Karnataka High Court
Naveen Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 18 March, 2025
Author: K Natarajan
Bench: K Natarajan
-1-
WA NO.200158 OF 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO. 200158 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
NAVEEN KUMAR S/O PARASMAL,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O CHIKKASUGUR,
TALUK & DIST: RAICHUR - 584101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. AMEETH KUMAR DESHPANDE, SR. ADV. FOR
SRI. GANESH S. KALABURAGI, ADV.)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
by RAMESH
MATHAPATI REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY
Location: HIGH DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
DHARWAD - 580001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN BASAREDDY, GA FOR R1;
SRI. SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER DATED 16.09.2021
-2-
WA NO.200158 OF 2021
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
W.P.NO.201742/2015 (LA-KIADB) AND TO PASS ANY SUCH
APPROPRIATE ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM
FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR "PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS"
THIS DAY, THE COURT, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
This intra Court appeal is filed challenging the order
of the learned Single Judge dated 16.09.2021 passed in
W.P.No.201742/2015 (LA-KIADB), wherein the writ
petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are
that, the appellant is the owner of the land in
Sy.No.162/1, measuring 7 acres 7 guntas of Chikkasugur
Village, Raichur Taluk. It is averred that the respondents
have acquired the aforesaid land for the purpose of
WA NO.200158 OF 2021
formation of an industrial area. It is further averred that
the award came to be passed on 17.04.2007 after more
than 11 years from the date of final notification and no
compensation was paid to the appellant. Hence, the
acquisition would lapse for not passing the award within a
reasonable period.
3. The respondent No.2 opposed the petition by
denying the averments made therein. It is averred that
award came to be passed on 17.04.2007 and thereafter,
the notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'LA Act') came to be
issued to the appellant and he sought reference for higher
compensation in LAC.No.122/2008. Hence, he cannot
challenge the acquisition proceedings. It is further averred
that the compensation amount as per the award is
deposited before the Civil Court. Hence, he sought for
dismissal of the petition.
4. The learned Single Judge after considering the
rival contentions and material available on record held
WA NO.200158 OF 2021
that, the petitioner suppressing the filing of the reference
petition and its dismissal, has filed the writ petition and
having accepted the award, he has no right to challenge
the award passed by the 2nd respondent - Special Land
Acquisition Officer (for short 'SLAO') and dismissed the
writ petition. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is in appeal.
5. Sri. Ameeth Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for Sri. Ganesh S. Kalaburagi, learned
counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent-
authorities have failed to pass the award within a
reasonable time. It is submitted that the final notification
came to be issued on 14.11.1996 and the award came to
be passed on 17.04.2007, which is beyond 11 years. In
support of his contention, he placed reliance on the
following judgments:
i. The Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Smt.
M. Shakuntalamma and others1
ii. The Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Smt.
M. Shakuntalamma and others2
W.A.No.6763/2017 DD.08.06.2023
SLP.(Civil).Diary No.3767/2024 dated 01.04.2024
WA NO.200158 OF 2021
iii. Karnataka Industrial Area Development
Board and another vs. K.H. Shivanna and
others3
iv. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB
and others vs. Sri. K.B. Lingaraju and others4
v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB
and others vs. Sri. K.B. Lingaraju and others5
6. It is submitted that in the aforesaid judgments,
the view taken is that if there is an enormous delay in
passing the award, the acquisition is required to be
declared as lapsed and non-passing of the award within
reasonable period is in violation of Article 300A of the
Constitution of India. Hence, he seeks to declare the
acquisition as lapsed even in the instant case.
7. It is further submitted that insofar as the
ground that the acquisition would lapse under Section
24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 is concerned, the same is not pressed in the appeal
W.A.No.557/2021 DD 23.03.2022
W.A.No.6819/2017 DD 28.09.2022
Special Leave to Appeal No.12135/2020 dated 18.01.2021
WA NO.200158 OF 2021
in view of the settled position of law. It is also submitted
that the learned Single Judge has committed a grave error
in coming to conclusion that the appellant having sought
the reference, is not entitled to challenge the acquisition.
It is contended that right to challenge the acquisition is a
statutory right available to the land looser and he cannot
be estopped from challenging the acquisition only on the
ground that he has sought reference. It is further
contended that the respondent-authorities admittedly have
not taken possession of the land, which is another ground
to declare the acquisition has lapsed. Hence, he seeks to
allow the appeal.
8. Per contra, Sri. Shivakumar Tengli, learned
counsel for the respondent No.2 and the learned
Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1
support the order of the learned Single Judge. It is
submitted that the respondent-authorities have filed
detailed statement of objections, wherein it is pointed out
that the award came to be passed in the name of the
appellant and notice under Section 12(2) of the LA Act was
WA NO.200158 OF 2021
served on him and thereafter, the appellant has sought
the reference and the said reference is registered as
LAC.No.122/2008. Later, it came to be disposed of on
20.01.2015. Hence, the learned Single Judge has rightly
come to the conclusion that there is a suppression of
material fact by holding that the appellant cannot
challenge the award passed by 2nd respondent - SLAO.
9. It is further submitted that the affidavit came to
be filed in this proceedings stating that the compensation
amount is deposited in the Civil Court, Raichur on
15.05.2008. It is also submitted that insofar as taking
possession is concerned, the authority can take possession
even now and there is no bar as such under the law for
taking possession. Hence, they seek to dismiss the
appeal.
