TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 1415
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....adb), W.A.No.4063 of 2017 (La-Kiadb) 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. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The petitions to be posted for hearing on facts and the merits of each 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to as 'the 1966 Act' for short) and have also sought the relief that provisions of 1966 Act have been impliedly repealed on commencement of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hereas 2013 Act has been enacted in exercise of powers under Entry 42 of List III of 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roceeding under 1966 Act is no longer res integra and it has been held that Section 24(2) 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 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in power and the Doctrine of eminent domain was invoked to confiscate the property of a private 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 '....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the affected families. 12. It is also argued that objects and reasons of Karnataka Amendment Act 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, '....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 1966 Act has not been enacted under Entry 42 of List III of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. 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', (19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f an individual to own property, ISSUES: The issues, which arise for consideration in these bunch of cases are 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e two pieces of legislation. 20. In 'SHRI RAMTANU CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS', (1970) 3 SCC 323, the Supreme Court dealt with twin questions 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 encroache....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....An obvious inconsistency arises when the two enactments produce different legal results when applied to the same facts". 26. In the case of Hume v. Palmer Knox, C.J. observed as follows:- "The rules prescribed by the Commonwealth Law and the 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich formed the subject of the earlier legislation but with other and distinct matters though of a cognate and allied character, then Article 254 (2) will have no application. The principle embodied in Section 107 (2) and Article 254 (2) is that when there is legislation covering the same ground both by the Centre and 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no question of Section 5 (1) (c) repealing Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code. If that is so, then, Article 14 of the Constitution can be no bar". [...] 33. In the case of State of Orissa v. M. A. Tulloch & Co. (1) Ayyangar J. speaking for the Court observed as follows:- "Repugnancy arises when two enactments both within the competence of the two 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 c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mining whether the two statutes cover the same subject matter, what is necessary to examine is the scope and the object of the two enactments, and that has to be done by ascertaining the intention in the usual way and what is meant by the usual way is nothing more or less than the ascertainment of the dominant object of the two legislations. [...] 53. The aforesaid review of the authorities makes it clear that whenever 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 eff....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eting statutes; second, though there is no direct conflict between a State and Central statute, the later may be intended to be an exhaustive code in which event it occupies the whole field, excluding the operation of the state law on the subject in the concurrent list; and third, even in the absence of an actual conflict, repugnancy may arise when both the State and Central statutes seek to exercise power over the same subject matter. 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y to promote the establishment and orderly development of industries therein, and for that purpose to establish an Industrial Areas Development Board and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid. 30. Thus, from perusal of statement of objects and reasons, it is axiomatic that 1966 Act is an Act for establishment of an industrial area, for promoting the establishment and orderly development of industries and establishment of Industrial Areas Development Board. Section 3 of the 1966 Act empowers the State Government to declare any 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 O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(6) Where any land is vested in the State Government under Sub-Section (5), the State Government may, by notice in writing, order any person who may be in possession of the land to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government or any person duly authorized by it in this behalf within thirty days of the service of the notice. (7) If any person refuses or fails to comply with an order made under sub-Section (5), the State Government or any Officer authorized 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. 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the company through private negotiations on a "willing seller-willing buyer" basis, which could be seen to be a more fair arrangement from the point of view of the land owner. In order to streamline the provisions of the Act causing less hardships to the owners of the land and other persons dependant upon such land, it in proposed repeal the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and to replace it with adequate provisions for rehabilitation and resettlement for the affected persons and their families. 3. There have been multiple amendments to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 not only by the Central Government but by the State Governments as well. Further, there 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 li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... substance the law relating to acquisition of land, has been enacted in exercise of powers under Entry 42 of List III. whereas, 1966 Act has been enacted in exercise of powers under Entry 24 of List II. The 1966 Act is an Act, which in pith and substance deals with establishment of Industrial areas in the State of Karnataka and generally to promote establishment and orderly development of industries therein and for matters incidental thereto. The 1966 Act has been enacted under Entry 24 of List II to the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. Both the enactments i.e., 1966 Act and 2013 Act taken together, as well as its objects and effect of provisions of the Act it is evident 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....search schemes or institutions; (vi) Project for sports, heath care, tourism, transportation of space programme; (vii) Any infrastructure facility as may be notified in this regard