TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 1415
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) In W.P.Nos.51805-807 of 2015 (La-Kiadb), W.A.No.4064 of 2017 (La-Kiadb) In W.P.No.859 of 2016 (La-Kiadb), W.A.No.4065 of 2017 (La-Kiadb) In W.P.Nos.48824-840/2015 & 7094-7109/2017 (La-Kiadb), W.A.No.4066 of 2017 (La-Kiadb) In W.P.Nos.44987-988 of 2015 (La-Kiadb), W.A.No.4067 of 2017 (La-Kiadb) In W.P.No.17272 of 2014 (La-Kiadb), W.A.No.4068 of 2017 (La-Kiadb) In W.P.Nos.18890 & 23750-752 of 2013 (La-Kiadb) The Special Land Acquisition Officer Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Versus Sri. Manju; Smt. Nalini; Sri. R. Narayana; J. Venkatesh Reddy; R. Venkatesh; Mr. H.S. Somashekar; Sri. P. Venugopal; Smt. K. Premalatha; Sri. Srinivasappa; Sri. Gangana Bovi; Sri. K M Doddappaiah; Sri. Narayanappa; Sri. Muniramaiah; Sri. Bodappa; Sri. Narayanaswamy; The State Of Karnataka; Smt. Nanjamma; Sri. Manjunath N; Smt. Soumya; Sri. Sagun M; Shri. M.R. Ashwathappa; Sri. J. Siddappa; Sri. S. Narayanappa; Sri. Muniyappa; Sri. Ganganna Bhovi; Smt. Kempamma; Sri. Appanna; Sri. K.M. Doddappaiah; Sri. Mallegowda; Smt. M. Jayalakshmi; Smt. M. Padma; Smt. M. Vijayalakshmi; Sri. Muniraju .M; Sri. M. Lakshminarayan; Smt. Narayanamma; Sri. M. Siddappa; Sri. M. Manjunath; Sri. N. Gopalappa; Sri.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case for final disposal." In the writ petitions, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the notifications issued under the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1966 Act' for short) and have also sought the relief that provisions of 1966 Act have been impliedly repealed on commencement of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2013 Act' for short). 2. When the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the parties jointly requested the Court to answer the legal issues. In view of aforesaid joint request made by learned counsel for the parties, we proceed to deal with the legal issues involved in this batch of appeals and writ petitions, however, before adverting to same, it is apposite to refer to the factual backdrop, in which the issues arise for our consideration. Facts leading to filing of the appeals and the writ petitions briefly stated are that respondents are the owners of the land situate in Jakkasandra, Achatanhalli, Malur Taluk, District Kolar, Adinarayana Hosahalli, Dodballa Taluk Bangalore Rural Dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India respectively. While referring to provisions of 1966 Act as well as 2013 Act, it is contended that question of repugnancy does not arise in the fact situation of the case as both the enactments operate in different fields and the 1966 Act does not occupy the field in respect of which Parliament has enacted 2013 Act. It is also urged that in order to succeed on the ground that provisions of 1966 Act have been repealed, the respondents are required to demonstrate that both legislations operate in respect of same subject matter and provisions of both the laws cannot coexist. It is also urged that question of repugnancy on the ground of 1966 Act having occupied, the field does not arise. It is also pointed out that Entry 24 of List II to the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India deals with 'industry' which is a subject of State list and therefore, the question of Parliament evincing interest in respect of a subject matter of a State List does not arise. It is also pointed out that during pendency of the appeal, the State Government by Amending Act No.16 of 2019 namely Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... does not apply to the proceeding under 1966 Act. In this connection, reference has been made to decision of Supreme Court in 'SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MYSORE V. ANASUYA BAI', (2017) 3 SCC 313. SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENTS IN WRIT APPEALS: 7. In W.A.No.4056/2017, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the 1966 Act has been enacted after obtaining the assent of the President of India. In this connection, reference has been made to Article 31 of the Constitution of India and it is submitted that the same was in existence when 1966 Act was enacted by the State Legislature. It is further submitted that 1966 Act is an Act, which pertains to acquisition of land and not industry. It is also pointed out that 1966 Act has been enacted under Entry 42 of List-III of Seventh Schedule and not under Entry 24 of List-II of Seventh Schedule of Constitution of India. It is also urged that the power to legislate for acquisition of property can be exercised only under Entry 42 of List-III to the Seventh Schedule of Constitution of India. It is also urged that after enactment of 2013 Act, 1966 Act is deemed to have repealed and is repugnant to the provisions of 2013 Act. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....individual in exercise of sovereign power. It is pointed out that the Supreme Court has recognized the power of eminent domain in 'KEDARNATH YADAV Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS', AIR 2016 SC 4156, 'LAXMAN LAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS AND ANR. Vs,. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.', (2013) 3 SCC 764 as well as by Madras High Court in 'SUDARSHAN CHARITABLE TRUST Vs. THE GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU', (2018) LAWS (MAD)3 918. It is further submitted that right to property has been recognized by Article 17 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the year 1948 itself which was diluted by the Parliament by inserting Article 31A in the Constitution. It is further submitted that right to hold property is still a Constitutional right as prescribed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and has been recognized by the Supreme Court as a human right in 'HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. Vs. DARIUS SHAPUR CHENAI' (2005) 7 SCC 627, 'PADMAMMA Vs. RAMKRISHNA REDDY' (2008) 15 SCC 517, 'K.T.PLANTATION PVT. LTD. & ANR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA' (2011) 9 SCC 1 AND 'DELHI AIRTECH SERVICES PVT. LTD. & ORS. Vs. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.' (2011) 9 SCC 354. 10. It....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2019 are shocking and are opposed to decisions of various Courts and the same are in violation of Section 108 of 2013 Act. It is also argued that the amendment made by State Legislature to 2013 Act defeats the federal structure of the country and is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions in 'STATE OF KERALA Vs. MAR APPAEM KURI CO. LTD.' (2012) 7 SCC 106, 'KAISER-I-HIND PVT. LTD. AND ORS. Vs. NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION' AIR (SC) 3404, 'ZAVERBHAI AMAIDAS Vs. THE STATE OF BOMBAY AIR 1954 SC 742, 'P.L.MEHRA Vs. D.R.KHANNA' 1971 AIR (DEL) 1, 'M.KARUNANIDHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA' AIR 1979 SC 898, 'T.BARAI Vs. HENRY AH HOE AND ANR.' (1983) 1 SCC 177, 'RESERVE BANK OF INDIA Vs. PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE' 1987 1 SCC 424, 'THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. Vs. ANANTHI AMMAL & ORS.' 1994 SCC (11) 75, 'PT.RISHIKESH AND ANR. Vs. SMT.SALMA BEGUM' 1995 4 SCC 718, 'VASU DEV SINGH & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS' (2006) 12 SCC 753, 'SHAYARA BANO Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.' (2017) 8 SCC 39, 'PRANAV BAJPE Vs. THE STATE OF KARNAT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a. It is also contended that entries in the list contained in Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India are not sources of power but are merely demarcated fields of legislation and have to be construed liberally and widely so as to attain the purpose. 15. It is also urged that the enactments viz., 1966 Act and 2013 Act operate in different fields and therefore, the question of conflict between 1966 Act and 2013 Act does not arise. It is also urged that the concept of occupied field is only relevant in case of a law enacted under the entries of list III of Seventh Schedule of Constitution of India. It is further contended that since, 1966 Act and 2013 Act have been enacted respectively under List II and List III of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, the question of repugnancy does not arise and since, the State Legislature is competent to enact the provisions of the 1966 Act. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'SHRI RAMTANU COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS', (1970) 3 SCC 323, 'GIRNAR TRADERS (3) VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS', (2011) 3 SCC 1, 'SHORT N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as under: (1) Whether the provisions of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 are repugnant to the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013? (2) Whether the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 is impliedly repealed on coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation ad Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013? (3) Whether Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 is a special enactment vis a vis Right to Fair Compensation and transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013? (4) Whether the sanction given by the President on 26.05.1966 to Karnataka Act No.18 of 1966, stood lapsed or come to end on coming into force of the 2013 Act? (5) What is the effect of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2019 (Act No.16 of 2019) on Right to Fair Compensation and transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013? (6) Whether provisions of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act apply to proceeding under 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stions viz., whether State of Maharashtra is competent to enact the Maharashtra Industrial Act, 1961 and whether there is procedural discrimination between Maharashtra Industrial Act, 1961 and Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It was inter alia held that Maharashtra Industrial Act is a special Act having the specific and special purpose of growth, development and organization of industries in Maharashtra and the same does not fall within Entry 7 and Entry 52 of Union List but is within State List of Industries and therefore, the State Legislature was competent to enact the aforesaid law. The relevant extract of para 15 reads as under: It is in the background of the purposes of the act and powers and functions of the Corporation that the real and true character of the legislation will be determined. That is the doctrine of finding out the pith and substance of an Act. IN deciding the pith and substance of the legislation, the true test is not to find out whether the Act has encroached upon or invaded any forbidden field but what the pith and substance of the Act is. It is that true intent of the Act which will determine the validity of the Act. Industries come within Entry 24 of the Sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he State law respectively are for present purposes substantially identical, but the penalties imposed for the contravention