AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (8) TMI 675
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... judgment and order dated 6.4.2004 of a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court by which writ appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed and the judgment and order dated 28.1.2004 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions was affirmed. The subject matter of challenge in the writ petitions were two notifications issued under Section 28(1) and 28(4) of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 3. The impugned notifications were issued for acquisition of land for establishment and development of industries by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board. Before adverting to the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the parties, it will be convenient to reproduce the impugned notifications. The first notification bears No. CI:289:SPQ:2001 and was issued on 10.12.2001, relevant part whereof, is reproduced below: INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE SECRETARIAT NOTIFICATION NO:CI:289:SPQ:2001, Bangalore, Dated 10th Dec 2001 The below mentioned lands specified are required for the State government for establishment and development of industries by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tification under Section 28(4) of the Act was issued. 4. Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the appellants, has challenged the impugned notifications on several grounds and the principal ground is that the land has been acquired in order to benefit a company, namely, Vikas Telecom (P) Ltd. (respondent No. 9) who had submitted a project report for setting up a software technology park which included an I.T. Training Institute/Engineering College, Research and Development center, Educational center, Commercial and Residential Buildings and Service Apartments, Convention center, Hotel, Shopping Mall, etc. In the notification under Section 28(1) of the Act, the purpose of acquisition, namely, the purpose for which the company, Vikas Telecom (P) Ltd. wanted the land, as enumerated above, was not mentioned and, therefore, the appellant landowners were kept in dark and did not get an adequate opportunity to make an effective objection against the proposed acquisition. Learned Counsel has submitted that the notification being absolutely vague and cryptic, it deprived the landowners of a valuable right of making an effective representation and in these circumstances the enti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nitions: In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (1) "amenity" includes road, supply of water or electricity, street lighting, drainage, sewerage, conservancy, and such other convenience, as the State Government may, by notification specify to be an amenity for the purposes of this Act; (2) "Board" means the Industrial Areas Development Board established under this Act; (3) ... (4) ... (5) "development" with its grammatical variations means the carrying out of levelling, digging, building, engineering, quarrying or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in any building or land, and includes re-development; and "to develop" shall be construed accordingly; (6) "industrial area" means any area declared to be an industrial area by the State Government by notification which is to be developed and where industries are to be accommodated and industrial infrastructure facilities and amenities are to be provided and includes, an industrial estate; (7) "industrial estate" means any site selected by the State Government where factories and other buildings are built f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (1) If at any time, in the opinion of the State Government, any land is required for the purpose of development by the Board, or for any other purpose in furtherance of the objects of this Act, the State Government may by notification, give notice of its intention to acquire such land. (2) On publication of a notification under sub-section (1), the State Government shall serve notice upon the owner or where the owner is not the occupier, on the occupier of the land and on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein to show cause, within thirty days from the date of service of the notice, why the land should not be acquired. (3) After considering the cause, if any, shown by the owner of the land and by any other person interested therein, and after giving such owner and person an opportunity of being heard, the State Government may pass such orders as it deems fit. (4) After orders are passed under Sub-section (3), where the State Government is satisfied that any land should be acquired for the purpose specified in the notification issued under Sub-section (1), a declaration shall, by notification in the official Gazette, be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for implementation. Therefore, it is considered necessary to amend the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, to enable the Board to acquire land for providing Industrial infrastructure Facilities. 8. As the definition shows, anything which contributes to the development of industries in industrial areas like technology parks, townships for the purpose of establishing trade and tourism centers and any other facility as the State Government may notify, will be an industrial infrastructure facility. It, therefore, shows that the object of the Act is not only to secure establishment of industrial areas and orderly development of industries therein, but also to create facilities which contribute to the development of industries which may include technology parks, townships, trade and tourism centers, etc. 9. The provision for acquisition of land under the Act is contained in Section 28 which is somewhat different from the provisions contained in Sections 4, 5A and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The legislature in its wisdom thought it proper to make a specific provision for acquisition of the land in the Act itself rather than to take recourse to Sections 4 an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... State Government is empowered, after it has taken possession of land, to transfer the same to the Board for the purpose for which the land has been acquired. Section 32 empowers the State Government to place at the disposal of the Board any land vested in it and the Board is enjoined to deal with the land in accordance with the regulations made and directions given by the State Government in this behalf. This stage when the Board gets the authority to deal with the land comes at a later stage which is after the land has been developed by it. An entrepreneur or a company may give a proposal to the State Government for setting up an industry or infrastructure facility and the Government may thereafter acquire the land and give it to the Board. It is also possible that after the land has already been acquired and developed by the Board, it may be allotted to an entrepreneur or a company for setting up an industry or infrastructure facility. Therefore, the scheme of the Act does not show that at the time of acquisition of the land and issuing a preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the Act, the complete details of the nature of the industry or infrastructure facility propose....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an order which mentioned that "the scheme of the planned development is not necessary for a notification under Section 4 of the Act, as such, no such scheme of the planned development is available in this office." The Master Plan was sanctioned subsequently on 4.9.1962. The notification was challenged on the ground that the words in the notification, viz. "for planned development of the area", gave no indication whatsoever as to the purpose for which the land was acquired and the same was vague. It was held that there was no indication whatsoever in the notification whether the development was to be of residential area and building cities or of commercial and industrial plots nor was it possible for anyone to find out what kind of planned development was under contemplation i.e. whether the land was to be developed by the Government or whether the owners of the properties would be required to develop a particular area in a specified way. It was also held that if the Master Plan which came to be sanctioned on 4.9.1962 had been available for inspection by the persons interested or even if the knowledge of its existence on the part of the appellants had been satisfactorily proved, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her hand, relied upon a Constitution Bench decision in Babu Barkya Thakur v. State of Bombay [1961]1SCR128 , wherein it was held as under: It is not absolutely necessary to the validity of the land acquisition proceedings that the statement that the land to be acquired was needed for a public purpose should find a place in the notification actually issued. The requirements of the law will be satisfied if, in substance, it is found on investigation, and the appropriate Government is satisfied as a result of the investigation that the land was needed for the purpose of a company, which would amount to a public purpose under Part VII. In Union of India v. Jaswant Rai Kochhar [1996]3SCR206 , it was held that when the notification mentioned that the land is sought to be acquired for a housing scheme but actually it is to be used for a district center, the public purpose does not cease to be a public purpose and the notification could not be quashed on the ground that the land is sought to be used for a commercial purpose. This authority has been cited to show that even a change of purpose (from residential to commercial) would not result in invalidating the notification. Strong re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent Act is different and there is no similar provision like the one contained in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act which lays down a period of limitation of one year for making a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act. In absence of any specific provision to that effect in the Act, and the time gap being not very long, it is not possible to hold that the notification under Section 28(4) of the Act is invalid. 14. Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the appellants, has also submitted that Vikas Telecom (P) Ltd. (Respondent No. 9) were themselves owners of nearly 90 acres of land as three members of a family who were promoters and directors of the company had purchased agricultural land in the year 1995-96. They being not agriculturists, proceedings under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act were initiated against them, whereunder the land would have been forfeited to the State Government without payment of any compensation. In order to save their land, they manipulated with the Government and got their own land acquired whereunder they would be entitled to compensation. It is thus submitted that the whole proceedings for acquisition of t....