by the Central Government and after tabling of such notification in Parliament; (c) Project for project affected families; (d) Project for housing, or such income groups, as may be specified from time to time by the appropriate Government; (e) Project for planned development or the improvement of village sites or any site in the urban areas or provision of land for residential purposes for the weaker sections in rural and urban areas; (f) Project for residential purposes to the poor or landless or to persons residing in areas affected by natural 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 acti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ems 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 made to that effect. (5) On the publication in the official Gazette of the declaration under sub-Section (4), the land shall vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances. (6) Where any land is vested in the State Government under sub-Section (5), the State Government may, by notice in writing, order any person who may be in possession of the land to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government or any person duly authorised by it in this behalf within thirty days of the service of the notice. (7) If any person 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... wilful violation of this provision shall not be made up by the Collector. (5) After issuance of notice under sub-Section (1), the Collector shall, before the issue of a declaration under Section 19, undertake and complete the exercise of updating of land records as prescribed within a period of two months. 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 s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dispute to the decision of the Collector or other chief revenue officer of the district, and such decision shall be final. 31. Delegation of powers by the State Government.- The State Government may if it thinks fit delegate any of its powers under this Chapter to any of its officers, by rules made in this behalf. 14. Lapse of Social Impact Assessment Report.-Where a preliminary notification under Section 11 is not issued within twelve months from the date of appraisal of the Social Impact Assessment report submitted by the Expert Group under Section 7, then, such report shall be deemed to have lapsed and a fresh Social Impact Assessment shall be required to be undertaken prior to acquisition proceedings under Section 11: Provided that the appropriate Government, shall have the power to extend the period of twelve months, if in its opinion circumstances exist justifying the same: Provided further that any such decision to 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-Sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cquired. (2) The Administrator shall, based on the survey and census under sub-Section (1), prepare a draft Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme, as prescribed which shall include particulars of the rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements of each land owner and landless whose livelihoods are primarily dependent on the lands being acquired and where resettlement of affected families is involved- (i) a list of Government buildings to be provided in the Resettlement area; (ii) details of the public amenities and infrastructural facilities which are to be provided in the Resettlement Area. (3) The draft Rehabilitation and Resettlement scheme referred to in sub-Section (2) shall include time limit for implementing Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme; (4) The draft Rehabilitation and Resettlement scheme referred to in sub-Section (2) shall be made known locally by wide publicity in the affected area and discussed in the concerned Gram Sabhas or Municipalities. (5) A public hearing shall be 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: Pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the same preliminary notification irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made (wherever required). (2) The Collector shall publish a summary of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme along with draft declaration referred to in sub- Section (1): Provided that no declaration under this sub-Section shall be made unless the summary of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme is published along with such declaration: Provided further that no declaration under this sub- Section shall be made unless the Requiring Body deposits an amount, in full or part, as may be prescribed by the appropriate Government toward the cost of acquisition of the land: Provided also that the Requiring Body shall deposit the amount promptly so as to enable the appropriate Government to publish the declaration within a period of twelve months from the date of the publication of preliminary notification under Section 11. (3) In projects where land is acquired in stages, the application for acquisition itself can specify different stages for the rehabilitation and resettlement, and all declarations shall be made according to the stages so specified. (4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re the land is situated; or (b) the average sale price for similar type of land situated in the nearest village or nearest vicinity area; or (c) consented amount of compensation as agreed upon under sub-Section (2) of Section 2 in case of acquisition of lands for private companies or for public private partnership projects, whichever is higher: Provided that the date for determination of market value shall be the date on which the notification has been issued under Section 11. Explanation 1.-The average sale price referred to in clause (b) shall be determined taking into account the sale deeds or the agreements to sell registered for similar type of area in the near village or near vicinity area during immediately preceding three years of the year in which such acquisition of land is proposed to be made. Explanation 2.-For determining the average sale price referred to in Explanation 1, one-half of the total number of sale deeds or the agreements to sell in which the highest sale price has been mentioned shall be taken into account. Explanation 3.-While determining the market value under this Section and the average sale price referred to in Explana....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d for acquisition of any land or property of an educational institution established and administered by a religious or linguistic minority shall be such as would not restrict or abrogate the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. 28. Parameters to be considered by Collector in determination of award.- In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Collector shall take into consideration- firstly, the market value as determined under Section 26 and the award amount in accordance with the First and Second Schedules; secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops and trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof; thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of severing such land from his other land; fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....swer issue No.1 in the negative and hold that provisions of 1966 Act are not repugnant to 2013 Act. ISSUE NO.2 (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? 