Land acquisition notifications under KIAD Act 1966 upheld as Section 24(2) lapse provisions don't apply to state laws

Karnataka HC dismissed appeal challenging land acquisition notifications under KIAD Act, 1966. Petitioner sought quashing of preliminary and final notifications claiming acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013. Court held writ petition was barred by res judicata principles as same petitioner had earlier approached court in similar matter. Additionally, Section 24(2) of 2013 Act applies only to acquisitions under Land Acquisition Act, 1894, not state enactments like KIAD Act. Court relied on SC precedents establishing that lapse provisions don't extend to state acquisition laws.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and correctness of the order dated 25.04.2018.
2. Lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act).
3. Suppression of material facts by the appellant.
4. Applicability of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act to acquisitions under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Correctness of the Order Dated 25.04.2018:
The appellant challenged the order of the learned Single Judge, who dismissed the writ petition on the grounds that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not apply to acquisitions under the KIAD Act. The Single Judge referred to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of State of Karnataka and Another vs. All India Manufacturers Organisation and Others, which upheld the acquisition for the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project (BMICP).

2. Lapse of Acquisition Proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act:
The appellant sought a declaration that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. However, the court held that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is not applicable to acquisitions under the KIAD Act, as clarified in the Supreme Court judgment in Anasuya Bai. The court emphasized that Section 24 of the 2013 Act applies only to acquisitions initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act, 1894), and not to those under the KIAD Act.

3. Suppression of Material Facts by the Appellant:
The appellant had previously challenged the same acquisition process in earlier writ petitions, which were dismissed by the High Court and the Supreme Court. The appellant did not disclose these facts in the current writ petition, leading to a conclusion of suppression of material facts. The court cited several judgments, including K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Limited, to emphasize that non-disclosure of material facts is a serious matter and can lead to the dismissal of the petition.

4. Applicability of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act to Acquisitions under the KIAD Act:
The court reiterated that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not apply to acquisitions under the KIAD Act. The KIAD Act is a distinct enactment with a different purpose, primarily aimed at the establishment and orderly development of industrial areas. The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including M. Nagabhushana vs. State of Karnataka and Offshore Holdings (P) Ltd. vs. Bangalore Development Authority, to support this conclusion. The court also noted that the 2013 Act repeals only the LA Act, 1894, and not any other Central or State enactment dealing with acquisition.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the learned Single Judge's decision that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not apply to acquisitions under the KIAD Act. The court also highlighted the appellant's suppression of material facts and the principle of res judicata, which barred the appellant from challenging the acquisition process again.

---