Mrs Babitha Preethi D'Souza Vs the State of Karnataka

MRS. AGNES D’SILVA W/O LEO D’SILVA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, MANEL PADAVU, GANJIMAT POST-574144 MANGALURU TALUK, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MRS. BABITHA PREETHI D’SOUZA W/O CLIFFORD D’SOUZA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, CLIFFTHI COTTAGE, KALLODY, MALAVOOR VILLAGE, BAJPE POST, MANGALURU-574142.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI CLIFTON D. RAZARIO, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. MAITREYI KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:48948 WP No. 9044 of 2024

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE THROUGH SECRETARY, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶20

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, 4/3, 2^ND FLOOR, R.P. BUILDINGS, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶21

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, KIADB, BYKAMPADY, MANGALURU-575011.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1; SRI C. CHANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI PRAVEEN G. ADAGATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH / SET ASIDE THE AWARD DATED 18/08/2022 BEARING NO.V L.A.Q.S.R. 2/2006-07 IN RESPECT OF THE LANDS OF THE PETITIONERS (PLACED AS ANNEXURE-J) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AND ETC.

¶25

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:48948 WP No. 9044 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶32

“1. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash / set aside the award dated 18.08.2022 bearing No. L.A.Q.S.R. 2/2006-07 in respect of the lands of the Petitioners (placed as Annexure – J) issued by the Respondent No.3.

¶33

2. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash / set aside the Award Notice dated 24.02.2023 bearing No.L.A.Q.S.R. 2/2006-07 under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (placed as Annexure – K) issued by the Respondent No.3.

¶34

3. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash / set aside the Award Notice dated 24.02.2023 bearing No.L.A.Q.S.R. 2/2006-07 under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (placed as Annexure – L) issued by the Respondent No.3.

¶35

4. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash / set aside the endorsement bearing No.L.A.Q: C. R 2/2006-07/986 dated 19.02.2023,

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:48948 WP No. 9044 of 2024

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

received by the 1^st Petitioner on 28.02.2024 (placed as Annexure – P) issued by the Respondent No.3.

¶40

5. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash / set aside the endorsement bearing No.L.A.Q: C. R 2/2006-07/1028 dated 02.03.2024, received by the 2^nd Petitioner on 11.03.2024 (placed as Annexure – Q) Issued by the Respondent No.3.

¶41

6. Direct the respondents to pass a fresh award in respect of the lands of the Petitioners in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013.

¶42

7. Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble court may be pleased to grant in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.”

¶43

Brief facts:

¶44

The petitioners claim ownership over land

¶45

bearing Survey No.68/5 measuring 0.94 acres and Survey No.65/P5 measuring 0.88 acres of Badagulipady Village Gurpur Hobli, Mangaluru Taluk and District. They assert that their title is derived through a family partition, a

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:48948 WP No. 9044 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

settlement deed dated 11.10.2004 in favour of petitioner No.2 and a gift deed dated 31.01.2023 in favour of petitioner No.1. The lands of the petitioners were proposed to be acquired by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) and a preliminary notification

¶49

was issued under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘the KIAD Act’ for short) on 19.08.2006, followed by a final notification under Section 28(4) on 08.01.2010.

¶50

The petitioners assert that no notice under Section 28(2) of the KIAD Act was ever served on them or their predecessors and they were unaware of the acquisition until notices under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘LA Act’ for short) were served on 28.02.2023, enclosing the award dated 18.08.2022 by which compensation of Rs.28,60,072/- and Rs.21,51,165/fixed for their respective lands. The petitioners submitted objections on 22.05.2023, asserting that the award was illegally passed under the repealed LA Act, despite the

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:48948 WP No. 9044 of 2024

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

KIAD Amendment that came into force on 05.04.2022 mandating application of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (‘2013 Act’ for short). However, the KIADB rejected the petitioners’ request for reference

¶54

by endorsements dated 19.02.2023 and 02.03.2024, compelling the petitioners to approach this Court in this petition.