differ... In these circumstances, it is I think, clear that the reasons given by my brothers Issacs and Starke for the decisions of this Court in Union Steamship Co. of New Zealand v. Commonwealth(1) and Clyde Engineering Co. v. Cowburn establish that the provisions of the law of the State for the breach of which the appellant was convicted are inconsistent with the law of the Commonwealth within the meaning of sec. 109 of the Constitution and are therefore invalid". Issacs, J. observed as follows:- "There can be no question that the Commonwealth Navigation Act, by its own direct provisions and the Regulations made under its authority, applies upon construction to the circumstances of the case. It is inconsistent with the State Act in various ways, including (1) general supersession of the regulations of conduct, and so displacing the State regulations, whatever those may be; (2) the jurisdiction to convict, the State law empowering the Court to convict summarily, the Commonwealth Law making the contravention an indictable offence, and therefore bringing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd by the Province, both of them being competent to enact the same, the law of the Centre should prevail over that of the State". "It is true, as already pointed out, that on a question under Article 254(1) whether an Act of Parliament prevails against a law of the State, no question of repeal arises; but the principle on which the rule of implied repeal rests, namely, that if subject-matter of the later legislation is identical with that of the earlier, so that they cannot both stand together, then the earlier is repealed by the later enactment, will be equally applicable to a question under Article 254(2) whether the further legislation by Parliament is in respect of the same matter as that of the State law". 29. In the case of Ch. Tika Ramji & Ors. etc. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.(2) while dealing with the question of repugnancy between a Central and a State enactment, this Court relied on the observations of Nicholas in his Australian Constitution, 2nd Ed. p.303, where three tests of inconsistency or repugnancy have been laid down and which are as follows:- "(1) There may be inconsistency in the actual terms of the competing statutes R. Brisbane Licensing Court(1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o Legislatures collide and when the Constitution expressly or by necessary implication provides that the enactment of one Legislature has superiority over the other then to the extent of the repugnancy the one supersedes the other. But two enactments may be repugnant to each other even though obedience to each of them is possible without disobeying the other. The test of two legislations containing contradictory provisions is not, however, the only criterion of repugnancy, for if a competent legislature with a superior efficacy expressly or impliedly evinces by its legislation an intention to cover the whole field, the enactments of the other legislature whether passed before or after would be overborne on the ground of repugnance. Where such is the position, the inconsistency is demonstrated not by a detailed comparison of provisions of the two statutes but by the mere existence of the two pieces of legislation". [...] 35. 1. That in order to decide the question of repugnancy it must be shown that the two enactments contain inconsistent and irreconcilable provisions so that they cannot stand together or operate in the same field. 2. That there can be no repeal by implicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....never repugnancy between the State and Central Legislation is alleged, what has to be first examined is whether the two legislations cover or relate to the same subject matter. The test for determining the same is the usual one, namely, to find out the dominant intention of the two legislations. If the dominant intention, i.e. the pith and substance of the two legislations is different, they cover different subject matters. If the subject matters covered by the legislations are thus different, then merely because the two legislations refer to some allied or cognate subjects they do not cover the same field. The legislation, to be on the same subject matter must further cover the entire field covered by the other. A provision in one legislation to give effect to its dominant purpose may incidentally be on the same subject as covered by the provision of the other legislation. But such partial coverage of the same area in a different context and to achieve a different purpose does not bring about the repugnancy which is intended to be covered by Article 254(2). Both the legislations must be substantially on the same subject to attract the Article. 24. In 'STATE OF A.P. VS. MC DO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 26. Thus, from the perusal of aforementioned decisions of Supreme Court, following legal propositions emerge: (i) The presumption is always in favour of constitutionality of a statute and burden is on the person alleging the same to be unconstitutional. (ii) In order to decision the question of repugnancy or conflict, the doctrine of pit and substance has to be invoked. (iii) In order to attract doctrine of repugnancy it must be shown that both the enactments have been enacted in respect of same subject matter and operated in the same field. (iv) The doctrine of implied repeal applies when legislature with superior efficacy evinces an interest to cover whole field and is an exhaustive code in respect of subject matter of State Legislation. (v) Clear and Direct inconsistency must