39. The principle that a prior special law is held to be impliedly repealed by later general law has been dealt with succinctly by Justice G.P.Singh in Principles of Statutory Interpretation 14th Edition Page 741, which read as under: As an application of the above principles a prior particular or special law is not readily held to be impliedly repealed by later general enactment. The particular or special law deals only with a particular phase of the subject covered by the general law and, therefore, a reconciliation is normally possible between a prior particular Act and a later general Act and so the particular Act is construed as an exception or qualification of the general Act. To quote the words of Lord Philimore, "it is a sound principle of all jurisprudence that a prior particular law is not easily to be held to be ab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peal cannot be invoked in the fact situation of the case. As already noticed, 2013 Act is a law relating to acquisition under Entry 42 of List III and 1966 Act is a law relating to industries under Entry 24 of List II of the seventh schedule to the Constitution of India. Thus, 2013 Act does not deal with the prohibited field viz., industries and therefore, the doctrine of occupied field does not apply to the fact situation of the case. Similarly, 2013 Act is not a special law and therefore, it is not a case where special law is enacted in respect of field, which general law occupies. Therefore, 2013 Act not being a special law does not occupy the field in respect of subject matter in respect of which 1966 Act has been enacted. Thus, the issue No.2 is also answered in the negative and it is held that provisions of 1966 Act are not impliedly repeal on coming to force of 2013 Act. ISSUE NO.3. (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? 43. The Supreme Court in 'MUNITHIMMAIAH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA', (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... may be specified in such law; and no such law shall be called in question in any Court on the ground that the amount so fixed or determined is not adequate or that the whole or any part of such amount is to be given otherwise than in cash: Provided that in making any law providing for the compulsory acquisition of any property of an educational institution established and administered by a minority, referred to in clause (1) of article 30, The State shall ensure that the amount fixed or determined under such law for the acquisition of such property in such as would not restrict or abrogate the right guaranteed under that clause. (2-A) Where a law does not provide for the transfer of the ownership or right to possession of any property to the State or to a corporation owned or controlled by the State, it shall not be deemed to provide for the compulsory acquisition or requisitioning of property, notwithstanding that it deprives any person of his property. (2-B) Nothing in sub-clause (f) of clause (1) of article 19 shall affect any such law as is referred to in clause (2). (3) No such law as is referred to in clause (2) made by the Legislature of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as is within the ceiling limit applicable to him under any law for the time being in force or any building or structure standing thereon or appurtenant thereto, unless the law relating to the acquisition of such land, building or structure, provides for payment of compensation at a rate which shall not be less than the market value thereof" 47. Thus, regarding the law framed by state legislature in respect of subject matter provided in clauses (a) to (e) of Article 31A(1), which includes the law providing for acquisition of estates, assent of the President is required to be taken before such a law enacted by the state legislature becomes effective. 48. The Supreme Court in K.T.PLANTATION V. STATE OF KARNATAKA, (2011) 9 SCC 1, has held as under: "111. We are of the considered view that the Acquisition Act, in this case, as rightly contended by the State, primarily falls under List II Entry 18, since the dominant intention of the legislature was to preserve and protect Roerichs Estate covered by the provisions of the Land Reforms Act, on the State Government withdrawing the exemption in respect of the land used for linaloe cultivation. The Acquisition Act, though prim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the same which has not been discharged in this case. For the aforementioned reasons, the fourth issue is also answered in the negative and it is held that assent granted by the President on 26.05.1996 to 1966 Act did not lapse on coming into force of 2013 Act. ISSUE NO.5. (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? 50. The provisions of 2013 Act have been amended by the State Legislature by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2019, the aforesaid amendment act had received the assent of the President on 16.07.2019. By the aforesaid Amendment Act, several provisions of 2013 Act have been amended, however, the amendments which are relevant for decision of the controversy involved in these appeals are, Amendment of Section 2, insertion of Sections 10A, 23A, 30A and 31A. The aforesaid provisions are extracted below for the facility ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y entering into agreement voluntary Acquisition of Land.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, or any other law, whenever it appears to the State Government that the land is needed in any area for any public purpose, the State Government or its Authorised Officer may enter into an agreement with the willing land owner to sell the land in favour of the State Government for the matters specified therein in a prescribed form. (2) The State Government or its authorized officer shall pass an order in terms of agreement under sub-Section (1) for acquisition, and the substance of the order shall be notified in the official Gazette. On such publication of notification, the title, ownership and all interests of the land owner who enters into agreement shall vest with the State Government free from all encumbrances. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act, 1908(Central Act16 of 1908) no agreement entered under sub-Section (1) shall be liable for registration under that Act. (4) If any family, other than the family of the land owner who entered into an agreement, is affected by the acquisition of land under this Section, the State Government shall pay a l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ER VS. ANUSUYA BAI', (2017) 3 SCC 313 while dealing with the issue regarding applicability of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act to proceeding under 1966 Act has held as under: 28. The Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment [Anasuya Bai v. State of Karnataka, 2015 SCC OnLine Kar 2220] , however, has quashed the acquisition proceedings itself holding that they have lapsed. For this purpose, the High Court has taken aid of Section 24 of the new LA Act in the following manner: (Anasuya Bai case [Anasuya Bai v. State of Karnataka, 2015 SCC OnLine Kar 2220] , SCC OnLine Kar paras 13-14) "13. It is also noted that the acquisition proceedings including preliminary and final declaration have been passed under the provisions of the KIAD Act. But there is no provision under the KIAD Act to pass an award and award has to be passed only under the provisions of the LA Act, 1894. If the award has to be passed under the LA Act, whether the new Act can be pressed into service to hold the acquisition proceedings are lapsed on account of non-passing of award within a period of 5 years under Section 11. If the award is passed under the LA Act, the enquiry has to be con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are initiated under the KIAD Act, Section 11-A of the old LA Act would not be applicable. Such an opinion of the Court is based on the following rationale: (M. Nagabhushana case [M. Nagabhushana v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 3 SCC 408 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 733] , SCC pp. 420-22, paras 29-36) "29. The appellant has not challenged the validity of the aforesaid provisions. Therefore, on a combined reading of the provisions of Sections 28(4) and 28(5) of the KIAD Act, it is clear that on the publication of the Notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act i.e. from 30-3-2004, the land in question vested in the State free from all encumbrances by operation of Section 28(5) of the KIAD Act, whereas the land acquired under the said Act vests only under Section 16 thereof, which runs as under: '16. Power to take possession.-When the Collector has made an award under Section 11, he may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances.' 30. On a comparison of the aforesaid provisions, namely, Sections 28(4) and 28(5) of the KIAD Act with Section 16 of the said Act, it is clear that the land which is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is considered necessary to make provision for the orderly establishment and development of industries in suitable areas in the State. To achieve this object, it is proposed to specify suitable areas for industrial development and establish a Board to develop such areas and make available lands therein for establishment of industries.' 34. The KIAD Act is of course a selfcontained code. The said Act is primarily a law regulating acquisition of land for public purpose and for payment of compensation. Acquisition of land under the said Act is not concerned solely with the purpose of planned development of any city. It has to cater to different situations which come within the expanded horizon of public purpose. Recently, the Constitution Bench of this Court in Girnar Traders (3) v. State of Maharashtra [Girnar Traders (3) v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 3 SCC 1 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 578] held that Section 11-A of the said Act does not apply to acquisition under the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. 35. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of this Court in Mariyappa v. State of Karnataka [Mariyappa v. State ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amendment in the previous Act, if not imported into the subsequent Act also, would render the subsequent Act wholly unworkable and ineffectual; and (d) where the amendment of the previous Act, either expressly or by necessary intendment, applies the said provisions to the subsequent Act.'" 53. A division bench of this court in SRI ANANTHA SWAMY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS vide judgment dated 02.03.2021 in W.A.No.1451/2018 by placing reliance on decision of Supreme Court in ANASUYA BAI supra has also held that Section 24(2) of 2013 Act does not apply to proceeding under Section 1966 Act. Thus, the aforesaid issue is also answered in the negative and it is held that Section 24(2) does not apply to proceeding under 1966 Act. 54. The Supreme Court in ISHWARI KHAITAN SUGAR MILLS (P) LTD. AND OTHERS V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS, (1980) 4 SCC 136, has explained the ratio laid down in R.C. COOPER (SUPRA) as follows: 18. By the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, the three entries were repealed. Entry 33 in List I and Entry 36 in List II were deleted and a single comprehensive Entry 42 in List III was substituted to read : "Acquisition and requisition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hallenge failed in the High Court but on appeal the challenge was accepted by a Constitution Bench of this Court. Now, it must be remembered that the impugned legislation in that case was a pre- Constitution legislation then governed by the Government of India Act, 1935. The challenge was that the State Legislature had no power to enact a legislation for acquisition of an electrical undertaking. On behalf of the State the Act was sought to be sustained on the ground that the Act was in pith and substance a law with respect to electricity under Entry 31 of the Concurrent List and, therefore, the State Legislature was competent to enact the same. After scrutinising the Act this Court came to the conclusion that in pith and substance the Act was one to provide for acquisition of electrical undertaking and, therefore, the State Legislature lacked competence to enact the same. Now, in that case the Advocate General of Madras in his effort to save the impugned legislation advanced an argument before the Constitution Bench that: "There was implicit in every entry in the legislative lists in the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935, an inherent power to make a law....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 SCJ 354] . The aforesaid interpretation by the Supreme Court binds this court, therefore, it cannot be held that decision of Supreme Court in SHRI RAMTANU COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD does not bind this court. 55. The finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that since, the State Government has adopted the National Manufacturing Policy, and therefore, the provisions of 1966 Act would be redundant unless al the provisions of 2013 Act are introduced to safeguard the interest of the land owners cannot be sustained. Similarly, the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that since, acquisition of land for industrial and manufacturing purposes is now declared a primary public purpose under 2013 Act, the 1966 Act which is silent with regard to feasibility of acquisition of particular land for industrial purposes should conform to provisions of 2013 Act, otherwise must perish is sans substance. Similarly, the finding that State Government cannot be permitted to over write provisions of 2013 Act by resorting to unbridled powers under 1966 Act and that entire field of establishment of industrial areas is covered by 2013 Act, also does not deserve acceptance. CONCLUSION: 56....