Absolute vesting under industrial acquisition law excludes award-lapse relief, though courts may grant compensation for unexplained delay.

Adequate hearing under Section 28(3) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act was found to have been given because notice was served, objections were filed, an adjournment was sought, and the petitioner was heard on the later date. Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was held inapplicable to KIAD Act acquisitions because the land vests absolutely in the State on publication of the final declaration and the statute provides no reversion. Although the acquisition did not lapse, the Court recognized that unexplained delay in making the award can justify limited relief, and directed that the award be made within three months with additional compensation for the delayed period.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was given an adequate opportunity of hearing before the order under Section 28(3) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966. (ii) Whether Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 applies to acquisitions under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966. (iii) Whether any other relief was available on account of delay in making the award.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was given an adequate opportunity of hearing before the order under Section 28(3) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966.

Analysis: The record showed service of notice, filing of objections, adjournment at the petitioner's request, and a hearing on the later date when the petitioner was present and the submissions were recorded. The procedural requirement of hearing under Section 28(3) was therefore satisfied.

Conclusion: The contention of denial of hearing was rejected and the order under Section 28(3) was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 applies to acquisitions under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966.

Analysis: The Court contrasted the scheme of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and noted that under Section 28(5) the land vests absolutely in the State Government on publication of the final declaration. Relying on larger Bench precedents holding that Section 11-A does not apply where the land has already vested absolutely and there is no provision for reversion, the Court held that the later decision dealing with a different enactment could not govern the KIAD Act.

Conclusion: Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 does not apply to acquisitions under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966.

Issue (iii): Whether any other relief was available on account of delay in making the award.

Analysis: Even though the acquisition did not lapse, the Court held that inordinate and unexplained delay in making the award could justify appropriate relief. On the facts, quashing was declined, but a direction to make the award within a fixed time and to grant additional compensation for the period of delay was considered just.

Conclusion: The petitioner was granted limited relief by way of a direction to pass the award within three months and to pay additional compensation for the delayed period.

Final Conclusion: The acquisition did not lapse, but the petitioner succeeded in obtaining protective relief against prolonged delay in making the award and in securing compensation for that delay.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an acquisition statute provides for absolute vesting of the land in the State Government upon publication of the final declaration and no provision exists for reversion, Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 does not apply, though the Court may still grant relief against unjustified delay in making the award.

---