging to
that Gram Sabha or Municipality is being acquired: Provided further that the
consultation with the Gram
Sabha in Scheduled Areas shall
be in accordance with the
provisions of the Panchayats
(Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (40 of 1996).
(6) The Administrator shall,
on completion of public hearing submit the draft Scheme for
Rehabilitation and Resettlement
along with a specific report on
the claims and objections raised
in the public hearing to the

¶1189

161

¶1190

Collector. 17. Review of the
Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Scheme .—(1)
The Collector shall review the
draft Scheme submitted under
sub-section (6) of Section 16 by
the Administrator with the
Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Committee at the project level
constituted under Section 45;
(2) The Collector shall
submit the draft Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Scheme with
his suggestions to the
Commissioner Rehabilitation
and Resettlement for approval
of the Scheme.
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
mannerasmay be prescribed,

¶1191

162

¶1192

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 same
preliminary notification
irrespective of whether one
report or different reports has or
have been made (wherever
required).
(2) The Collector shall
publish a summary of the
Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Scheme along with draft
declaration referred to in sub- section (1):

¶1193

163

¶1194

Provided that no declaration
under this sub-section shall be
made unless the summary of
the Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Scheme is
published along with such declaration: Provided further that no
declaration under this sub-
section shall be made unless the
Requiring Body deposits an
amount, in full or part, as may be prescribed by the appropriate Government toward the cost of acquisition of the land:
Provided also that the
Requiring Body shall deposit the
amount promptly so as to
enable the appropriate
Government to publish the declaration within a period of
twelve months from the date of
the publication of preliminary notification under Section 11.
(3) In projects where land is
acquired in stages, the
application for acquisition itself can specify different stages for
the rehabilitation and
resettlement, and all
declarations shall be made
according to the stages so specified.
(4) Every declaration
referred to in sub-section (1)
shall be published in the
following manner, namely:—

¶1195

164

¶1196

(a) in the Official Gazette;
(b) in two daily
newspapers being
circulated in the
locality, of such area
of which one shall be
in the regional language;
(c) in the local language
in the Panchayat,
Municipality or
Municipal Corporation,
as the case may be,
and in the offices of
the District Collector,
the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate and the Tehsil;
(d) uploaded on the
website of the
appropriate Government;
(e) in the affected areas,
in such manner as
may be prescribed.
(5) Every declaration
referred to in sub-section (1)
shall indicate,—
(a) the district or other
territorial division in
which the land is
situated;
(b) the purpose for which
it is needed, its
approximate area; and
(c) where a plan shall
have been made for the land, the place at

¶1197

165

¶1198

which such plan may
be inspected without any cost. (6) The declaration referred
to in sub-section (1) shall be conclusive evidence that the
land is required for a public
purpose and, after making such
declaration, the appropriate
Government may acquire the
land in such manner as specified under this Act. (7) Where no declaration is
made under sub-section (1)
within twelve 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
shallberecordedin writing and

¶1199

166

¶1200

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
(c) consented amount of
compensation as agreed upon under
sub-section (2) of
Section 2 in case of
acquisition of lands for
private companies or for public private partnership projects,
whichever is higher:
Provided that the datefor

¶1201

167

¶1202

determination of market value
shall be the date on which the
notification has been issued under Section 11. Explanation 1.—The average
sale price referred to in clause
(b) shall be determined taking into account the sale deeds or
the agreements to sell
registered for similar type of
area in the near village or near
vicinity area during immediately preceding three years of the
year in which such acquisition of land is proposed to be made.
Explanation 2.—For
determining the average sale
price referred to in Explanation
1, one-half of the total number of sale deeds or the agreements
to sell in which the highest sale
price has been mentioned shall be taken into account.
Explanation 3.—While
determining the market value
under this section and the
average sale price referred to in
Explanation 1 or Explanation 2,
any price paid as compensation
for land acquired under the
provisions of this Act on an
earlier occasion in the district
shall not be taken into
consideration. Explanation 4.—While
determining the market value
under this section and the
average sale price referred to in