exist between two enactments and such inconsistency should be absolutely irreconcilable. (vi) Every effort should be to made to reconcile both enactments and to construe them in such a manner so as to avoid their being repugnant to each other. (vii) Validity of an Act is not affected if it incidentally trenches on matters outside the authorized field and therefore, it is necessary to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny area in the State to be an industrial area for the purposes of 1966 Act. Section 4 of the 1966 Act empowers the State Government to alter the industrial area by including or excluding any area from industrial area. Section 5 of the Act deals with establishment and incorporation of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, which is a Body Corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal. Section 6 of the 1966 Act provides for constitution of the Board, whereas, Section 7 of the 1966 Act deals with terms of office and conditions of service for members of the Board. Section 11 of the 1966 Act provides for appointment of Chief Executive Officer of the Board as well as other employees. Section 13 of the 1966 Act defines the functions of the Board, whereas, Section 14 of the 1966 Act defines the general power of the Board. Chapter V of the Act, which contain Sections 18 to 24 of the 1966 Act deal with 'Finance, Accounts and Audit' of the Board. Chapter VI, which contain Sections 25 & 26 of the 1966 Act provide that provisions of Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 apply to premises of the Board, whereas, the provisions of Karnata....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as may be necessary. (8) Where the land has been acquired for the Board, the State Government, after it has taken possession of the land, may transfer the land to the Board for the purpose for which the land has been acquired. 29. Compensation.- (1) Where any land is acquired by the State Government under this Chapter, the State Government shall pay for such acquisition compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) Where the amount of compensation has been determined by agreement between the State Government and the person to be compensated, it shall be paid in accordance with such agreement. (3) Where no such agreement can be reached, the State Government shall refer the case to the Deputy Commissioner for determination of the amount of compensation to be paid for such acquisition as also the person or persons to whom such compensation shall be paid. (4) On receipt of a reference under sub- Section (3), the Deputy Commissioner shall serve notice on the owner or occupier of such land and on all persons known or believed to be interested herein to appear before him and state their respective interests in the said land. 30. Application of Central A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here has been heightened public concern on land acquisition, especially multi-cropped irrigated land and there is no central law to adequately deal with the issues of rehabilitation and resettlement of displaced persons. As land acquisition and rehabilitation and resettlement need to be seen as two sides of the same coin, a single integrated law to deal with the issues of land acquisition and rehabilitation and resettlement has become necessary. Hence the proposed legislation proposes to address concerns of farmers and those whose livelihoods are dependent on the land being acquired, while at the same time facilitating land acquisition for industrialization, infrastructure and urbanization projects in a timely and transparent manner. 5. It is now proposed to have a unified legislation dealing with acquisition of land, provide for just and fair compensation and make adequate provisions for rehabilitation and resettlement mechanism for the affected persons and their families. The Bill thus provides for repealing and replacing the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with broad provisions for adequate rehabilitation and resettlement mechanism for the project affected persons and their famili....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t that the establishment, growth and development of industries in the State of Karnataka or development of land for the Board does not fall either within Entry 7 or Entry 52 of List I to Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. It is pertinent to note that no declaration under Entry 52 of List I relating to 2013 Act or relating to matters covered by 1966 Act has been made. Both the Acts have been enacted under different Entries. Merely because 1966 Act incidentally provides for acquisition of land for industries, it cannot be held that 1966 Act has been enacted under Entry 43 of List III of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. Since, both the statutes have been enacted under different entries in different Lists, therefore, the question of repugnancy does not arise. 33. Section 28(1) of 1966 Act, Section 2(a) to (f) and Section 2(b)(iii) of 2013 Act are extracted below for facility of reference: 28. Acquisition of Land - (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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l calamities, or to persons displaced or affected by reason of the implementation of any scheme undertaken by the Government, any local authority or a corporation owned or controlled by the State. 2. Application of Act.