Repugnancy in industrial land acquisition law: Karnataka Act must yield to the 2013 regime, including lapsing under Section 24(2).

The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 was held inconsistent with the 2013 land acquisition regime to the extent it permits industrial area acquisition without complying with the mandatory safeguards on acquisition, compensation, rehabilitation, and resettlement. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act was held applicable to acquisitions initiated under the State Act through Section 30's referential incorporation and Article 14 equality principles. Deemed vesting under Section 28(5) was held not to exclude deemed divesting and lapsing where Section 24(2)'s conditions are met. The later decision in Anasuya Bai was held not to control or defeat the challenge raised in these petitions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, particularly Section 3(1) and Sections 28 to 31, is repugnant to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; (ii) Whether Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act applies to acquisitions initiated under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966; (iii) Whether deemed vesting under Section 28(5) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 excludes deemed divesting and lapsing under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act; (iv) Whether the decision in Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, Mysore v. Anasuya Bai affects these petitions.

Issue (i): Whether the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, particularly Section 3(1) and Sections 28 to 31, is repugnant to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Analysis: Repugnancy was examined on the touchstone of Article 254 of the Constitution of India and the settled tests of inconsistency, irreconcilability, and occupation of the same field. The 2013 Act was treated as a comprehensive law governing acquisition for industrialisation, infrastructure, and rehabilitation, with detailed safeguards on social impact assessment, compensation, and resettlement. The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 was held to operate inconsistently with that regime insofar as it enabled acquisition for industrial areas without conforming to the mandatory prerequisites now imposed by the 2013 Act.

Conclusion: The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 was held to be inconsistent with the 2013 Act and cannot be worked independently of the requirements of the 2013 Act and the Rules made thereunder.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act applies to acquisitions initiated under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966.

Analysis: Section 30 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 was treated as a referential provision making the law of acquisition under the 1894 Act applicable mutatis mutandis to enquiry, award, reference, apportionment, and payment of compensation. Reading Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act with Section 30, and applying the equality principle under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the Court held that the benefit of lapsing cannot be denied merely because the acquisition was initiated under the State enactment rather than the repealed 1894 Act.

Conclusion: Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act was held applicable to acquisitions initiated under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966.

Issue (iii): Whether deemed vesting under Section 28(5) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 excludes deemed divesting and lapsing under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

Analysis: Although Section 28(5) speaks of vesting in the State Government, the scheme of Section 28(6) to 28(8) contemplates subsequent surrender, taking of possession, and transfer. The Court held that Section 24(2) creates a legal fiction of lapsing and corresponding divesting where the statutory conditions are met, and that the earlier vesting under the State Act does not defeat that consequence.

Conclusion: Deemed vesting under Section 28(5) does not bar deemed divesting and lapsing under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act where its conditions are satisfied.

Issue (iv): Whether the decision in Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, Mysore v. Anasuya Bai affects these petitions.

Analysis: The later Supreme Court decision was treated as not decisive of the present controversy because it did not involve a challenge to the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966. The Court therefore held that the ruling did not control the issues raised in these petitions.

Conclusion: The decision in Anasuya Bai was held not to render the petitions infructuous or otherwise defeat the petitioners' challenge.

Final Conclusion: The Court answered all framed legal issues in favour of the petitioners on the questions of repugnancy, applicability of Section 24(2), and the effect of deemed vesting, but left the individual writ petitions to be listed for hearing on facts and merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a later parliamentary land acquisition law introduces a comprehensive and mandatory regime for acquisition, compensation, and rehabilitation, a State industrial development acquisition scheme must yield to that regime to the extent of inconsistency, and the statutory lapsing provision may apply to acquisitions initiated under the State enactment through referential incorporation.

---