¶1203

168

¶1204

Explanation 1 or Explanation 2,
any price paid, which in the
opinion of the Collector is not
indicative of actual prevailing
market value may be discounted for the purposes of calculating market value. (2) The market value
calculated as per sub-section
(1) shall be multiplied by a
factor to be specified in the First Schedule. (3) Where the market value
under sub-section (1) or sub-
section (2) cannot be
determined for the reason that—
(a) the land is situated in such area where the transactions in land are restricted by or under any other law
for the time being in force in that area; or
(b) the registered sale
deeds or agreements to sell as mentioned in
clause (a) of sub- section (1) for similar
land are not available for the immediately
preceding three years; or
(c) the market value has
not been specified
under the Indian
Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of

¶1205

169

¶1206

1899) by the appropriate authority,
the State Government concerned shall specify the floor price or minimum price per unit area of the said land based on
the price calculated in the
manner specified in sub-section
(1) in respect 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

¶1207

170

¶1208

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 educational institutions of their choice.
28. Parameters to be
considered by Collector in determination of award.—In
determining the amount of
compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the
Collector shall take into consideration—
firstly, the market value as determined under Section 26 and the award amount in accordance with the First and Second Schedules; secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops and trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof;
thirdly, the damage (if

¶1209

171

¶1210

any) sustained by the person
interested, at the time of the
Collector's taking possession
of the land, by reason of
severing such land from his other land;
fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person
interested, at the time of the
Collector's taking possession
of the land, by reason of the
acquisition injuriously affecting his other property,
movable or immovable, in
any other manner, or his
earnings; fifthly, in consequence of
the acquisition of the land by
the Collector, the person
interested is compelled to
change his residence or place
of business, the reasonable
expenses (if any) incidental to such change;
sixthly, the damage (if any)
bona fide resulting from
diminution of the profits of the
land between the time of the
publication of the declaration
under Section 19 and the time
of the Collector's taking
possession of the land; and seventhly, any other ground
which may be in the interest of
equity, justice and beneficial to the affected families.

¶1211

172

¶1212

Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is evident that the aforesaid provisions are not in conflict with each other and can co-exist and essentially deal with the fundamental concepts of acquisition viz., providing an opportunity of hearing to the owners of the land and for determination of compensation. Availability of two procedures for acquisition and compensation would not per se invalidate one of them.

¶1213

Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India reads as under:

¶1214

254 . Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States-

¶1215

(1) xxxx

¶1216

(2) Where a law made by the legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent list contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law

¶1217

173

¶1218

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:

¶1219

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.

¶1220

Thus, in exercise of powers under Proviso to

¶1221

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.

¶1222

174

¶1223

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.

¶1224

ISSUE NO.2

¶1225

(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 Resettlement Act, 2013?

¶1226

The principle that a prior special law is held to be impliedly repealed by later general law has been dealt with succinctly by Justice G.P.Singh in Principles of Statutory Interpretation 14th Edition Page 741, which read as under:

¶1227

As an application of the above principles a prior particular or special law is not readily held to be impliedly repealed by later general enactment. The particular or special law deals only with a particular phase of the subject covered by the general law and, therefore, a reconciliation is normally possible between a prior particular Act and a

¶1228

175

¶1229

later general Act and so the particular Act is construed as an exception or qualification of the general Act. To quote the words of Lord Philimore, "it is a sound principle of all jurisprudence that a prior particular law is not easily to be held to be abrogated by a posterior law, expressed in general terms and by the apparent generality of its language applicable to and covering a number of cases, of which the particular law is but one. This, as a matter of jurisprudence, as understood in England, has been laid down in a great number of cases, whether the prior law be an express statute, or be the underlying common or customary law of the country. Where general words in a later Act are capable of reasonable and sensible application without extending them to subjects specially dealt with by earlier legislation, that earlier and special legislation is not be held indirectly repealed, altered, or derogated from merely by force of such general words, without any indication of a particular intention to do so.

