Special acquisition statute as self-contained code prevents deemed lapse under the 2013 land acquisition regime

A special acquisition statute that vests land in the State on publication of the final notification and provides its own compensation mechanism is treated as a self-contained code. On that basis, the absence of an award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 does not trigger deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The Court also held that the minutes of the Advisory Committee could not be treated as a binding consent determination because consent to the fixed compensation was not established. The acquisition therefore did not lapse, the quashing order was set aside, and compensation was directed to be determined under the special statute.

---

---

Issues: Whether land acquisition initiated under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 could be held to have lapsed by applying Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and whether the fixation of compensation by the Advisory Committee bound the respondents as a consent determination.

Analysis: Under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, land vests in the State upon publication of the final notification under Section 28(4), and compensation is governed by Sections 29 and 30. Where compensation is agreed, no further award is required; where no agreement is reached, the Deputy Commissioner must determine compensation by following the procedure under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The record showed that the respondents had not established consent to the compensation fixed by the Advisory Committee, and the minutes of the meeting could not be treated as a binding consent determination against them. At the same time, the Act operates as a self-contained code for acquisition and compensation, and the absence of an award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 does not attract the deemed lapse provisions of Section 11A of that Act. Since Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is built on the premise of lapse for non-compliance with Section 11A-type requirements, it was not available to invalidate acquisitions governed by the special statute.

Conclusion: The acquisition did not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, and the Division Bench's order quashing the acquisition was set aside. The authorities were directed to determine compensation under Section 29 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966.

Ratio Decidendi: A special acquisition statute that is a self-contained code and vests land by operation of law is not subject to deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act merely because no award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was passed, especially where the compensation issue remains to be determined under the special statute.

---