- (b) For infrastructure projects, which includes the following, namely:- (i) xxxxxxxx (ii) xxxxx (iii) Project for industrial corridors or mining activities, national investment and manufacturing zones, as designated in the National Manufacturing Policy; 34. It is pertinent to note that Section 28(1) of the 1966 Act provides that if the State Government is of the opinion that any land is required for the purpose of development by the Board, then a Notification will be issued for acquisition of the land. Thus, the acquisition of the land under the 1966 Act is for the purpose of development by the Board which does not fall under any of the activities as set out in Section 2(1)(a) to (f) of the 2013 Act. It is noteworthy that provisions of 2013 Act apply in respect of project for industrial corridor for mining activities, national investment and manufacturing zones, as designed by the National Manufacturing Policy by virtue of Section 2(b)(iii) of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erson refuses or fails to comply with an order made under sub-Section (5), the State Government or any officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf may take possession of the land and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary. (8) Where the land has been acquired for the Board, the State Government, after it has taken possession of the land, may transfer the land to the Board for the purpose for which the land has been acquired. 11. Publication of preliminary notification and power of officers thereupon.- (1) Whenever, it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any area is required or likely to be required for any public purpose, a notification (hereinafter referred to as preliminary notification) to that effect along with details of the land to be acquired in rural and urban areas shall be published in the following manner, namely:- (a) in the Official Gazette; (b) in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality of such area of which one shall be in the regional language; (c) in the local language in the Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal Corporation, as the case may be and in the offices of the District Collector, the Sub-divisi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acquisition as also the person or persons to whom such compensation shall be paid. (4) On receipt of a reference under sub-Section (3), the Deputy Commissioner shall serve notice on the owner or occupier of such land and on all persons known or believed to be interested herein to appear before him and state their respective interests in the said land. 12. Preliminary survey of land and power of officers to carry out survey.-For the purposes of enabling the appropriate Government to determine the extent of land to be acquired, it shall be lawful for any officer, either generally or specially authorised by such Government in this behalf, and for his servants and workmen,- (a) to enter upon and survey and take levels of any land in such locality; (b) to dig or bore into the sub-soil; (c) to do all other acts necessary to ascertain whether the land is adapted for such purpose; (d) to set out the boundaries of the land proposed to be taken and the intended line of the work (if any) proposed to be made thereon; and (e) to mark such levels, boundaries and line by placing marks and cutting trenches and where otherwise the survey cannot be completed and the levels taken and the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....extend the period shall be recorded in writing and the same shall be notified and be uploaded on the website of the authority concerned. 15. Hearing of objections.-(1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under sub-Section (1) of Section 11, as being required or likely to be required for a public purpose, may within sixty days from the date of the publication of the preliminary notification, object to- (a) the area and suitability of land proposed to be acquired; (b) justification offered for public purpose; (c) the findings of the Social Impact Assessment report. (2) Every objection under sub-Section (1) shall be made to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by any person authorised by him in this behalf or by an Advocate and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under sub-Section (1) of Section 11, or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the appropriate Government, containing his recommendations on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... conducted in such manner as may be prescribed, after giving adequate publicity about the date, time and venue for the public hearing at the affected area: Provided that in case where an affected area involves more than one Gram Panchayat or Municipality, public hearings shall be conducted in every Gram Sabha and Municipality where more than twenty-five per cent of land belonging to that Gram Sabha or Municipality is being acquired: Provided further that the consultation with the Gram Sabha in Scheduled Areas shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (40 of 1996). (6) The Administrator shall, on completion of public hearing submit the draft Scheme for Rehabilitation and Resettlement along with a specific report on the claims and objections raised in the public hearing to the Collector. 17. Review of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme.-(1) The Collector shall review the draft Scheme submitted under sub-Section (6) of Section 16 by the Administrator with the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Committee at the project level constituted under Section 45; (2) The Collector shall submit the draft Rehabilita....