¶1230

176

¶1231

The Supreme Court in ' MUNICIPAL

¶1232

COUNCIL PALI VS. T.J.JOSPEH', AIR 1963 SC 1561

¶1233

while dealing with Doctrine of implied repeal has held that there is a presumption against an implied repeal. The reason for this rule is based on the theory that legislature while enacting a law has complete knowledge of existing laws on the same subject matter and therefore when it does not provide a repealing provision, it gives an intention not to repeal the existing legislation. The concept of implied repeal applies under two contingencies. (i) if the dominant legislature proposes to occupy the entire field in what is popularly called as "doctrine of occupied field" and (ii) if the special law is enacted in respect of the field in which the general law occupies. The aforesaid 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',

¶1234

177

¶1235

(2015) 17 SCC 65 and ' UNION OF INDIA VS. RANJEET KUMAR SAHA', (2019) 7 SCC 505 .

¶1236

Section 103 of 2013 Act reads as under:

¶1237

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.

¶1238

Thus, it is evident that the provisions of 2013

¶1239

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

¶1240

178

¶1241

schedule to the Constitution of India. Thus, 2013 Act does not deal with the prohibited field viz., industries and therefore, the doctrine of occupied field does not apply to the fact situation of the case. Similarly, 2013 Act is not a special law and therefore, it is not a case where special law is enacted in respect of field, which general law occupies. Therefore, 2013 Act not being a special law does not occupy the field in respect of subject matter in respect of which 1966 Act has been enacted. Thus, the issue No.2 is also answered in the negative and it is held that provisions of 1966 Act are

¶1242

not impliedly repeal on coming to force of 2013 Act.

¶1243

ISSUE NO.3.

¶1244

(3) Whether Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 is a special enactment vis a vis Right to Fair Compensation and transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013?

¶1245

179

¶1246

The Supreme Court in ' MUNITHIMMAIAH

¶1247

VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA', (2002) 4 SCC 326 while

¶1248

dealing with provisions of Bangalore Development Authority, 1976 and Land Acquisition Act, 1894 held that Bangalore Development Authority Act is an Act to provide for the establishment of a development authority to facilitate and ensure land growth and development of the city of Bangalore and areas adjacent thereto and the acquisition of any land for such development is merely incidental to the main object of the Act i.e., development of Bangalore Metropolitan Area and in pith and substance the Bangalore Development Authority Act squarely falls under Entry 5 of List II of seventh Schedule and is not a law for acquisition of land like land Acquisition Act, 1894 traceable to Entry 42 of List III of seventh schedule. The aforesaid view was reiterated in

¶1249

'BONDU RANGASWAMY VS. BDA', (2010) 7 SCC 129.

¶1250

180

¶1251

The 1966 Act had been enacted with 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 third issue is answered.

¶1252

ISSUE NO.4

¶1253

(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

¶1254

Act?

¶1255

181

¶1256

45. The relevant extract of Article 31 of the

¶1257

Constitution of India prior to its repeal by Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 read as under:

¶1258

“31. Compulsory acquisition of property –

¶1259

(1) No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.

¶1260

(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:

¶1261

Provided that in making any law providing for the compulsory acquisition of any property

¶1262

182

¶1263

of an educational institution established and administered by a minority, referred to in clause (1) of article 30, The State shall ensure that the amount fixed or determined under such law for the acquisition of such property in such as would not restrict or abrogate the right guaranteed under that clause.

¶1264

(2-A) Where a law does not provide for the transfer of the ownership or right to possession of any property to the State or to a corporation owned or controlled by the State, it shall not be deemed to provide for the compulsory acquisition or requisitioning of property, notwithstanding that it deprives any person of his property.

¶1265

(2-B) Nothing in sub-clause (f) of clause (1) of article 19 shall affect any such law as is referred to in clause (2).

¶1266

(3) No such law as is referred to in clause (2) made by the Legislature of a State shall have effect unless such law, having been reserved for the consideration of the President, has received his assent”.

¶1267

183

¶1268

Thus in respect of law which provided for

¶1269

compulsory acquisition of a property for a public purpose enacted by legislature of a state, and assent of the president was required to be taken, in order to make such a law effective. The 1966 Act received assent of the President of India on 14th May, 1966.

