- 1 - WA NO.200158 OF 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO. 200158 OF 2021 BETWEEN: NAVEEN KUMAR S/O PARASMAL, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O CHIKKASUGUR, TALUK & DIST: RAICHUR – 584101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. AMEETH KUMAR DESHPANDE, SR. ADV. FOR SRI. GANESH S. KALABURAGI, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560001. 2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, DHARWAD – 580001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN BASAREDDY, GA FOR R1; SRI. SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, ADV. FOR R2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER DATED 16.09.2021 Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - WA NO.200158 OF 2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.201742/2015 (LA-KIADB) AND TO PASS ANY SUCH APPROPRIATE ORDERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR “PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS” THIS DAY, THE COURT, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This intra Court appeal is filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.09.2021 passed in W.P.No.201742/2015 (LA-KIADB), wherein the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that, the appellant is the owner of the land in Sy.No.162/1, measuring 7 acres 7 guntas of Chikkasugur Village, Raichur Taluk. It is averred that the respondents have acquired the aforesaid land for the purpose of - 3 - WA NO.200158 OF 2021 formation of an industrial area. It is further averred that the award came to be passed on 17.04.2007 after more than 11 years from the date of final notification and no compensation was paid to the appellant. Hence, the acquisition would lapse for not passing the award within a reasonable period. 3. The respondent No.2 opposed the petition by denying the averments made therein. It is averred that award came to be passed on 17.04.2007 and thereafter, the notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘LA Act’) came to be issued to the appellant and he sought reference for higher compensation in LAC.No.122/2008. Hence, he cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings. It is further averred that the compensation amount as per the award is deposited before the Civil Court. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition. 4. The learned Single Judge after considering the rival contentions and material available on record held - 4 - WA NO.200158 OF 2021 that, the petitioner suppressing the filing of the reference petition and its dismissal, has filed the writ petition and having accepted the award, he has no right to challenge the award passed by the 2nd respondent – Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short ‘SLAO’) and dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is in appeal. 5. Sri. Ameeth Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri. Ganesh S. Kalaburagi, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent- authorities have failed to pass the award within a reasonable time. It is submitted that the final notification came to be issued on 14.11.1996 and the award came to be passed on 17.04.2007, which is beyond 11 years. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the following judgments: i. The Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Smt. M. Shakuntalamma and others1 ii. The Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Smt. M. Shakuntalamma and others2 1 W.A.No.6763/2017 DD.08.06.2023 2 SLP.(Civil).Diary No.3767/2024 dated 01.04.2024 - 5 - WA NO.200158 OF 2021 iii. Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board and another vs. K.H. Shivanna and others3 iv. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB and others vs. Sri. K.B. Lingaraju and others4 v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB and others vs. Sri. K.B. Lingaraju and others5 6. It is submitted that in the aforesaid judgments, the view taken is that if there is an enormous delay in passing the award, the acquisition is required to be declared as lapsed and non-passing of the award within reasonable period is in violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Hence, he seeks to declare the acquisition as lapsed even in the instant case. 7. It is further submitted that insofar as the ground that the acquisition would lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is concerned, the same is not pressed in the appeal 3 W.A.No.557/2021 DD 23.03.2022 4 W.A.No.6819/2017 DD 28.09.2022 5 Special Leave to Appeal No.12135/2020 dated 18.01.2021 - 6 - WA NO.200158 OF 2021 in view of the settled position of law. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed a grave error in coming to conclusion that the appellant having sought the reference, is not entitled to challenge the acquisition. It is contended that right to challenge the acquisition is a statutory right available to the land looser and he cannot be estopped from challenging the acquisition only on the ground that he has sought reference. It is further contended that the respondent-authorities admittedly have not taken possession of the land, which is another ground to declare the acquisition has lapsed. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal. 8. Per contra, Sri. Shivakumar Tengli, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 support the order of the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that the respondent-authorities have filed detailed statement of objections, wherein it is pointed out that the award came to be passed in the name of the appellant and notice under Section 12(2) of the LA Act was - 7 - WA NO.200158 OF 2021 served on him and thereafter, the appellant has sought the reference and the said reference is registered as LAC.No.122/2008. Later, it came to be disposed of on 20.01.2015. Hence, the learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that there is a suppression of material fact by holding that the appellant cannot challenge the award passed by 2nd respondent - SLAO. 9. It is further submitted that the affidavit came to be filed in this proceedings stating that the compensation amount is deposited in the Civil Court, Raichur on 15.05.2008. It is also submitted that insofar as taking possession is concerned, the authority can take possession even now and there is no bar as such under the law for taking possession. Hence, they seek to dismiss the appeal. 