¶55

Learned counsel for the petitioners would

¶56

contend that the petitioners were never issued notice under Section 28(2) of the KIAD Act and hence, an opportunity to object the proposed acquisition was not afforded to the petitioners and therefore, the acquisition proceedings are vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the award dated 18.08.2022 is ex-facie illegal, since it was passed under the repealed LA Act, even though the KIAD Amendment dated 05.04.2022 made the application of the 2013 Act mandatory for determination of compensation.

¶57

7 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:48948 WP No. 9044 of 2024

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

Learned counsel submits that the petitioners

¶61

became aware of the acquisition only upon receipt of Section 12 (2) notices on 24.02.2023 and thereafter, filed objections on 22.05.2023, which were summarily rejected as time barred. According to the petitioners, the award cannot survive as it was passed under a non-existent statute, resulting in gross undervaluation of their lands and denial of solatium, multiplier, and other benefits contrary to the law declared by this Court.

¶62

Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the following decisions:

¶63

i. The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Others Vs. Sri K.B. Lingaraju¹ (K.B. Lingaraju)

¶64

ii. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited Vs. M/s. Sri Balaji Corporate Services and Ors² (M/s.

¶65

Sri Balaji Corporation Services)

¶66

1 W.A. No.6819/2017 D.D. 28.09.2022

¶67

2 W.A. No.890/2022 D.D. 27.09.2023

¶68

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:48948 WP No. 9044 of 2024

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

iii. Nagpur Improvement Trust and another

¶71

Vs. Vithal Rao and others³ (Nagpur Improvement Trust)

¶72

iv. National Highways Authority of India Vs. P. Nagaraju @ Cheluvaiah and another⁴ (P. Nagaraju)

¶73

v. The State of Arunachal Pradesh and Another Vs. Mihin Laling and others⁵ (Mihin Laling)

¶74

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the writ petition is to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches . It is contended that the acquisition has commenced with the preliminary notification dated 19.08.2006 and the final notification of 08.01.2010 and that notices under Section 28(2) of the KIAD Act were duly served on the petitioner's mother, placing the family on notice of the acquisition. It is contended that the possession of the land was taken on 17.05.2010 and that subsequent transactions, such as the gift deed of 2023, are void, having been executed after

¶75

3 (1973) 1 SCC 500

¶76

4 (2022) 15 SCC 1

¶77

5 Civil Appeal Nos.11884-11888/2025 D.D. 16.09.2025

¶78

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:48948 WP No. 9044 of 2024

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

commencement of acquisition proceedings. It is further contended that the notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the LA Act were issued in 2022, that the award was duly passed on 18.08.2022 and that when the petitioners failed to collect the compensation, the same was deposited before the jurisdictional civil Court under Sections 30 and 31 of the LA Act. It is submitted that the petitioners’ request for reference was rejected in accordance with Section 18 (2) (b) of the LA Act and that the challenge of the award is untenable and the writ petition merits dismissal.

¶81

8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶82

the parties, the question that falls for consideration is:

¶83

“Whether the award dated 18.08.2022, having been passed after the substitution of Section 30 of the KIAD Act with effect from 05.04.2022, is legally sustainable when the Competent Authority has determined the compensation under the repealed LA Act, rather than 2013, Act?”

¶84

10 -

¶85

NC: 2025:KHC:48948 WP No. 9044 of 2024

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

9. Having considered the rival contentions and

¶88

perused the material record, it is evident that the central issue in the present case is the legal sustainability of the award dated 18.08.2022, which was passed after the substitution of Section 30 of the KIAD Act with effect from 05.04.2022 expressly incorporating the compensation regime under the 2013 Act. Once the amendment came into force, the Competent Authority was mandatorily required to determine compensation strictly in accordance with 2013 Act. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) and another Vs. Sri. V. Srinivas and others⁶ has held at paragraph No.35 as under:

¶89

“35. The fourth question raised also stands answered in the negative by the judgments in L. Ramareddy's case (supra) and in Ananthaswamy's case (supra). The said decisions of this Court also stand affirmed by the Apex Court. We are in agreement with the findings of the co-ordinate bench, which have been affirmed by the Apex Court. Therefore, we hold that

¶90

6 W.A. No.1071/2022 D.D. 21.02.2025

¶91

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:48948 WP No. 9044 of 2024

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

the provisions of the 2013 Act are not applicable to an acquisition under the KIAD Act until they are made applicable by the amendment of 2022.”