¶1270

Article 31A of the Constitution of India deals

¶1271

with saving of laws providing for acquisition of estates which is extracted below for the facility of reference:

¶1272

“31A. Saving of laws providing for acquisition of estates, etc ( 1 ) Notwithstanding anything contained in Article 13, no law providing for

¶1273

(a) the acquisition by the State of any estate or of any rights therein or the extinguishment or modification of any such rights, or

¶1274

(b) the taking over of the management of any property by the State for a limited period either in the public interest or in order to

¶1275

184

¶1276

secure the proper management of the property, or

¶1277

(c) the amalgamation of two or more corporations either in the public interest or in order to secure the proper management of any of the corporations, or

¶1278

(d) the extinguishment or modification of any rights of managing agents, secretaries and treasurers, managing directors, directors or managers of corporations, or of any voting rights of shareholders thereof, or

¶1279

(e) the extinguishment or modification of any rights accruing by virtue of any agreement, lease or licence for the purpose of searching for, or winning, any mineral or mineral oil, or the premature termination or cancellation of any such agreement, lease or 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

¶1280

185

¶1281

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”

¶1282

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, assent of the President is required to be taken before such a law enacted by the state legislature becomes effective.

¶1283

186

¶1284

48. The Supreme Court in K.T.PLANTATION V.

¶1285

STATE OF KARNATAKA, (2011) 9 SCC 1 , has held as under:

¶1286

“111. We are of the considered view that the Acquisition Act, in this case, as rightly contended by the State, primarily falls under List II Entry 18, since the dominant intention of the legislature was to preserve and protect Roerichs Estate covered by the provisions of the Land Reforms Act, on the State Government withdrawing the exemption in respect of the land used for linaloe cultivation. The Acquisition Act, though primarily falls under List II Entry 18 incidentally, also deals with the acquisition of paintings, artefacts and other valuable belongings of the Roerichs and, hence the Act partly falls under List III Entry 42 as well. Since the dominant purpose of the Act was to preserve and protect Roerichs Estate as part of agrarian reforms, the inclusion of ancillary measures would not throw the law out of the protection of Article 31-A(1)(a).

¶1287

187

¶1288

112. On the other hand, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is an Act which fell exclusively under List III Entry 42 and enacted for the purpose of acquisition of land needed for public purposes for companies and for determining the amount of compensation to be made on account of such acquisition, which is substantially and materially different from the impugned Act whose dominant purpose is to preserve and protect “estate” governed by Article 31-A(1)(a) read with Article 31-A(2)(a)(iii) of the Constitution.

¶1289

113. We are, therefore, pf the considered view that no assent of the President was required under Article 254(2) of the Constitution to sustain the impugned Act, which falls under Article 31-A(1)(a) of the Constitution, for which the assent of the President was obtained. The contention of the counsel that the Acquisition Act was invalid due to repugnancy is, therefore, rejected”

¶1290

Thus, there is a fundamental distinction between

¶1291

obtaining assent of the President under Article 31A(1) of

¶1292

188

¶1293

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 State legislature and the Parliament. In the instant case, the 1966 Act as well as 2013 Act have been enacted 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

¶1294

this case.

¶1295

189

¶1296

For the aforementioned reasons, the fourth issue is

¶1297

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.

¶1298

ISSUE NO.5.

¶1299

(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?

¶1300

The provisions of 2013 Act have been amended by the State Legislature by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2019, the aforesaid amendment act had received the assent of the President on 16.07.2019.