10. We have heard the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent No.2, the learned Government Advocate and meticulously perused the materials available on record. - 8 - WA NO.200158 OF 2021 We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced and the material available on record. 11. The pleading and evidence on record indicate that, the respondent No.1 issued preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ‘KIAD Act’) on 27.12.1991. Thereafter, final notification under Section 28(4) of KIAD Act was issued on 14.11.1996 to acquire various extent of land including the land in question i.e., Sy.No.162/1, measuring 7 acres 7 guntas of Chikkasugur Village, Raichur Taluk. The respondent No.2 determined the market value of the land and passed the award on 17.04.2007. The notice under Section 12(2) of the LA Act was served on the appellant. It is not in dispute that the award was passed after a period of more than 10 years from the date of final notification. 12. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that non-passing of the award - 9 - WA NO.200158 OF 2021 within reasonable time would lead to lapsing of the acquisition proceedings and in support of such contention he has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court referred supra. 13. It is a trite law that Section 11A of the LA Act has no application to the acquisitions made under the KIAD Act. The decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of The Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Smt. M. Shakuntalamma and others referred supra has no application to the case on hand. In the said case, even after lapse of 9 years, award was not passed. Again the said judgment was based on the judgment dated 06.04.2022 passed in W.A.No.557/2021. It is not in dispute that the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Shakuntalamma was challenged by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (for short ‘KIADB’) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, the same came to be rejected. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the question of law raised by the KIADB was kept open. Hence, the contention that passing - 10 - WA NO.200158 OF 2021 of the award beyond reasonable time would lead to lapsing of acquisition, has not been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. 14. The Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board and another vs. K.H. Shivanna and others at para 7 recorded the finding that there is an inordinate delay in completion of the proceedings and even after a lapse of 14 years, the final notification was not issued nor any steps were taken to complete the land acquisition proceedings. In the case on hand, the final notification was issued on 14.11.1996 and by operation of law under Section 28(5) of the KIAD Act, the land vests with the State Government and free from all encumbrances. In the case on hand, the award is passed and the compensation amount has been deposited before the Civil Court, Raichur and the appellant on service of notice under Section 12(2) of the LA Act, sought a reference which came to be dismissed. Hence, the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench referred supra, relied by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the - 11 - WA NO.200158 OF 2021 appellant, have no application to the facts of the present case. 15. The Co-ordinate Bench in the case of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB and others vs. K.B. Lingaraju has considered the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Nagabhushana vs. State of Karnataka6 and SLAO, KIADB, Mysore vs. Anasuya Bai dead by LRs7 and held that the KIAD Act is a self contained code and if the proceedings for acquisition of land is initiated under the KIAD Act, the provisions of Section 11A of the LA Act would not apply to the acquisition. The Co-ordinate Bench in para 12 has recorded the finding that even after a lapse of 7 years from the decision of the Division Bench (W.A.No.259- 265/2009 disposed of on 16.12.2010), no action was taken by KIADB to conclude the acquisition of the land and there is no explanation for such delay. In the case on hand, the award came to be passed on 17.04.2007 and the writ petition came to be filed on 04.03.2015 after 6 (2011) 3 SCC 408 7 (2017) 3 SCC 313 - 12 - WA NO.200158 OF 2021 more than 8 years from the date of passing of the award by suppressing the fact that the appellant has sought the reference under Section 18(1) of the LA Act and the said reference petition came to be rejected on 20.01.2015. The learned Single Judge has rightly recorded the finding that the appellant ought to have disclosed about the seeking of reference and its rejection. No doubt the right to seek reference by the appellant is an independent right, but it is the conduct of the appellant which has been noticed by the learned Single Judge in rejecting the writ petition. We do not find any error in such finding of the learned Single Judge calling for any interference. 16. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant also contended that the delay in passing of the award is in violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, the said contention is liable to be rejected only on the ground that the respondent-authorities have passed the award determining the market value of the acquired land and being aggrieved, the appellant sought a reference for higher compensation. It is not the case of the - 13 - WA NO.200158 OF 2021 appellant that no award is passed for the acquired land which has resulted in violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Hence, even on this ground the appeal is liable to be rejected. 17. The appellant has also contended that the award indicates that the respondent-authorities have not taken the possession of the land in question. The said contention is liable to be rejected as the acquisition being made under KIAD Act, the land vests with the State by operation of law and does not depend on passing of the award or taking possession of the land. 18. The learned Single Judge considering the material available on record has recorded the finding that the petitioner has not made out any grounds to declare the acquisition proceedings are lapsed and accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. We do not find any error in the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge calling for any interference in the appeal. - 14 - WA NO.200158 OF 2021 19. For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The writ appeal is dismissed. ii) No orders to cost. Sd/- (K NATARAJAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE MCR CT: PS