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erent stages for the rehabilitation and resettlement, and all declarations shall be made according to the stages so specified. (4) Every declaration referred to in sub-Section (1) shall be published in the following manner, namely:- (a) in the Official Gazette; (b) in two daily newspapers being circulated in the locality, of such area of which one shall be in the regional language; (c) in the local language in the Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal Corporation, as the case may be, and in the offices of the District Collector, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Tehsil; (d) uploaded on the website of the appropriate Government; (e) in the affected areas, in such manner as may be prescribed. (5) Every declaration referred to in sub-Section (1) shall indicate,- (a) the district or other territorial division in which the land is situated; (b) the purpose for which it is needed, its approximate area; and (c) where a plan shall have been made for the land, the place at which such plan may be inspected without any cost. (6) The declaration referred to in sub-Section (1) shall be conclusive evidence that the land is required for a public purpose and, after making suc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rice referred to in Explanation 1 or Explanation 2, any price paid as compensation for land acquired under the provisions of this Act on an earlier occasion in the district shall not be taken into consideration. Explanation 4.-While determining the market value under this Section and the average sale price referred to in Explanation 1 or Explanation 2, any price paid, which in the opinion of the Collector is not indicative of actual prevailing market value may be discounted for the purposes of calculating market value. (2) The market value calculated as per sub-Section (1) shall be multiplied by a factor to be specified in the First Schedule. (3) Where the market value under sub-Section (1) or sub- Section (2) cannot be determined for the reason that- (a) the land is situated in such area where the transactions in land are restricted by or under any other law for the time being in force in that area; or (b) the registered sale deeds or agreements to sell as mentioned in clause (a) of sub- Section (1) for similar land are not available for the immediately preceding three years; or (c) the market value has not been specified under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings; fifthly, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change; sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under Section 19 and the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land; and seventhly, any other ground which may be in the interest of equity, justice and beneficial to the affected families. 36. Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is evident that the aforesaid provisions are not in conflict with each other and can co-exist and essentially deal with the fundamental concepts of acquisition viz., providing an opportunity of hearing to the owners of the land and for determination of compensation. Availability of two procedures for acquisition and compensation would not per se invalidate one of them. 37. Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India reads as under: 254. Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lity of its language applicable to and covering a number of cases, of which the particular law is but one. This, as a matter of jurisprudence, as understood in England, has been laid down in a great number of cases, whether the prior law be an express statute, or be the underlying common or customary law of the country. Where general words in a later Act are capable of reasonable and sensible application without extending them to subjects specially dealt with by earlier legislation, that earlier and special legislation is not be held indirectly repealed, altered, or derogated from merely by force of such general words, without any indication of a particular intention to do so. 40. The Supreme Court in 'MUNICIPAL COUNCIL PALI VS. T.J. JOSPEH', AIR 1963 SC 1561 while dealing with Doctrine of implied repeal has held that there is a presumption against an implied repeal. The reason for this rule is based on the theory that legislature while enacting a law has complete knowledge of existing laws on the same subject matter and therefore when it does not provide a repealing provision, it gives an intention not to repeal the existing legislation. The concept of implied repeal app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Act, 1894 held that Bangalore Development Authority Act is an Act to provide for the establishment of a development authority to facilitate and ensure land growth and development of the city of Bangalore and areas adjacent thereto and the acquisition of any land for such development is merely incidental to the main object of the Act i.e., development of Bangalore Metropolitan Area and in pith and substance the Bangalore Development Authority Act squarely falls under Entry 5 of List II of seventh Schedule and is not a law for acquisition of land like land Acquisition Act, 1894 traceable to Entry 42 of List III of seventh schedule. The aforesaid view was reiterated in 'BONDU RANGASWAMY VS. BDA', (2010) 7 SCC 129. 44. The 1966 Act had been enacted with the object of establishment of industrial areas, promoting the establishment and orderly development of industries and establishment of industrial areas development board. The 1966 Act incidentally deals with acquisition of land for the purposes of development by the Board. In pith and substance the 1966 Act is the law enacted under Entry 24 of List II of the seventh schedule to the Constitution of India and is a law enacted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed for compulsory acquisition of a property for a public purpose enacted by legislature of a state, and assent of the president was required to be taken, in order to make such a law effective. The 1966 Act received assent of the President of India on 14th May, 1966. 