¶1301

190

¶1302

By the aforesaid Amendment Act, several provisions of 2013 Act have been amended, however, the amendments which are relevant for decision of the controversy involved in these appeals are, Amendment of Section 2, insertion of Sections 10A, 23A, 30A and 31A. The aforesaid provisions are extracted below for the facility of reference:

¶1303

10-A . Power of State Government to exempt certain projects.The State Government may in the public interest, by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt any of the following projects from the application of the provisions of Chapter II and Chapter III of this Act, namely:- (a) such projects vital to national security or defence of India and every part thereof, including preparation for defence or defence production; (b) infrastructure projects including educational institutions, Hospitals, Government or Local Self Government Offices electrification, irrigation projects and drinking water projects; and (c) affordable housing and housing for the poor people." (d)

¶1304

191

¶1305

industrial corridors set up by the State Government and its undertaking (in which case the land shall be acquired up to such distance on both sides of designated railway lines or roads and as specified by the State Government for specific projects from time to time and notified as such in State Gazette); and (e) infrastructure projects, including projects under public-private partnership where the ownership of the land continues to vest with the State Government: Provided that, the State Government shall, before the issue of notification, ensure the extent of land for the proposed acquisition keeping in view the minimum land required for such project”

¶1306

“ 23-A . Award of Deputy Commissioner without enquiry in case of agreement of interested persons:(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 23, if at any stage of the proceedings, the Deputy Commissioner is satisfied that all the persons interested in the land who appeared before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the award of the Deputy

¶1307

192

¶1308

Commissioner in the form prescribed by rules made by the State Government, he may, without 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.

¶1309

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

¶1310

193

¶1311

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 official Gazette. On such publication of notification, the title, ownership and all interests of the land owner who enters into agreement shall vest with the State Government free from all encumbrances. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act, 1908(Central Act16 of 1908) no agreement entered under sub-section (1) shall be liable for registration under that Act. (4) If any family, other than the family of the land owner who entered into an agreement, is affected by the acquisition of land under this section, the State Government shall pay a lump-sum amount towards rehabilitation and resettlement if any, as prescribed in the rules made thereunder: 5 Provided that, no agreement or the lump-sum amount towards rehabilitation and resettlement as may be

¶1312

194

¶1313

prescribed, shall be abnormally at variance to the disadvantage of the land owners.

¶1314

" 31 - A . Payment of Lump-sum amount by State Government.- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, whenever the land is to be acquired for any projects as notified in section 10-A, it shall be competent for the State Government to pay such lump sum amount as may be prescribed in the rules in lieu of Rehabilitation and Resettlement: Provided that the payment of such lump-sum amount in lieu of Rehabilitation and Resettlement as may be prescribed, shall not be abnormally at variance to the disadvantage of the affected families.

¶1315

By the aforesaid Amendment Act, the state government has been granted the power to exempt the projects mentioned therein from the application of Chapter II and III of the Act. The KIADB vide its resolution dated 27.08.2016 has resolved to determine the amount of compensation in respect of the land which

¶1316

195

¶1317

may be acquired under 1966 Act as per Schedule I of 2013 Act. Therefore, the grievance of the owners of the

¶1318

land in so far as it pertains to payment of lesser compensation under 1966 Act does not survive. It has been urged on behalf of the owners of the land that the provisions of the Karnataka Amendment Act 2019 are arbitrary and are opposed to all canons of law and voilative of Article 21. However, except for making such a statement no material has been brought on record 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. Accordingly the issue No.5 is answered.

¶1319

196

¶1320

ISSUE NO.6

¶1321

(6) Whether provisions of Section 24(2) of 2013

¶1322

Act apply to proceeding under 1966 Act?

¶1323

The aforesaid issue is no longer res integra.

¶1324

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:

¶1325

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)

¶1326

197

¶1327

“13. It is also noted that the acquisition proceedings including preliminary and final declaration have been passed under the provisions of the KIAD Act. But there is no provision under the KIAD Act to pass an award and award has to be passed only under the provisions of the LA Act, 1894. If the award has to be passed under the LA 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 under Section 11. If the award is passed under the LA Act, the enquiry has to be conducted by the Deputy Commissioner or Collector before passing the award. Section 11-A contemplates that 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 that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Nagabhushana v. State of Karnataka [M. Nagabhushana v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 3 SCC 408 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 733] has held that Section 11-A of the Act is no

¶1328

198

¶1329

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 landowners.

¶1330

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 under Section 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 the case of the respondent that award is not required to be passed under the provisions of the LA Act. When the award is

¶1331

199

¶1332

required to be passed under the LA Act, the respondents cannot contend that the provisions of the new Act cannot be made applicable on account of non-payment of compensation within a period of five years.”