¶94

This Court affirmed that all awards passed after 05.04.2022 must be under the new Act, i.e., 2013 Act, regardless the date of preliminary or final notifications. The learned single judge of this Court, in S. Chinnappa’s case and S. Seenappa’s case ( supra) has similarly held that the awards passed after 01.01.2014 must confirm to the compensation structure under the 2013 Act, even if the acquisition had initiated earlier. In this backdrop, the passing of the impugned award under the repealed LA Act renders it without jurisdiction and legally void, since an award cannot survive when it is founded upon a statue that had ceased to apply .

¶95

In K.B. Lingaraju , the Division Bench of this

¶96

Court relying on M. Nagabhushana Vs. State of Karnataka⁷ (M. Nagabhushana) and SLAO, KIADB

¶97

7 (2011) 3 SCC 408

¶98

12 -

¶99

NC: 2025:KHC:48948 WP No. 9044 of 2024

¶100

HC-KAR

¶101

Mysore Vs. Anasuya Bai Dead by LRs.⁸ (Anasuya Bai) ,

¶102

reiterated that the KIAD Act is a self contained Code, and therefore the time limits prescribed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for passing an award do not apply to the acquisition undertaken under the KIAD Act.

¶103

The Division Bench of this Court held that the proceedings under the KIAD Act does not lapse merely because the award is not passed within two years, and this position stands fortified by the Constitution Bench Judgment in

¶104

Offshore Holdings Private Limited Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and others⁹ (Offshore Holdings Private Limited) , wherein the Apex Court held that the KIADB does not prescribe any time limit for conclusion of the proceedings as well as in Bangalore Development Authority Vs. State of Karnataka and another¹⁰ (Bangalore Development Authority) w hich authoritatively declared that the provisions of Section 11A of LA Act cannot be read with special statutes such as KIAD Act or

¶105

8 (2017) 3 SCC 313

¶106

9 (2011) 3 SCC 139

¶107

10 (2018) 9 SCC 122

¶108

NC: 2025:KHC:48948 WP No. 9044 of 2024

¶109

13 -

¶110

HC-KAR

¶111

the BDA Act. At the same time, the Division Bench

¶112

categorically held that it is well settled proposition of law that where a statute does not provide for a time limit of performance of an act, such act has to be performed within a reasonable time and what would be a reasonable

¶113

time has to be decided in the facts and circumstances of the cases and relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Meher Rusi Dalal Vs. Union of India¹¹ (Meher Rusi Dalal) , P.K. Sreekantan Vs. P.Sreekumaran Nair¹² (P.K. Sreekantan) , and K.B.Nagur Vs. Union of India¹³ (K.B. Nagur) and held where a statute does not prescribe a time limit for performance of an act, such act must be performed within a reasonable time and what constitutes a reasonable time ‘must be assessed on the facts and circumstances of each case.’

¶114

11 (2004) 7 SCC 362

¶115

12 (2006) 13 SCC 574

¶116

13 (2012) 4 SCC 483

¶117

14 -

¶118

NC: 2025:KHC:48948 WP No. 9044 of 2024

¶119

HC-KAR

¶120

Applying this settled principle to the present case, though acquisition proceedings under the KIAD Act cannot be said to have lapsed automatically for want of an award within a fixed statutory period, the award having been passed on 18.08.2022, after an inordinate delay of nearly 12 years, assumes legal significance in a different context. By virtue of the substitution of Section 30 of the KIAD Act with effect from 05.04.2022, the compensation regime under the 2013 Act should be mandatory incorporated in the KIAD Act. Consequently, any award passed after 05.04.2022 was required to be strictly in conformity with the provisions of the 2013 Act, and failure to do so renders the award legally unsustainable, not on the ground of lapse under Section 11A of the LA Act, but on the ground that the award has been passed after an inordinate delay of nearly 12 years and in violation of Section 30 of the KIAD Act, which, in substance, mandates the application of the 2013 Act for the purposes of determination of compensation in KIAD acquisition.

