PEERAPPA HANMANTHA HARIJAN (D) BY LRS. & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA&ANR.

Citation: [2015] 9 S.C.R. 498 · Decided: 30-07-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2015] 9 S.C.R. 498 
A 
PEERAPPA HANMANTHA HARIJAN (D) BY LRS. & ORS. 
B 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA&ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5804 of2015 etc.) 
JULY30, 2015 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition - Acquisition of land by State - Under 
c s.28(1) and (4) of Karnataka Industrial Area Development 
Act- For the purpose of industrial development by Industrial 
Area Development Board - Land was further allotted by the 
Board to the appellant-Company on lease - Compensation 
awarded to the land owners and further enhanced by the 
D Reference Court - Writ petition by the allottee-Company 
challenging the correctness of the award, taking the plea that 
they being beneficiary of the acquisition, were the 'person 
interested' and hence were the necessary party to the 
reference proceedings - High Court setting aside the order 
E of Reference Court, directed it to afford opportunity of hearing 
to the Company- On appeal, held: In view of the clauses of 
the lease agreement along with the provision in s.32(2) of 
the Kamataka Industrial Area Development Act (KIAD Act) 
and Regulations of Kamataka Industrial Area Development 
F Board Regulations, it is clear that the Company is only the 
lessee by way of allotment - Thus, the Company is neither 
the beneficiary nor the 'person interested' in terms of s. 2(ii) 
of the KIAD Act or uls.3(b)of Land Acquisition Act- Therefore, 
G the claim of the Company to participate in the proceedings 
for determination of the market value of the acquired land 
and award of compensation is untenable in law- In view of 
the provision in s. 54 of Land Acquisition Act also the 
Company does not have right to file the writ petition - The 
.H 
498 
PEERAPPAHANMANTHAHARIJAN (D) BYLRS. v. STATE499 
OF KARNATAKA 
writ petition filed by the Company was not maintainable in A 
law - Kamataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 -
ss.2(11), 28 and 32(2) -
Karnataka Industrial Area 
Development Board Regulations, 1969 - Reg.4, 7, 10(b), 
(c) and (d) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss.3(b), 9, 20(b) 
and54. 
a 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894- s.3(f)(viii) (as amended by 
the Kamataka Legislature by Act No.17 of61) and s.50(1) & 
(2) - Applicability of - To the acquisition of land under the 
provisions of Kamataka Industrial Area Development Act, 
C 
1966 - Held: s.3(f)(viii) is not applicable to the acquisition 
under 1966 Act - Kamataka Industrial Area Development 
Act, 1966. 
Land Acquisition - Compensation - Determination of - o 
Acquisition of non-agricultural land -
Under s. 28 of 
Kamataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 - For the 
purpose of industrial development- Land further teased out 
to a Company for the purpose of extracting sand-stone from 
the land which was used as raw material for manufacture of E 
cement and for providing infrastructure of the Company -
Competent authority awarded compensation fixing the 
market value of the acquired land at Rs. 17001- per acre 
a/ongwith other statutory benefits - Reference Court 
enhanc;ed the compensation to Rs. 1, 37, 0001- per acre after F 
redetermining the market value of the land - The High Court 
upheld the determination by Reference Court - On appeal, 
held: In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be 
just and proper to fix the compensation at Rs. 1, 92, 0001- per 
acre with all statutory benefits from the date of taking G 
possession of the land till the date of payment of 
compensation - The land-owners are also entitled to costs 
throughout as provided uls. 27 of Land Acquisition Act- Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 27, 23(2), 23 (1-A) and 28 -
H 
500 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015) 9 S.C.R. 
A Kamataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 - s. 28. 
Land Acquisition - Land acquired - Market value of -
Determination -
Criteria for -
Held: The criteria for 
determining the market value of the acquired land has to be 
B by taking into consideration that the land has been put to 
uses to which it is reasonably capable of being put to in the 
future. 
c 
D 
Words & Phrases : 
'Person interested' - Meaning of, in the context of Land 
Acquisition Act and Kamataka Industrial Area Development 
Act, 1966. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The provisions of the Karnataka Industrial 
Area Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act) and Karnataka 
Industrial Area Development Board Regulations, 1969 
(KIADB Regulations) make it abundantly clear that the 
E acquisition of the agricultural land in the notified 
Industrial Area vi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.