¶1333

29 . This approach of the High Court, we find, to be totally erroneous. In the first instance, the matter 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)

¶1334

200

¶1335

3 SCC 408 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 733] , SCC pp. 420-22, paras 29-36)

¶1336

“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 acquired under the said Act vests only under Section 16 thereof, which runs as under:

¶1337

‘16. Power to take possession.—When the Collector has made an award under Section 11, he may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances.’

¶1338

30. On a comparison of the aforesaid provisions, namely, Sections 28(4) and 28(5) of the KIAD Act with Section 16 of the said Act, it is clear that the land which is subject to acquisition proceeding under the said Act gets vested with the Government only when the

¶1339

201

¶1340

Collector makes an award under Section 11, and the Government takes possession. Under Sections 28(4) and 28(5) of the KIAD Act, such vesting takes place by operation of law and it has nothing to do with the making of any award. This is where Sections 28(4) and 28(5) of the KIAD Act are vitally different from Sections 4 and 6 of the said Act.

¶1341

31. A somewhat similar question came up for consideration before a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Pratap v. State of Rajasthan [Pratap v. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 3 SCC 1] . In that case the acquisition proceedings commenced under Section 52(2) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 and the same contentions were raised, namely, that the acquisition notification gets invalidated for not making an award within a period of two years from the date of notification. Repelling the said contention, the learned Judges held that once the land is vested in the Government, the provisions of Section 11-A are not attracted and the acquisition proceedings will not lapse. (Pratap

¶1342

202

¶1343

case [Pratap v. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 3 SCC 1] , SCC p. 8, para 12.)

¶1344

32. In Munithimmaiah v. State of

¶1345

Karnataka [Munithimmaiah v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 326] this Court held that the provisions of Sections 6 and 11-A of the said Act do not apply to the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (the BDA Act). In SCC para 15 at p. 335 of the Report this Court made a distinction between the purposes of the two enactments and held that all the provisions of the said Act do not apply to the BDA Act. Subsequently, the Constitution Bench of this Court in Offshore Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Bangalore Development Authority [Offshore Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Bangalore Development Authority, (2011) 3 SCC 139 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 662] , held that Section 11-A of the said Act does not apply to acquisition under the BDA Act.

¶1346

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

¶1347

203

¶1348

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:

¶1349

‘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.’

¶1350

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 (3) v. State of Maharashtra [Girnar Traders (3) v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 3 SCC 1 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 578] held that

¶1351

204

¶1352

Section 11-A of the said Act does not apply to acquisition under the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.

¶1353

35. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of this Court in Mariyappa v. State of

¶1354

Karnataka [Mariyappa v. State of Karnataka, (1998) 3 SCC 276] . The said decision was cited for the purpose of contending that Section 11-A is applicable to an acquisition under the KIAD Act. In Mariyappa [Mariyappa v. State of Karnataka, (1998) 3 SCC 276] before coming to hold that provision of Section 11-A of the Central Act applies to the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 (hereinafter “the 1972 Act”), this Court held that the 1972 Act is not a selfcontained code. The Court also held that the 1972 Act and the Central Act are supplemental to each other to the extent that unless the Central Act supplements the Karnataka Act, the latter cannot function. The Court further held that both the Acts, namely,

¶1355

205

¶1356

the 1972 Act and the Central Act deal with the same subject. But in the instant case, the KIAD Act is a self-contained code and the Central Act is not supplemental to it. Therefore, the ratio in Mariyappa [Mariyappa v. State of Karnataka, (1998) 3 SCC 276] is not attracted to the facts of the present case.

¶1357

36. Following the aforesaid well-settled principles, this Court is of the opinion that there is no substance in the contention of the appellant that acquisition under the KIAD Act lapsed for alleged non-compliance with the provisions of Section 11-A of the said Act. For the reasons aforesaid, all the contentions of the appellant, being without any substance, fail and the appeal is dismissed.”

