2000 (11) TMI 1249 - HC - Indian Laws

Court rejects Section 11-A application, directs award within 3 months, awards 6% additional compensation for delay.

The court rejected the petitioner's argument for the application of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act to the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development ... Hearing under Section 28(3) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act - Vesting of land on publication of final declaration - Applicability of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act to special enactments providing for prior vesting - Reading-in of provisions of the Land Acquisition Act into a special enactment - Relief for inordinate delay in making award - additional compensation and direction to pass awardHearing under Section 28(3) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act - Petitioner was given the opportunity of hearing as required under Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act before the final declaration was made. - HELD THAT: - Record of the acquisition proceedings shows service of the show-cause notice fixing hearing, filing of objections by the petitioner, adjournment at petitioner's request, subsequent advancement of the hearing date at petitioner's request, an oral hearing on the advanced date, recording of a brief note of submissions in the order sheet and the petitioner signing the order sheet. On that basis the Court found there was no merit in the contention that the petitioner was not heard prior to the order under Section 28(3). [Paras 6]Petitioner was given adequate opportunity of hearing and the challenge to the final declaration on that ground is rejected.Vesting of land on publication of final declaration - Applicability of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act to special enactments providing for prior vesting - Reading-in of provisions of the Land Acquisition Act into a special enactment - Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act does not apply to acquisitions under the KIAD Act where the enactment provides for absolute vesting of the land in the State on publication of the final declaration and contains no provision for reversion. - HELD THAT: - Earlier larger-Bench decisions established that Section 11-A is inapplicable where land has already vested in the State free from encumbrances and there is no statutory provision for reversion. Section 28(5) of the KIAD Act effects absolute vesting on publication of the final declaration, so the principle in those larger-Bench precedents governs. Although a later smaller-Bench decision (construing a different enactment) read Section 11-A into that enactment by treating the Land Acquisition Act as supplemental, the Court held that where a larger-Bench has specifically considered the effect of vesting on applicability of Section 11-A, those decisions prevail over subsequent smaller-Bench rulings. Consequently Section 11-A is not applicable to KIAD Act acquisitions. [Paras 12, 15, 17]Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act is not applicable to acquisitions under the KIAD Act.Relief for inordinate delay in making award - additional compensation and direction to pass award - Despite inapplicability of Section 11-A, relief for unexplained delay in making the award is warranted; the acquisition will not be quashed but the authority must pass award within a limited period with additional compensation for delay. - HELD THAT: - The Court noted precedent that even where Section 11-A does not apply, courts may grant relief for inordinate and unexplained delay in making awards - by quashing acquisition, postponing the relevant date, or awarding additional compensation. Considering public interest in the larger project and the fact that delay was not attributable to the petitioner, the Court declined to quash the acquisition. Instead it directed the competent authority to pass the award in the petitioner's case within three months of receipt of the order and awarded additional compensation at 6% per annum from the date two years after final declaration to the date of the award. The additional amount is to be treated as a separate head for delay and not as enhancement of market value under the Land Acquisition Act. [Paras 20]Acquisition not quashed; fourth respondent to pass award within three months and grant additional compensation at 6% p.a. from 8-8-1998 to date of award.Final Conclusion: Challenge to the final declaration on the ground of non-hearing is dismissed; Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act is held not to apply to acquisitions under the KIAD Act where the statute vests land absolutely on publication of final declaration; on account of unexplained delay the authority is directed to pass an award within three months and to pay additional compensation at 6% per annum from 8-8-1998 to the date of award. Parties to bear their respective costs. Issues Involved:1. Adequate opportunity of hearing before the acquisition decision.2. Applicability of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act) to the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act).3. Entitlement to any other relief if Section 11-A of LA Act is not applicable.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:Re: Point (i) - Adequate Opportunity of Hearing:The petitioner contended that no hearing was given as required by Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act, thus vitiating the final declaration under Section 28(4). However, the court found that after the preliminary notification dated 7-7-1994, a show-cause notice dated 6-1-1995 was served on the petitioner, fixing the hearing for 23-2-1995. The petitioner filed objections on 21-2-1995. The records showed that the petitioner was absent on 23-2-1995, requested an adjournment, and was subsequently heard on 6-3-1995. The Special Land Acquisition Officer recorded the submissions and the petitioner signed the order sheet. Thus, the court concluded that the petitioner was given adequate opportunity of hearing, rejecting the first contention.Re: Point (ii) - Applicability of Section 11-A of LA Act:The petitioner argued that Section 11-A of the LA Act, which mandates that acquisition proceedings lapse if no award is made within two years from the final declaration, should apply to the KIAD Act. This argument was based on the Supreme Court's decision in Mariyappa's case, which applied Section 11-A to the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for House Sites Act, 1972 (House Sites Act). The court, however, distinguished between the House Sites Act and KIAD Act, noting that the former is in pari materia with the LA Act, whereas the KIAD Act deals with broader subjects beyond land acquisition.The court cited earlier Supreme Court decisions in Satendra Prasad Jain and Pratap's cases, which held that Section 11-A does not apply where the land has already vested in the government. Under Section 28(5) of the KIAD Act, land vests absolutely in the State Government upon publication of the final declaration, similar to Section 52(4) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act considered in Pratap's case. Consequently, the court concluded that Section 11-A of the LA Act does not apply to acquisitions under the KIAD Act.Re: Point (iii) - Entitlement to Other Relief:Despite Section 11-A of the LA Act being inapplicable, the court acknowledged that undue delay in making the award could still warrant relief. Citing Ram Chand's case, the court noted that unexplained delays could lead to quashing of acquisition proceedings or additional compensation. The court directed the fourth respondent to pass the award within three months and awarded the petitioner additional compensation at 6% per annum from 8-8-1998 to the date of the award, due to the delay.Conclusion:The court rejected the petitioner's prayer for declaring the acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 11-A of the LA Act. However, it directed the passing of the award within three months and granted additional compensation for the delay. Each party was ordered to bear their respective costs.