P. NARAYANAPPA AND ANR. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 716 · Decided: 18-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
P. NARA YANAPPA AND ANR. 
v. 
STA TE OF KARNA TAKA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 18, 2006 
B 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, G.P. MATHUR AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition: 
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act, 1966-Sections 
C 28(/) and 28(4)-Notifications under-Challenged for not mentioning 
complete details of project and purpose of acquisition-Held: At the time of 
acquisition of land and issuing preliminary Notification complete details of 
project and purpose of acquisition need not be mentioned-It is to be seen 
whether land is acquired for development by Board or for any other purpose 
D in furtherance of the objects of the Act-Notification clearly mentioned that 
land was acquired for establishment and development of industries-Thus, 
Notification not vague or cryptic, landowners not deprived of their right to 
make proper representation-Delay of 22 months in publication of second 
notification, and also de-Notification of some land does not render it invalid-
Also plea of malafide by landowners not tenable. 
E 
A preliminary Notification was issued under section 28(1) of the 
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act, 1966 proposing to 
acquire 110.30 acres of land for establishment and development of industries 
by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board. On considering the 
cause of the landowners and persons interested, and giving them opportunity 
F of hearing, orders were passed under section 28(3) of the Act. Thereafter, 
some of the landowners challenged the preliminary notification by filing writ 
petitions in the High Court. The writ petitions were allowed and the orders 
under section 28(3) of the Act were quashed. The Land Acquisition Officer 
gave an opportunity of hearing to the landowners. Thereafter, the notification 
G under section 28( 4) of the Act was issued restricting the acquisition of land 
to 106 acres 12.3/4 guntas. The appellant land owners challenged both the 
notifications by filing writ petitions before the High Court. The Single Judge 
dismissed the writ petitions. On appeal, the Division Bench affirmed the 
judgment of the Single Judge. Hence the present appeals. 
H 
716 
P. NARAYAN APP Av. ST A TE OF KARN AT AKA 
717 
The appellant-landowners contended that the land has been acquired in A 
order to benefit a company-VT for setting up a software technology park; that 
in the preliminary notification, the purpose for which the company wanted 
the land was not mentioned; that the appellant could not make a proper and 
effective representation which deprived them ofa valuable right given to them 
under the Act of showing cause against the proposed acquisition, and as such, B 
the notification is vague and cryptic and is bad, that the entire acquisition 
proceedings are illegal and the impugned notifications are liable to be struck 
down; that there was a delay of more than 1 year and 10 months in publication 
of the second notification under section 28( 4); that the whole proceedings for 
acquisition of the land is clearly ma/a fide; and that the de-notification of some 
of the lands which had been earlier included in the preliminary notification C 
under section 28(1) is discriminatory. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I.I. A plain reading of sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the 
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act, 1966 shows that land D 
can be acquired for the purpose of (i) development by the Board, or (ii) for any 
other purpose in furtherance of the objects of the Act. Sub-section (3) of 
Section 28 states that after considering the cause shown by the owner and 
the person interested and giving them opportunity of hearing the State 
Government may pass orders. The final notification is issued under sub-section E 
( 4) of Section 28. The necessary precondition for a valid notification under 
sub-section (4) of Section 28 is that the State Government should be satisfied 
that the land is required for the purpose specified in the notification issued 
under section 28(1) of the Act. In order to judge the validity of the notification 
what is·to be seen is whether the acquisition of land is being made for securing 
the establishment of industrial areas or to promote the establishment or F 
orderly development of industries in such areas. In view of wide definition of 
the words "industrial infrastructural facilities" as contained in Section 2 
(7a) of the Act, making of a technology park, research and development centre, 
townships, trade
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.