¶1358

30 . Having regard to the aforesaid raison d'être for non-application of the old LA Act, on the parity of reasoning, provision of Section 24(2) of the new LA Act making Section 11-A of the old LA Act would, obviously, be not applicable. We would like to refer to the judgment in State of M.P. v. M.V.

¶1359

206

¶1360

Narasimhan [State of M.P. v. M.V. Narasimhan, (1975) 2 SCC 377 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 589] in this behalf where following proposition is laid down: (SCC p. 385, para 15)

¶1361

“15. … ‘Where a subsequent Act incorporates provisions of a previous Act, then the borrowed provisions become an integral 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:

¶1362

(a) where the subsequent Act and the previous Act are supplemental to each other; (b) where the two Acts are in pari materia;

¶1363

(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

¶1364

(d) where the amendment of the previous Act, either expressly or by necessary intendment, applies the said provisions to the subsequent Act.’”

¶1365

207

¶1366

A division bench of this court in SRI

¶1367

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.

¶1368

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 the ratio laid down in R.C. COOPER (SUPRA) as follows:

¶1369

18 . By the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, the three entries were repealed. Entry 33 in List I and Entry 36 in List II were deleted and a single

¶1370

208

¶1371

comprehensive Entry 42 in List III was substituted to read : “Acquisition and requisitioning of property”. Accordingly, the power to acquire property could be exercised concurrently by the Union and the States. Even if prior to the deletion of Entry 33 in List I and Entry 36 in List II an argument could possibly have been advanced that as power of acquisition of property was conferred both on Union and the States to be exercised either for the purpose of the Union or for the State, it was incidental to any other legislative power flowing from various entries in the three lists and not an independent power, but since the deletion of Entry 33 in List I and Entry 36 in List II and substitution of a comprehensive entry in List III, it could hardly be urged with confidence that the power of acquisition and requisitioning of property was incidental to other power. It is an independent power provided for in a specific entry. Therefore, both the Union and the State would have power of acquisition and requisitioning of property. This position is unquestionably established by the majority

¶1372

209

¶1373

decision in Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India [(1970) 1 SCC 248, 282 : AIR 1970 SC 564 : (1970) 3 SCR 530, 567] where Shah, J., speaking for the majority of 10 Judges held as under: (SCC p. 282, para 38)

¶1374

“Power to legislate for acquisition of property is exercisable only under Entry 42 of List III, and not as an incident of the power to legislate in respect of a specific head of legislation in any of the three lists.”

¶1375

In reaching this conclusion reliance was placed on Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 1954 SC 251 : 1954 SCR 779 : 1954 SCJ 310] . It was, however, urged that the proposition culled out from Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corporation case [(1970) 1 SCC 248, 282 : AIR 1970 SC 564 : (1970) 3 SCR 530, 567] by Shah, J., in R.C. Cooper case [(1970) 1 SCC 248, 282 : AIR 1970 SC 564 : (1970) 3 SCR 530, 567] is not borne out by the observation in the first mentioned case. In Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corporation case [AIR 1954 SC 251 : 1954

¶1376

210

¶1377

SCR 779 : 1954 SCJ 310] the challenge was to the Madras Electric Supply Undertakings (Acquisition) 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 preConstitution 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

¶1378

211

¶1379

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 of Madras in his effort to save the impugned legislation advanced an argument before the Constitution Bench that:

¶1380

“There was implicit in every entry in the legislative lists in the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935, an inherent power to make a law with respect to a matter ancillary or incidental to the subject-matter of each entry.”

¶1381

His further argument was that each entry in the list carried with it an inherent power to provide for the compulsory acquisition of any property, land or any commercial or industrial undertaking, while making a law under such entry. This argument was in terms repelled relying upon an earlier decision of the Constitution Bench in State of Bihar v. Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh [AIR 1952 SC 252 : 1952 SCR 889 :

