M/S. AHUJA INDUSTRIES LTD. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 351 · Decided: 03-04-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MIS. AHUJA INDUSTRIES LTD. 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
APRIL 3, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] 
B 
Land Acquisition: 
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966--Sections I (3), 2(8), 
3(1) and 28(1)-C/aimant in possession of land but his name not mutated in C 
revenue records-Acquisition proceedings-Allegation that mandatory 
requirement for declaration of industrial area and issuance of notice to claimant 
not complied with-On appeal held, all processes provided under Section 
1(3), 3(1) and 28(8) are accomplished together by publication and failure of 
issuance of notices to persons whose name not mutated in records does not D 
vitiate the acquisition proceedings. 
Words and Phrases: 
'Notification '-Meaning of in the context of section 2(8) of the Karnataka 
Industrial Areas Development Act, I 966 
Appellant purchased a land. However the land was not mutated in 
E 
his name in the revenue records. Thereafter the land was acquired for the 
purpose of industrial development under preliminary notification dated 
3.10.1997, and gazetted on 30.10.1997. Appellant challenged the acquisition 
proceedings. Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Division Bench F 
upheld the order. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellants contended that notification under Section I (3) of the 
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 was post facto to the 
date of preliminary notification under Section 28(1), therefore, the entire 
proceedings emanating from Section 28(1) were without any authority of G 
law, void ab initio and non est; that no notice as mandatorily required 
under Section 28(2) and thereafter under Section 28(6) were either issued 
or served on either the owner of the land or the occupier thereof; and that 
an obligation was cast on the registering officer to make a report to the 
351 
H 
352 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2003) 3 S.C.R. 
A revenue authority to enter his name in the record of rights and their failure 
to do so resulting in non-service of the notice on the appellant depriving 
him of the opportunity to file his objections should not act to his detriment 
or disadvantage. 
B 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. I. The term 'notification' is defined in Section 2(8) of the 
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 as meaning a 
notification published in the official Gazette. According to Section 28(1) 
if at any time in the opinion of the State Government any land is required 
C for the purpose of development by the Board or for any other purpose in 
furtherance of the objects of this Act, the State Government may by 
notification, give notice of its intention to acquire such land. The 
notification referred to in Section 28(1) is the notification published in the 
Official Gazette. Unless and until the notification is published in the 
Official Gazette there is no notification in the eye of law having regard to 
D section 2(8). In the instant case, the notification under Section 28(1) was 
published in the Gazette on 30. 10.1997. For all intents and purposes that 
would be the relevant date. The date 3.10.1997 is of no relevance or 
consequence at all. It is seen that the notification dated 20.10.1997 under 
Section 1 (3) of the Act applying the provisions of Chapter VII of the land 
E 
in question and the notification under Section 3(1) of the Act declaring 
the area as an industrial area for the purpose of the Act and the 
preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the Act giving notice of 
its intention to acquire the land for the purpose of development are all 
gazetted on 30. 10. 1997. The validity of acquisition proceedings in regard 
to the notification under Sections 1(3), 3(1) and 28(1) would be the date 
F of their publication in the Official Gazette for the purpose of considering 
the validity of the acquisition proceedings. The notification under Section 
28(1) is not vitiated only on the ground that it bears a date earlier to the 
date of notification under Section 1(3) or it is published simultaneous with 
the notification under Sections I (3) and 3(1) of the Act. In the 
circumstances, there can be no legal objection in all the three processes 
G provided under Sections 1(3), 3(1) and 28(1) of the Act being accomplished 
together by publication, on which only the exercise of power could be said 
to have been made. The simultaneous issue of the three notifications 
therefore, docs not constitute a flaw much less one which can render the 
·acquisitio

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.