46. Article 31A of the Constitution of India deals with saving of laws providing for acquisition of estates which is extracted below for the facility of reference: "31A. Saving of laws providing for acquisition of estates, etc ( 1 ) Notwithstanding anything contained in Article 13, no law providing for (a) the acquisition by the State of any estate or of any rights therein or the extinguishment or modification of any such rights, or (b) the taking over of the management of any property by the State for a limited period either in the public interest or in order to secure the proper management of the property, or (c) the amalgamation of two or more corporations either in the public interest or in order to secure the proper management of any of the corporations, or (d) the extinguishment or modification of any rights of managing agents, secretaries and treasurers, managing directors, directors or managers o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce the dominant purpose of the Act was to preserve and protect Roerichs Estate as part of agrarian reforms, the inclusion of ancillary measures would not throw the law out of the protection of Article 31-A(1)(a). 112. On the other hand, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is an Act which fell exclusively under List III Entry 42 and enacted for the purpose of acquisition of land needed for public purposes for companies and for determining the amount of compensation to be made on account of such acquisition, which is substantially and materially different from the impugned Act whose dominant purpose is to preserve and protect "estate" governed by Article 31-A(1)(a) read with Article 31-A(2)(a)(iii) of the Constitution. 113. We are, therefore, pf the considered view that no assent of the President was required under Article 254(2) of the Constitution to sustain the impugned Act, which falls under Article 31-A(1)(a) of the Constitution, for which the assent of the President was obtained. The contention of the counsel that the Acquisition Act was invalid due to repugnancy is, therefore, rejected" 49. Thus, there is a fundamental distinction between obtaining assent of the President u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....apter II and Chapter III of this Act, namely:- (a) such projects vital to national security or defence of India and every part thereof, including preparation for defence or defence production; (b) infrastructure projects including educational institutions, Hospitals, Government or Local Self Government Offices electrification, irrigation projects and drinking water projects; and (c) affordable housing and housing for the poor people." (d) industrial corridors set up by the State Government and its undertaking (in which case the land shall be acquired up to such distance on both sides of designated railway lines or roads and as specified by the State Government for specific projects from time to time and notified as such in State Gazette); and (e) infrastructure projects, including projects under public-private partnership where the ownership of the land continues to vest with the State Government: Provided that, the State Government shall, before the issue of notification, ensure the extent of land for the proposed acquisition keeping in view the minimum land required for such project" "23-A. Award of Deputy Commissioner without enquiry in case of agreement of interested persons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....antage of the land owners. "31-A. Payment of Lump-sum amount by State Government.- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, whenever the land is to be acquired for any projects as notified in Section 10-A, it shall be competent for the State Government to pay such lump sum amount as may be prescribed in the rules in lieu of Rehabilitation and Resettlement: Provided that the payment of such lump-sum amount in lieu of Rehabilitation and Resettlement as may be prescribed, shall not be abnormally at variance to the disadvantage of the affected families. 51. By the aforesaid Amendment Act, the state government has been granted the power to exempt the projects mentioned therein from the application of Chapter II and III of the Act. The KIADB vide its resolution dated 27.08.2016 has resolved to determine the amount of compensation in respect of the land which may be acquired under 1966 Act as per Schedule I of 2013 Act. Therefore, the grievance of the owners of the land in so far as it pertains to payment of lesser compensation under 1966 Act does not survive. It has been urged on behalf of the owners of the land that the provisions of the Karnataka Amendment Act 2019 are a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Nagabhushana v. State of Karnataka [M. Nagabhushana v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 3 SCC 408 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 733] has held that Section 11-A of the Act is no application in respect of the land acquired under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act. We have to consider in this appeal as to whether Section 24(2) of the new Act is applicable in order to hold that the acquisition proceedings deemed to be lapsed due to non-payment of compensation and non-passing of the award within a period of five years from the date of declaration and with effect from non-payment of compensation to the landowners. 