S.S. DARSHAN ETC. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 221 · Decided: 14-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.S. DARSHAN ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. 
NOVEMBER 14, 1995 
[J.S. VERMA AND K. VENKATASWAMY, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 4( 1) r/ws 17-Notification 
under-Validity of acquisition for purpose of setting up Infonnation Technol-
ogy Park-Need of additional land contiguous to area acquired earlier for 
project-Public purpos~Acquisition held valid. 
Two writ petitions were filed challenging the validity of the notifica-
A 
B 
c 
tion issued u/s 4(1) r/ws 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the 
declaration issued u/s 6 for acquisition of land for Industrial Areas 
Development Board to establish Information Technological Park alleging D 
that these notifications were invalid apart from the fact that the user of 
the acquired land by them was beneficial to the society and not merely of 
private gain to the appellants. A large tract of land contiguous to the area 
acquired by the impugned notifications had already been acquired by the 
Board under the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 for the 
project of setting up the technology park. That area was found to be 
inadequate for the project on account of which the contiguous disputed 
area had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The two 
petitions were dismissed by the High Court. These appeals by special leave 
had been filed against dismissal of the writ petitions. 
The appellants contended primarily that the acquisition was for 
private limited company known as Information Technology Park (Pvt.) 
E 
F 
Ltd. and not for a public purpose under the Act, on account of which the 
special powers in case of urgency in section 17 of the Act could not be 
invoked; that the acquisition of the present area should also be made only G 
· under the Karnataka Act of 1966 instead of the Land Acquisition Act since 
the Karnataka Act gives greater opportunity to the owners of the land to 
resist the acquisition and therefore, the acquisition under the Central Act 
is violative of Article 14 since it deprives the appellants of the right of the 
more liberal 1irovisions of the Karnataka Act and that the user of the 
acquired land shown in the master plan being different, there could not be H 
221 
222 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
a conversion of the user except in accordance with the provisions for 
making the change in the land use. 
B 
c 
The respondent contended that the acquisition was for the public 
purpose of establishment of a technological park of national importance, 
which was a joint venture project. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The present acquisition was for the public purpose of 
setting up the Technological Park by the Government of Karnataka 
through the Industrial Areas Development Board and the acquisition of 
additional area became necessary on account of the inadequacy of the land 
acquired earlier under the Karnataka Industries Areas Development Act, 
1966, in view of the urgency and the need to speed up the project. [227-E-F] 
1.2. In view of the urgent need for the acquisition of land, which could 
D not be met under the Karnataka Act, 1966, resort to the provisions of the 
Central Land Acquisition Act, which were applicable, could not be faulted. 
Moreover, Chapter VII relating to 'Acquisition and disposal of Land' in 
the Karnataka Act has to be read in the light of section 27, which says that 
the provision of this Chapter shall apply to such areas from such dates as 
E 
F 
have been notified by the State Government under sub-section (3) of 
Section 1. Accordingly, the provision in section 28 therein for Acquisition 
of Land applies only to areas notified under sub-section (3) of section 1. 
It was only an area of about 1 acre out of the acquired area of 11 acres 36 
gunthas, which had been so notified. [227-H; 228-A-B] 
1.3. It was not a case of change of user by the owner of the land but 
one of acquisition by the State under the provisions of the Land Acquisi-
tion Act, 1894. Therefore, it cannot be said that there could not be conver-
sion of the uses except in accordance with the provisions for making the 
change in the land use. [228-E] 
•G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10305 of 
1995 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.7.95 of the Karnataka High 
Court in W.P. No. 25555 of 1994. 
E 
G.L. Sanghi, Shanti Bhushan and Ambrish Kumar for the Appellants. 
S.S. DARSHAN ETC. v. STATE [J.S. VERMA, J.] 
223 
Ashok Desai, Arun Jaitley (NP), Pankaj, Mano

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