10. We have heard the submissions of the learned
Senior Counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for
respondent No.2, the learned Government Advocate and
meticulously perused the materials available on record.
WA NO.200158 OF 2021
We have given our anxious consideration to the
submissions advanced and the material available on
record.
11. The pleading and evidence on record indicate
that, the respondent No.1 issued preliminary notification
under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area
Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'KIAD
Act') on 27.12.1991. Thereafter, final notification under
Section 28(4) of KIAD Act was issued on 14.11.1996 to
acquire various extent of land including the land in
question i.e., Sy.No.162/1, measuring 7 acres 7 guntas of
Chikkasugur Village, Raichur Taluk. The respondent No.2
determined the market value of the land and passed the
award on 17.04.2007. The notice under Section 12(2) of
the LA Act was served on the appellant. It is not in
dispute that the award was passed after a period of more
than 10 years from the date of final notification.
12. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant has contended that non-passing of the award
WA NO.200158 OF 2021
within reasonable time would lead to lapsing of the
acquisition proceedings and in support of such contention
he has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court and
Hon'ble Supreme Court referred supra.
13. It is a trite law that Section 11A of the LA Act
has no application to the acquisitions made under the
KIAD Act. The decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the
case of The Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Smt.
M. Shakuntalamma and others referred supra has no
application to the case on hand. In the said case, even
after lapse of 9 years, award was not passed. Again the
said judgment was based on the judgment dated
06.04.2022 passed in W.A.No.557/2021. It is not in
dispute that the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in the
case of Shakuntalamma was challenged by the
Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (for short
'KIADB') before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the
same came to be rejected. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
has clearly held that the question of law raised by the
KIADB was kept open. Hence, the contention that passing
- 10 -
WA NO.200158 OF 2021
of the award beyond reasonable time would lead to lapsing
of acquisition, has not been considered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the aforesaid case.
14. The Co-ordinate Bench in the case of
Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board and
another vs. K.H. Shivanna and others at para 7
recorded the finding that there is an inordinate delay in
completion of the proceedings and even after a lapse of 14
years, the final notification was not issued nor any steps
were taken to complete the land acquisition proceedings.
In the case on hand, the final notification was issued on
14.11.1996 and by operation of law under Section 28(5) of
the KIAD Act, the land vests with the State Government
and free from all encumbrances. In the case on hand, the
award is passed and the compensation amount has been
deposited before the Civil Court, Raichur and the appellant
on service of notice under Section 12(2) of the LA Act,
sought a reference which came to be dismissed. Hence,
the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench referred supra,
relied by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
- 11 -
WA NO.200158 OF 2021
appellant, have no application to the facts of the present
case.
15. The Co-ordinate Bench in the case of the
Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB and others
vs. K.B. Lingaraju has considered the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Nagabhushana
vs. State of Karnataka6 and SLAO, KIADB, Mysore vs.
Anasuya Bai dead by LRs7 and held that the KIAD Act is
a self contained code and if the proceedings for acquisition
of land is initiated under the KIAD Act, the provisions of
Section 11A of the LA Act would not apply to the
acquisition. The Co-ordinate Bench in para 12 has
recorded the finding that even after a lapse of 7 years
from the decision of the Division Bench (W.A.No.259-
265/2009 disposed of on 16.12.2010), no action was
taken by KIADB to conclude the acquisition of the land and
there is no explanation for such delay. In the case on
hand, the award came to be passed on 17.04.2007 and
the writ petition came to be filed on 04.03.2015 after
(2011) 3 SCC 408
(2017) 3 SCC 313
- 12 -
WA NO.200158 OF 2021
more than 8 years from the date of passing of the award
by suppressing the fact that the appellant has sought the
reference under Section 18(1) of the LA Act and the said
reference petition came to be rejected on 20.01.2015.
The learned Single Judge has rightly recorded the finding
that the appellant ought to have disclosed about the
seeking of reference and its rejection. No doubt the right
to seek reference by the appellant is an independent right,
but it is the conduct of the appellant which has been
noticed by the learned Single Judge in rejecting the writ
petition. We do not find any error in such finding of the
learned Single Judge calling for any interference.
16. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant also contended that the delay in passing of the
award is in violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of
India, the said contention is liable to be rejected only on
the ground that the respondent-authorities have passed
the award determining the market value of the acquired
land and being aggrieved, the appellant sought a reference
for higher compensation. It is not the case of the
- 13 -
WA NO.200158 OF 2021
appellant that no award is passed for the acquired land
which has resulted in violation of Article 300A of the
Constitution of India. Hence, even on this ground the
appeal is liable to be rejected.
17. The appellant has also contended that the
award indicates that the respondent-authorities have not
taken the possession of the land in question. The said
contention is liable to be rejected as the acquisition being
made under KIAD Act, the land vests with the State by
operation of law and does not depend on passing of the
award or taking possession of the land.
18. The learned Single Judge considering the
material available on record has recorded the finding that
the petitioner has not made out any grounds to declare
the acquisition proceedings are lapsed and accordingly,
the writ petition was dismissed. We do not find any error
in the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge calling
for any interference in the appeal.
- 14 -
WA NO.200158 OF 2021
19. For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ appeal is dismissed.
ii) No orders to cost.
Sd/-
(K NATARAJAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
MCR
CT: PS
