THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB, MYSORE & ANR. versus ANASUYA BAI (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 4 S.C.R. 187 · Decided: 25-01-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 4 S.C.R. 187 
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB, 
A 
MYSORE & ANR. 
v. 
ANASUYA BAI (D) BY LRs. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 353 of2017) 
JANUARY 25, 2017 
[A. K. SIKRI AND R. K. AGRAWAL, JJ.) 
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 - ss. 28, 
29, 30 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land 
. Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - s.24 -
Applicability of - Respondents' land acquired by appellant under 
the 1966 Act after issuing preliminary notification u/s. 28 (1) and 
final notification u/s. 28(4) - Writ petition by respondents praying 
for quashing the notifications claiming that the proceedings had 
lapsed as no award was passed u/s.11-A of the 1894 Act which was 
applicable by virtue of s.30 of the 1966 Act - Single Judge of High 
Court rejected the plea of respondents and permitted the appellants 
to proceed with fixing the market value on the date of final 
notification - Writ appeal by respondents - Meanwhile, the 2013 
Act came into force repealing the 1894 Act - Respondents in view 
thereof pleaded that by virtue of s.24 of 2013 Act the acquisi~ion 
had lapsed since no award was passed under s.JJA of 1894 Act -
Appeal allowed by Division Bench quashing the acquisition 
proceedings - On appeal, held: The effect of non-applicability of 
s. JJA of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not rightly understood 
by High Court - Once proceedings are initiated under the 1966 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Act, s. JJA of the 1894 Act would not be applicable - On .parity of 
reasoning, provision of s.24(2) of the 2013 Act not applicable -
Judgment of Division Bench set aside - Direction passed by Single 
Judge directing appellant authorities to fix compensation in 
accordance with provisions of s. 29 of 1966 Act, restored - Code of G 
Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. VI, r. 17 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - . 
s.11-A -
Land Acquisition Rules, 1965 - r.JO(b). 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The effect of non-applicability of Section UA 
of the Land Acquisition Act; 1894 (the Old LA Act) was not rightly 
H 
187 
188 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017]4 S.C.K · 
. 
.· 
.· . 
. 
. · .. 
' 
. 
. 
.· 
. 
.· 
. 
understood bythe High Court. 'fhe High Court was not oblivious 
of the judgment of this Court in M. }{agabllilsluma's case which 
is referred .by it in the impugned judgment itself, This judgment 
categorically holds that once the pr-0ccedings are Initiated· under 
·. the Karn.ataka Ind~strial Areas Development Act, 1966, Section 
HA of the Old LA Act would not be applicabie. [Para 25) 
[201-C·DJ 
. -
. . 
. 
. 
. 
M. Nagabhushand v. State of Karnataka & Others 
· . [2011] 2 SCR 435 - relied on~ 
.. 1.2. Having regard to the aforesaid raiSO/l d'etre for non-
.· c. . . application of the Old LAAct, on th~ parity of reasoning, provision 
of Section 24(2) of }l.ight to:Fair Conlpensation and Transparency 
in Land Acquisitipn Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 
· (the New LA Act) not applicable. [Para 26].{204-13] 
.: 
; 
-
. 
·. 
·. 
.. 
. . 
. . 
State of MP. v. M V. Narasimhan [1976)1SCR6 : 1975 
. n 
. (2) sec 377- reiied on. 
. 
..· 
- . . 
. 
. J2011J2SCR 435 
· . [1976] l SCR 6 
Case L:lw 'Referen~e 
relied on 
·.relied on · · 
Para25 
Para26 · 
. 
. 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 353 of 
•.. a· 
>H 
2017 .. 
From the fodglnent an<l Orderdated 14:01.2015 of the Higli Court 
of Karnataka, Bengaluruirt Writ Appeal No. 4/2013 (LA-1.<IADB). · · 
• ··Ms. Ki ran Suri, Sr'. Adv., S. J; Amith, Dr. (Mrs.) ~ipin Gupta, 
. Advs .. for theAppella11ts. · 
· 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
.. 
. 
' 
. 
-
. 
· Manjunath Me'led, Joseph Aristotle S., Ms, Priya · Al'istotle, 
Ms. K. Priyadarshini, Anil Kulnar, Ms. Anitha Shenoy;Advs. for the 
Respondents. 
· 
· 
. •. The Judg1nentof the C::()urt was delivered by 
A. K. SIKRI, J. I. Jhe questionoflaw that has been r~ised in · 
·.·· this'appeal by the appellants; for consideration by this Court, is: 
. Whether provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation iu)d 
Transparency in LandAcquisitionRehabilitation and Resettlement 
Act, 20l3(forshort, ''NewLAAct';), are applicable in the instant 
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB, 
MYSORE v. ANASUYA BAI (D) BY LRs. [A. K. SIKlU, J.] 
' 
case when the land is acquired under the provisions of KIAD 
Act? 
2. Factual narration that is required to be noted, giving rise to the 
aforesaid question oflaw, is stated hereinbelow: 
Respondents is the ownerofland bearing Sy. No. 123/1 m

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