¶1382

212

¶1383

1952 SCJ 354] . Repelling this contention of the Advocate-General of Madras would mean that the power of acquisition of property is not ancillary or incidental to the subjectmatter of each entry but in substance it is an independent power by itself. This also becomes clear from Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh case [AIR 1952 SC 252 : 1952 SCR 889 : 1952 SCJ 354] wherein Das, J., in his concurring judgment repelled the argument of the learned Attorney General appearing for the State contending that the Bihar Land Reforms Act was a law made with respect to matters mentioned in Entry 18 List II and not in Entry 36 List II. Entry 18 in List II read: “Land and Land tenures, etc.” and it was contended that the impugned legislation was on the subject of land and land tenures and would cover acquisition of land also. Negativing this contention it was held that in that event Entry 36 in List II would become redundant. The pertinent observation is as under:

¶1384

“In my opinion, to give a meaning and content to each of the two legislative heads

¶1385

213

¶1386

under Entry 18 and Entry 36 in List II the former should be read as a legislative category or head comprising land and land tenures and all matters connected therewith other than acquisition of land which should be read as covered by Entry 36 in List II.”

¶1387

19 . It thus clearly transpires that the observation in Cooper case [(1970) 1 SCC 248, 282 : AIR 1970 SC 564 : (1970) 3 SCR 530, 567] extracted above that power to legislate for acquisition of property is exercisable only under Entry 42 of List III and not as an incident of the power to legislate in respect of a specific head of 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] .

¶1388

The aforesaid interpretation by the Supreme Court binds this court, therefore, it cannot be held that

¶1389

214

¶1390

decision of Supreme Court in SHRI RAMTANU COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD does not bind this court .

¶1391

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 permitted to over write provisions of 2013 Act by resorting to unbridled powers under 1966 Act and that

¶1392

215

¶1393

entire field of establishment of industrial areas is covered by 2013 Act, also does not deserve acceptance.

¶1394

CONCLUSION:

¶1395

In view of preceding analysis, It is held as follows:

¶1396

(1) The provisions of 1966 Act are neither repugnant to 2013 Act nor have been impliedly repealed on commencement of 2013 Act.

¶1397

(2) The 1966 Act is a special Act whereas, 2013 Act is a general law.

¶1398

(3) The provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2019 are neither arbitrary nor voilative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶1399

(4) Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act does not apply to proceeding under 1966 Act, in the light of findings recorded in this order.

¶1400

216

¶1401

(5) The Karnataka Amendment Act No.16/2019 to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is constitutionally valid.

¶1402

Let the writ petitions be listed before learned single judge to examine the validity of the proceedings initiated under the 1966 Act.

¶1403

The interim order dated 19.04.2017 passed by the Learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.11209212/2019, Writ Petition Nos.41641-642/2015, Writ Petition Nos.2907/2015 & 46915/2016, Writ Petition Nos.59461-462/2014, Writ Petition No.35461/2014, Writ Petition Nos.58807-809/2015, Writ Petition No.32416/2015, Writ Petition Nos.49228 & 50925936/2013, Writ Petition No.30920/2013, Writ Petition No.18861/2013, Writ Petition Nos.20367-373/2013 & Writ Petition Nos.20375-380 & 20382/2013 & Writ

¶1404

217

¶1405

Petition Nos.20384-388/2013, Writ Petition Nos.40473474/2015, Writ Petition Nos.51805-807/2015, Writ Petition No.859/2016, Writ Petition Nos.44987988/2015, Writ Petition Nos.44987-988/2015, Writ Petition No.17272/2014, Writ Petition Nos.18890 & 23750-752/2013 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Even otherwise, the learned Single Judge should not have dealt with the issue of constitutionality of provision of law by an interim order. The order dated 19.04.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby quashed.

¶1406

In the result, writ appeals are allowed.

¶1407

Sd/JUDGE

¶1408

Sd/JUDGE

¶1409

RV/SS

Smt. S. Jalaja v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. S. Jalaja v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Smitha Harikrishna Vs Dr H R Mahadev

Smt. C. Bramarambha C Vs M/S. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Smt. Manjula Vs M/S. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

N Muniramappa Vs Sri Dr Selvamani R I a S(KN-2013)

Fayaz Sheik Vs S H Thirumalesha

M v Ganesh Prasad Vs Karnataka Appellate Tribunal