14. The new Act does not say whether the Act is applicable to the land acquired under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Act, 1894. What Section 24 says that if the award is not passed under Section 11 of the Act and the compensation is not paid within 5 years or more prior to new Act, if the physical possession of the land is taken or not especially the compensation is not paid or deposited in Court such proceedings deem to have been lapsed. In the instant case, it is not the case of the respondent that a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere Sections 28(4) and 28(5) of the KIAD Act are vitally different from Sections 4 and 6 of the said Act. 31. A somewhat similar question came up for consideration before a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Pratap v. State of Rajasthan [Pratap v. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 3 SCC 1] . In that case the acquisition proceedings commenced under Section 52(2) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 and the same contentions were raised, namely, that the acquisition notification gets invalidated for not making an award within a period of two years from the date of notification. Repelling the said contention, the learned Judges held that once the land is vested in the Government, the provisions of Section 11-A are not attracted and the acquisition proceedings will not lapse. (Pratap case [Pratap v. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 3 SCC 1] , SCC p. 8, para 12.) 32. In Munithimmaiah v. State of Karnataka [Munithimmaiah v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 326] this Court held that the provisions of Sections 6 and 11-A of the said Act do not apply to the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (the BDA Act). In SCC para 15 at p. 335 of the Report this Court made a dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct, 1972 (hereinafter "the 1972 Act"), this Court held that the 1972 Act is not a selfcontained code. The Court also held that the 1972 Act and the Central Act are supplemental to each other to the extent that unless the Central Act supplements the Karnataka Act, the latter cannot function. The Court further held that both the Acts, namely, the 1972 Act and the Central Act deal with the same subject. But in the instant case, the KIAD Act is a self-contained code and the Central Act is not supplemental to it. Therefore, the ratio in Mariyappa [Mariyappa v. State of Karnataka, (1998) 3 SCC 276] is not attracted to the facts of the present case. 36. Following the aforesaid well-settled principles, this Court is of the opinion that there is no substance in the contention of the appellant that acquisition under the KIAD Act lapsed for alleged non-compliance with the provisions of Section 11-A of the said Act. For the reasons aforesaid, all the contentions of the appellant, being without any substance, fail and the appeal is dismissed." 30. Having regard to the aforesaid raison d'être for non-application of the old LA Act, on the parity of reasoning, provision of Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gislative power flowing from various entries in the three lists and not an independent power, but since the deletion of Entry 33 in List I and Entry 36 in List II and substitution of a comprehensive entry in List III, it could hardly be urged with confidence that the power of acquisition and requisitioning of property was incidental to other power. It is an independent power provided for in a specific entry. Therefore, both the Union and the State would have power of acquisition and requisitioning of property. This position is unquestionably established by the majority decision in Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India [(1970) 1 SCC 248, 282 : AIR 1970 SC 564 : (1970) 3 SCR 530, 567] where Shah, J., speaking for the majority of 10 Judges held as under: (SCC p. 282, para 38) "Power to legislate for acquisition of property is exercisable only under Entry 42 of List III, and not as an incident of the power to legislate in respect of a specific head of legislation in any of the three lists." In reaching this conclusion reliance was placed on Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 1954 SC 251 : 1954 SCR 779 : 1954 SCJ 310] . It was, however,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh [AIR 1952 SC 252 : 1952 SCR 889 : 1952 SCJ 354] . Repelling this contention of the Advocate-General of Madras would mean that the power of acquisition of property is not ancillary or incidental to the subjectmatter of each entry but in substance it is an independent power by itself. This also becomes clear from Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh case [AIR 1952 SC 252 : 1952 SCR 889 : 1952 SCJ 354] wherein Das, J., in his concurring judgment repelled the argument of the learned Attorney General appearing for the State contending that the Bihar Land Reforms Act was a law made with respect to matters mentioned in Entry 18 List II and not in Entry 36 List II. Entry 18 in List II read: "Land and Land tenures, etc." and it was contended that the impugned legislation was on the subject of land and land tenures and would cover acquisition of land also. Negativing this contention it was held that in that event Entry 36 in List II would become redundant. The pertinent observation is as under: "In my opinion, to give a meaning and content to each of the two legislative heads under Entry 18 and Entry 36 in List II the former should be read as a legislative catego....