Special land acquisition regime under the industrial development law prevails over the general 2013 framework and its lapse provision.

The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 was analysed alongside the 2013 land acquisition law and held to operate in a distinct legislative field, with land acquisition under the 1966 Act treated as incidental to industrial area development. On that basis, the Court treated the 1966 Act as a special enactment and the 2013 Act as the general land acquisition law. The President's assent to the 1966 Act was held not to lapse on commencement of the 2013 Act, the Karnataka Amendment Act, 2019 was held constitutionally effective, and Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act was held inapplicable to proceedings under the 1966 Act.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 is repugnant to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and whether it is impliedly repealed on the commencement of the 2013 Act; (ii) whether the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 is a special enactment vis-a -vis the 2013 Act; (iii) whether the President's assent to the 1966 Act lapsed on the commencement of the 2013 Act; (iv) what is the effect of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2019; and (v) whether Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act applies to proceedings under the 1966 Act.

Issue (i): Whether the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 is repugnant to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and whether it is impliedly repealed on the commencement of the 2013 Act.

Analysis: The two enactments were held to operate in different legislative fields on a pith and substance analysis. The 1966 Act was found to be a law relating to industrial areas and industrial development under Entry 24 of List II, while the 2013 Act was held to be a law relating to acquisition of property under Entry 42 of List III. Their acquisition mechanisms, purposes, and compensation provisions were treated as substantially distinct, and Section 103 of the 2013 Act was read as reinforcing that the new enactment was in addition to existing laws. No clear and irreconcilable conflict was found.

Conclusion: The 1966 Act is not repugnant to the 2013 Act and is not impliedly repealed by it.

Issue (ii): Whether the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 is a special enactment vis-a -vis the 2013 Act.

Analysis: The 1966 Act was held to have a distinct and narrower object, namely establishment and orderly development of industrial areas and creation of the Board, with acquisition of land only incidental to that purpose. The 2013 Act was treated as a general law governing acquisition, compensation, rehabilitation, and resettlement. Applying the doctrine of pith and substance, the 1966 Act was characterised as a special enactment and the 2013 Act as the general law.

Conclusion: The 1966 Act is a special enactment, whereas the 2013 Act is the general law.

Issue (iii): Whether the President's assent to the 1966 Act lapsed on the commencement of the 2013 Act.

Analysis: The assent originally obtained for the State enactment was held to have been given in a different constitutional setting and did not cease merely because Parliament later enacted the 2013 Act. The Court held that the 1966 Act and the 2013 Act were not laws on the same subject matter for the purpose of Article 254(2), and therefore the question of lapse of assent did not arise.

Conclusion: The President's assent to the 1966 Act did not lapse on the commencement of the 2013 Act.

Issue (iv): What is the effect of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2019?

Analysis: The Karnataka Amendment Act, 2019 was held to validly amend the 2013 Act by introducing exemptions and alternate mechanisms for specified projects, including industrial corridors. The Court found no demonstrated arbitrariness or violation of Article 21, and held that the amendments did not invalidate the statutory scheme. The amendment was treated as constitutionally effective within the field of the 2013 Act.

Conclusion: The Karnataka Amendment Act, 2019 is constitutionally valid and effectively amends the 2013 Act.

Issue (v): Whether Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act applies to proceedings under the 1966 Act.

Analysis: Relying on binding precedent, the Court held that the vesting mechanism and object of the 1966 Act are materially different from the general land acquisition regime under the 2013 Act. Since proceedings under the 1966 Act are governed by its own special scheme, the lapse provision in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act was held inapplicable.

Conclusion: Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not apply to proceedings under the 1966 Act.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the 1966 Act failed on all substantial questions decided, the interim order of the Single Judge was set aside, and the writ appeals succeeded, while the connected writ petitions were left to be examined on their own merits.

---