¶121

15 -

¶122

NC: 2025:KHC:48948 WP No. 9044 of 2024

¶123

HC-KAR

¶124

The another Division Bench of this Court, in M/s. Sri Balaji Corporate Services, has held At

¶125

paragraph No.21 as under:

¶126

“21. The basis on which the aforesaid reliefs are claimed by the petitioners is the resolution of KIADB passed in its 343^rd meeting held on 27.08.2016 to the effect that in respect of acquisition of lands made under KIAD Act, 1966 where preliminary notification is issued on and after 01.01.2014 the compensation shall be paid as per the Act, 2013. That the resolution of the KIADB is nothing but a decision of appropriate Government and is binding on the State Government. That the aforesaid resolution has been taken note of and indeed has been given effect to by this Court in its decisions in the cases of Smt.Puttalakshmamma, Smt.Jalaja and followed by the decisions in the cases of Mahesh and Jemcy Ponnappa . Thus, it is the case of the respondents/petitioners that in view of finality attached to the aforesaid resolution passed by KIADB and which has been given effect to by the KIADB in the cases aforementioned, on the principles of parity respondents/petitioners are entitled for payment of compensation under the Act, 2013.”

¶127

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:48948 WP No. 9044 of 2024

¶128

HC-KAR

¶129

The Division Bench has taken judicial note

¶130

about the resolution passed in the 343^rd meeting held on 27.08.2016, wherein the KIADB resolved to give compensation to all landowners post-2014, under the provisions of the 2013 Act. The Apex Court has repeatedly held that there cannot be any discrimination in the matter of compensation for land acquisition. In light of the amendment to KIAD Act with effect from 05.04.2022, all acquisitions made post-2022 will get compensation under the 2013 Act.

¶131

The Apex Court in Nagpur Improvement

¶132

Trust has held that there cannot be a discrimination in compensation for land acquisition. Further, in P.Nagaraju, the Apex Court at paragraph No.28 has held as under:

¶133

“28. When land is acquired from a citizen, Articles 300-A and 31-A of the Constitution will have to be borne in mind since the deprivation of property should be with authority of law, after being duly compensated. Such law should provide for

¶134

17 -

¶135

NC: 2025:KHC:48948 WP No. 9044 of 2024

¶136

HC-KAR

¶137

adequately compensating the landloser keeping in view the market value. Though each enactment may have a different procedure prescribed for the process of acquisition depending on the urgency, the method of determining the compensation cannot be different as the market value of the land and the hardship faced due to deprivation of the property would be the same irrespective of the Act under which it is acquired or the purpose for which it is acquired. In that light, if Section 28 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 is held not applicable in view of Section 3- J of the NH Act, the same will be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In that circumstance, the observation in Tarsem Singh that Section 3-J of the NH Act is unconstitutional to that extent though declared so while on the aspect of solatium and interest, it is held so on all aspects relating to determination of compensation.”

¶138

The law is well settled that an act done without jurisdiction is nullity and cannot be validated by the conduct of parties or by mere passage of time. Therefore, the impugned award needs to be quashed and the point framed for consideration is answered accordingly and this Court pass the following:

¶139

18 -

¶140

NC: 2025:KHC:48948 WP No. 9044 of 2024

¶141

HC-KAR

¶142

ORDER

¶143

i. The writ petition is allowed-in-part . ii. The award dated 18.08.2022 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADBrespondent No.3, in respect of the petitioners’ land is hereby quashed , as it was passed under the repealed LA Act, notwithstanding the substitution of Section 30 of the KIAD Act with effect from 05.04.2022.

¶144

iii. The respondents are directed to pass a fresh award in respect of the petitioners’ land, strictly in accordance with the provisions of 2013 Act as incorporated into the KIAD Act, and to compute compensation in conformity with Sections 23, 23A, 26 to 30, 69 to 80, 96 and Schedule I of the 2013 Act.

¶145